Reinventing Edo State

Reinventing Edo State

THERE is a common saying among the people of Edo State, that their major or primary industry is education. Often, that is the retort when they seek to beat back governmental assault on that sector, either by its shabby treatment of teachers, the introduction of excessive fees in schools, or its indifference to the upliftment of facilities. But, in the true sense of it, the description of education as a primary industry is a reflection of the state of the industrial underdevelopment of Edo State.

To refer to education as an industry is basically a misnomer. Essentially, industry means that sector of the economy that is concerned with manufacturing. The term, however, is also used to describe various large-scale money-spinning ventures, such as the hotel and tourism industry, the entertainment industry, among others. To attempt, therefore, to describe education in the latter sense is to subvert the true meaning and purpose of education. Despite observable distortions, money-making is not at the heart of education. Among its many utilities, education services industry by producing personnel and by advances in research. Indeed, education is an investment in human capital, which, if properly husbanded, provides a granite-solid foundation for enduring development, of which industry is a critical component.

In the decades since independence, education, in Edo State, has witnessed a phenomenal growth and transformation. From the primary and secondary stages, to the tertiary level, evidence abounds of this transformation. Schools are more in number, and enrolment figures are of an exponential nature. It is also a field in which private sector participation has been on the upswing. All of these changes have been driven by population pressures, politics, changes in socio-cultural norms, alterations in systems of economic production and invariably the demands of modernity. But the transformation has not been without its unpleasant flip. Thus, it is debatable whether persons are better educated now than was the case, say, 20 years ago. True, access to multi-media sources of information and instruction has broadened the knowledge base of most students; yet the recent experience of employers is that they are often faced with graduates who are ill-prepared to face life after school. And this is a national malaise. It is scary to contemplate what the experience would be several years down the road when these ill-baked graduates take charge of critical sectors of the economy and politics. Herein lies one of the challenges for what is popularly called the "primary industry" of Edo State.

All stakeholders in the education sub-sector must task themselves to ensure that the products from their crucible are of a higher quality. It is distressing to read reports of the hooliganism and sundry criminal conduct masquerading as cultism and agitation in some of our schools. University students who are highway robbers cannot be a pride to us. Students and pupils who are so lacking in the knowledge of civics cannot be a pride to us. Stakeholders must, therefore, strive for that education which will actuate desirable personality development for the survival and growth of the individual and society.

But, if truly, we must expand the frontiers of the so-called "primary industry", then effect must be given to the nexus between education and industrialisation. Products of our educational system are free agents and can therefore be citizens of the world, which entitles them to ply their trade wherever they choose, provided they satisfy the conditions precedent to such employment. But the reality in the last 15 years or more is that job opportunities have been shrinking so rapidly that even those who are in school sometimes question the necessity of their being there, because what they can see thereafter is a bleak prospect. The consequence is what we find in our boys jetting out in search of daily living in often menial and hazardous jobs abroad. The consequence is also what we find in our girls hopping off by the next available plane to dehumanise themselves in the seedy red-light districts of Italy. The consequence is what we find in the spiraling rate of violent robberies. Education is not an end in itself. Skills are meant to be utilized; where the opportunities are lacking, then we reap some of the consequences already highlighted.

Therefore, while it is noble and desirable to deepen the scope and value of the so-called "primary industry", the time has also come to advance into the realm of "real industry". And this ought to be an urgent item on the state's agenda for development, to improve upon, rapidly and significantly, the self-deprecating description of a "civil service state with the major industry of education". Particularly since the fall of the Second Republic, our national efforts at industrialisation have been a top-to-bottom approach, in which the states look up to the Federal Government to spearhead the process. Policies are aplenty, but implementation and co-ordination have been deficient. Thus, in spite of the array of institutions related to investment and industrialisation, we remain, regrettably, an industrially left-behind country. We are all familiar with the time-worn excuses for this appalling state: poor infrastructure, energy crisis, weak aggregate domestic demand, dumping, policy inconsistency, high cost of doing business, paucity of foreign investment worsened by political crises, among other reasons.

The problem of low-level industrialisation was exacerbated during military rule, notwithstanding that each regime set flowing a deluge of policies and measures to jump-start the industrialisation process, or otherwise accelerate its pace. But their efforts were bound to be hopeless. Military regimes were interimist in nature, and even where they were prolonged, the governments were propelled by a task force mentality that was often violently short-circuited as one regime after the other was toppled and the nation retreated to point origin.

There was also the critical factor of command disposition and centralised planning attendant to military regimes. This fostered unitarism, and stood federalism on its head. Governors, or administrators as they were later called, were like viceroys, unaccountable to the people over whom they exercised iron-fisted, if sometimes incompetent, authority. The powers to please were either at Dodan Barracks, while Lagos remained the Federal Capital; or at Aso Rock, after the seat of government moved to Abuja. Lasting governance seemed to be of little consideration, even if some of the helmsmen were well-meaning. The regimes after the truncation of the Second Republic had governors most of whom served two years or less in any one state. They termed it "military posting". That was instructive. Is "industrialisation" in all its ramifications on the curriculum of military training institutions? It is hardly surprising then that scant, if any, attention was paid to the critical nexus between education and industrialisation. Nothing perhaps best illustrates this than the prostrate state of industrialisation in Edo State. Military men, save one or two, on posting to the state behaved as though they were on a scorched-earth mission, to drag down the state. After Ogbemudia and Alli, the commonest words of description for the state are "Anini" and "Italos". That, in part, is the odious legacy wrought by a long line of conquistador rulers appointed at Dodan Barracks and Aso Rock.

Now we have our destiny in our hands. I urge that we act expeditiously but purposefully. The law is clear. Item 18 on the Concurrent Legislative List (Part II), Second Schedule to the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria stipulates that "subject to the provisions of this Constitution, a House of Assembly may make laws for that state with respect to industrial, commercial or agricultural development of the state." Edo State is blessed with agricultural produce; and there are solid minerals to be exploited according to the existing statutes. In proposing that industrialisation be an urgent item for consideration by Edo State, I am not suggesting that the government be the arrowhead. Its role should be that of a facilitator, defining the rules and delivering the public goods that are vital to the expansion of the frontiers of the "primary industry". In this sense, one envisages a private sector-led effort actively encouraged by the government, through the provision of infrastructure and enunciation of attractive policies.

It is trite economics that certain factors conduce to the location of industries. It is equally true that certain locations which otherwise are unfavourable can be deliberately made attractive to potential investors. It is for this reason that I propose that the government should consider the use of growth points in its industrialisation plan.

Far too many parts of the state remain rural and almost impenetrable. Take Edo South Senatorial District, for example. Apart from Benin City, there is no other town of significance. Iyeke-Orhionmwon and Isi are in the backwoods. Between Okada and Benin, a distance of some 50 kilometres, the terrain is fallow, waiting for value-added development. There are other examples in the northern and central senatorial districts of the state. Let these forgotten places be the fulcrum of the industrialisation drive. I also expect that in the process, state and local governments will take keener interest in and seek to influence the formulation, at the federal level, of macro-economic policies that impact on industrialisation. At present, the transaction is largely between the Federal Government and private sector industrialists.

Rome, they say, was not built in a day. Neither should one expect the drive for industrialisation to reach destination during the term of any one government. It is a process that is on-going. What is required is focus, sincerity of purpose and an acute desire to make life better for the people, and to make education more meaningful. Let us expand the frontiers of our "primary industry".