Nigeria’s government seems confused about a political solution to the socio-economic crisis deranging the country’s economic and political lives. Logically, the regime had illusions about sitting in the power corridors as the results of the elections that failed to pronounce a rightful mandate. They were unaware of the political machinations that took place in the voting corridors, more than miles away to prevent transfer of power to a legitimately elected contestant in the April 2007 polls.
The Yar’Adua administration faces serious challenges on several fronts: strengthening the economy, creating jobs and reducing unemployment; competitiveness in the global market, a viable and effective health and education systems, harnessing the tourism potential of the country and above all alleviating the pain and suffering of the masses below the poverty line. Meeting these challenges will require a major effort on the part of the government, political and economic elites, the business community, the nongovernmental sector and a viable and effective opposition. The opposition will need to keep the government on it toes but it has to do this in a constructive spirit. It needs to show that it is an alternative government and must not oppose measures or programs for the sake of opposing.
The structure of the Nigerian system is such that corruption takes priority. This is because publicly disgraced government officials find their way into the foray of politics and given government appointments soon after. Nigerian state is such that the poor and marginalized are neglected, while monies earmarked for a people-oriented development projects are lodged in both local and foreign accounts or are blatantly mismanaged and misappropriated. This structure is further entrenched as government officials violate public orders with impunity. Put differently, the judiciary is now within the ambience of government and controlled by it.
The style played a dominant role in the formation of the Nigerian mode of politicking. For the political class, politics connotes access to power (appropriation of state power, particularly its coercive and resource allocating elements). It connotes access to pecks associated with the political appointments, among others.
But why do such things recur even though so much has been said and reported about corruption in this country and the government leaders’ frequent and mouthful promises to put the governance issue at the centre stage? …However, one simple, albeit blunt, answer to this dilemma is available. This is happening because the government as an institution could never seriously believe in its own ability to stamp out corruption from the society and elected only to pay lip service to keep the critics at home and abroad at bay. The weak political leadership is unlikely to deliver the goods because it lacked both commitment and quality. As a result, those responsible for making and implementing policies on issues such as corruption and good governance always preferred to take a back seat.
It is common knowledge that governance, good, bad and indifferent, is the product of administrative structure and functions performed within it. What is not so well-known is the tendency of entrenched interests in administration to maintain status quo. Status quo implies lack of change and maintenance of continuity, which in turn ensures preservation of rights, powers and privileges for those ensconced within the system. More importantly, from the point of view of public interest, permanence in the state of affairs implies doing the same thing and in the same manner, keeping the volume and quality of services unchanged.
Governance does not take place in a static context; its parameters keep on changing; to square off with the context, has to change, incrementally sometimes, radically at others. If the context changes as a continuous process, slowly but steadily, governance may not respond to this as the impact of change at any particular time may not be great and the sense of urgency may be lacking. But when change in the milieu within which governance takes place suddenly, departing from the past radically, as after a revolution or ownership of statehood through independence, governance has to follow a tectonic shift conforming to the requirements of the time.
Governance is the abstract notion of the process of administration controlled and supervised by politicians (through cabinet, parliament) and carried out through government officials and employees whose emoluments are paid by the taxpayers. Administration on the other hand, is the concrete articulation of governance and is its cutting edge. The degree and extent of control and supervision by politicians may vary over time and sometimes, at a particular time depending on the personality and orientation of the politicians. This control and supervision may also vary in terms of objectives, ranging from non-political to highly politicized intervention.
Government functionaries being permanent and political supervisors having temporary tenure (changing with election, when there is one), there is a tendency to increase the power and privileges on the part of the former, while performing the same functions and in the traditional manner. Some political regimes can rupture this ‘tranquil equilibrium’ of the government functionaries which may be deserved as a cross between low level equilibrium (in terms of performance) and an expanding opportunity curve (in terms of powers, facilities enjoyed).
The challenges of dynamic governance, lies in breaking the low level equilibrium and containing the opportunity curve within reasonable limits. It is through administrative reform that this change can be brought about, meaningfully and significantly. The opportunity curve may expand (higher pay, allowances etc.) provided the low-level equilibrium is replaced by a higher one (better service, greater efficiency etc.).There have been many attempts at administrative reforms in Nigeria since its emergence as an independent state. The most significant was the one that followed independence when the new state had to be structured, keeping the exigencies of the time. The constitution identified the organs of the state and delineated the relation among them. There was nothing new in this as all constitution does the same.
Parallel to this were changes in personnel policy and pay structure. Governance, immediately after independence, took the character of service delivery and promotion of a society based on equality and justice. Of course, there was a gap between the ideal and the reality. Governance was soon sequestered by the rural and urban elite (largely the latter) and administration became their handmaiden. The lesson of that experience was that lack of political will and absence of a space for grass-roots to participate in decision-making through decentralized power and functions can make short-shrift of any administrative reform, however sweeping in scope and noble in intention it may be.
The next phase that followed within the continuum of governance in Nigeria saw lateral entry by individuals from other services into ministries and corporations. This could hardly be termed as administrative reform because it catered to the need of certain groups and a limited number of people. The ministries, departments, corporations and the functionaries working there remained the same in terms of number and activities. There was no qualitative change in respect of governance (apart from judiciary and legislature) and administration as its most potent instrument remained unchanged in orientation and motivation.
At the national level also there were changes in the number and structure of departments, corporation and other government entities. If it is said that the post-independent administrative reform consisted of form, the administrative re-organization of mid-eighties put premium on substance. Acceleration of development activities at local level, transparency, accountability and local participation were the hallmarks of the local government system, the flagship of the administrative re-organization program. The re-organized system, particularly at grass-roots level, did not last long because of political compromise that the non-political power that have to make to gain political legitimacy. Erosion of commitment to public service and people’s welfare was intensified by greed and oligarchic aggrandizement at the top. The vision of a new political, social and economic order that began so magnificently turned sadly sour before long.
In 1999, when democratic politics was restored, several attempts were made for administrative reforms but none produced anything tangible. It proved once again that a political regime rarely succeeds in bringing about significant reform in administration, firstly because they have short term goals and secondly, because they find it easier to work with status quo, as do government functionaries. Instead of reform, based on detailed analysis and cogent reasoning, political governments find it convenient to mould and adapt administration to suit their needs. Seeing prospects of accelerated promotion and enjoyment of privileges, senior level officials readily agree to make obeisance to political bosses. Not all succeed in benefiting from this system of selective patronage. As a result, morale suffers and disgruntlement spreads across the administrative spectrum. During this period, more under the watch of the underscored Nigeria’s unity government, instead of reform at all levels, administration suffered from politicization, factionalism, discontent and corruption. Governance, as the realm of national level policy makers, has suffered from myopia and short-term compulsions to promote individual and group interests. It was reflected in the deterioration of quality of service, even by lack of it and erosion of values of those representing day to day administration.
A close hard look at governance in order to place it in correct perspective and appropriate mould can take place when there is an interregnum between political dispensations. A non-political government is best suited to place good governance at the centre stage, being free from any pressure group, and short-term considerations. Having no axe to grind and at the same time enjoying a free hand to act judiciously in public interest, a non-political government can take measures that are beyond the pre-occupation and even imagination of politicians embroiled in the rough and tumble of politics. To be fair to politicians, it should be admitted that they often do not have sufficient time to undertake reforms because of their involvement with the demands of the present.
The present government has the mandate to hold free, fair and impartial election. But even this limited objective requires an administration that is honest, efficient and politically neutral. Unfortunately, the administration it inherited lacked in these respects miserably. Reform of administration became a pre-condition for holding free and fair election. By posting and transferring officials and staff or retiring a few, this limited objective can be somewhat achieved.
But the present government is operating under the “rule of law” and “due process” rules which both entrust it with greater responsibilities and give more power. The responsibilities can be interpreted to include such reforms as are necessary to bring about permanent changes in the body politic and the administrative system in order to ensure good governance on a permanent basis. The anarchic situation that was leading the nation to the abyss and the regime of self-gratification that had become the order of the day, were the product of mis-governance and maladministration and, therefore, by merely holding an election in a free and fair manner is not going to remove the causes that created the crisis and the deep-seated malaise.
Therefore, both in order to ensure free and fair election in future and to ensure good governance, the caretaker government has to undertake reforms in all those areas that impinge on the broader realm of governance and day to day administration. Reform of the INEC should take place and it is functioning reasonably satisfactorily, enjoying the trust of the public and political parties.
Separation of judiciary, so long hanging fire, is in the process of implementation. A new police ordinance is required on the anvil. But these are piece-meal reforms, important though these are. Governance depends on a system of inter-linked activities and an administration that is unified and whole. Therefore, a holistic approach has to be taken to reform all aspects of governance that include judiciary, election to the law-makers and the administration.
For instance, separation of judiciary leaves open the question of what services and functions should be preformed by those who are exercising magisterial power now. It is understood that many of them are not keen to go on deputation to judicial magistracy considering their career prospect as well as terms of the deputation. In order to get the benefit of their experience it may be necessary to look at the overall restructuring of administration. This exercise may also require examination of the issue of administering the minor acts and certain provisions of the law that do not involve trial in courts at the first instance. Decision to declare the executive one as the home ministry may like to see the law-makers empowered for this along with a few magistrates under him. There may be separation of magisterial function from the power of trial by court.
The determination of the authority to perform limited magisterial powers to meet the need of the executive branch may be seen as an exercise that does not militate against separation of judiciary from the executive. In any case, no harm will be done to the implementation of separation of judiciary if this particular issue is examined from the point of view of public interest and governance. Similarly, empowering police further may involve the issues of supervising them by an authority that is independent of the police establishment.
Reform of police should have taken place without isolation. Other aspects of administration that are all inter-linked and require a comprehensive resolution through reform may be mentioned but being illustrative, it is not necessary to recount them there. Reforms that were going on inside Obasanjo regime are all important and one of them (separation of judiciary) is a constitutional requirement. While these reform and changes are taking place it may be appropriate to look at other aspects of administrative reform that have bearing on governance. A committee with experienced members representing an academic, a retired judge, an army officer and a civil servant may look at the whole issue of administrative reform as mentioned above.
The administrative reform that took place in the mid-eighties was far reaching and almost radical in nature. It was aptly called “re-organization” and not ‘reform’; it abolished sub-divisions as administrative units, elevating them to all the national zones the focal point of administration and participatory development. Functions and powers of government departments would decentralize and were devolved on the local body, making the elected chairman the head of the local council administration. It was the most significant and sweeping change that had been brought about at grass-roots level, transferring power, functions and resources there.
President Umaru Yar’Adua should ensure that before his second term quest, some of the things that have suffocated our growth and put at risk our collective future prosperity: corruption-bribes, nepotism, embezzlement, kickbacks, financial mismanagement-wasteful spending, conspicuous consumption and appointments based on grounds of tribal/ethnic affiliation are laid to rest. The political leadership should mount a real public campaign against corruption not empty slogans like zero tolerance. Individuals should also take a personal stand against corruption. This should come from the top and involve the heads of the various state and private institutions. Corruption imposes a very real penalty on the economy and society, but it cannot be reduced by empty slogans it needs systemic measures, commitment and law enforcement.
The purpose of this reform should be promotion of public interest through good governance and not the interest of any group. The time to uphold and strengthen the causes of public interest is now. There is no political ambivalence and internecine struggle for turf at work now. After a long time, national interest is taking precedence over everything else. In the life of a nation such opportunities occur only rarely. Let it not be said that the opportunity was allowed to pass.
L.Chinedu Arizona-Ogwu
Founder; Nigeria4Betterrule
Writes from Oyigbo; Rivers State
08034885337
