IDEAL FEDERALISM

NIGERIA: Political Issues & Solutions -

   Concept of Federalism;--
STATE SOVEREIGNTY AN INIMITABLE QUALITY
OF FEDERALISM:
A critical analysis of Nigerian
approach to the concept of state sovereignty
INTRODUCTION
One thing is clear in a federal system of government, the tiers of government ought to share political power as expressly spelt out in
the constitution.
Unfortunately, the current
foundation and principles on which Nigerian constitution is operated over the years particularly since the advent of democracy has not in any way reflected a true federalism in its
practical sense.
. Presently, Nigeria has a strong center and weak states. The states have become administrative
units of the federal government. The relationship between the centre and the states still reflects the military command structure, an unwelcome legacy of the military administration.
The states are so weak that none of them enjoys fiscal independence from the centre. The federal government pays the piper and is happily dictating the tune to the states.
The states are so weak and so generally impoverished that they
have no capacity even to negotiate meaningfully with the centre. None of the states as it is now can generate enough internal revenue to
prosecute any appreciable social and economic development.
Instead of pillars, the states have
become a burden on the federation.
It is a fundamental reality that, Nigeria cannot have a strong and united federation unless and
until the constituent parts are sufficiently empowered by enabling practices that conform to the principles of federalism Thus, this paper aims at discussing the issue of distribution of powers between the Nigerian federal government
and its constituent units, and making pragmatic solutions for its sustenance.

NIGERIAN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
ENCROACHMENTS ON THE STATES
Nigeria returned to democratic rule in 1999, after about three decades of military rule. The state of the federation, in the new democratic rule since 1999, showed severe signs of stresses and strains. As the states try to express their newly acquired autonomy in a democratic context, the federal government tries to re-enact the old military scenario of the states as an administrative organs of the federal government.
This leads to a number of severe strains in the relations between the federal and States governments.
The Federal government does not maintain its boundaries of authority. It encroaches upon the jurisdictions and sovereignty of the states.
This has brought about severe resentments and conflicts between the states and the federal governments. It is therefore the mechanisms to resolving these encroachments that I now turn to
discuss.

1.1 SOLUTIONS TO FEDERAL ENCROACHMENTS
STRUCTURAL SAFEGUARDS
The structural safeguards of federalism restrain the national government to prevent encroachment.
Solution to Nigerian federal government encroachments on the sovereignty of the states could best be prevented by implementing some structural safeguards such as enumerated powers, fragmentation, and state incorporation.
The Founders of American constitution recognized that federalism presupposes limits to
the federal government’s power and authority …
Without constitutional boundaries, the national government would readily give in to demands to
wipe out state competition. In that event, the states would become mere instruments or administrative subunits of a central, unitary
government. The constitutional reflection of this recognition is the doctrine of enumerated powers.
In Nigeria, except for the rather vague statement in Section 2 of the 1999 Constitution, there are
no definite enumerated powers of the federal government the Nigerian Constitution. In the United States, the powers of the federal government are enumerated and limited.
Such enumerated and limited powers allows for checks and judiciary review of both the state and federal encroachments. It is important to note that when each state agreed to become part of the
federal republic of Nigeria, they did with the intention to surrender some of its powers without any recourse to their sovereign identity and
direct governance of its citizens. The major cause of ethnic crisis in Nigeria is mostly because the sovereignty of these states has been
trampled upon by the central government.

One of the challenging failures of Nigerian federalism is lack of inter-institutional oversight.
In Nigerian federal structure, vertical separation of powers is necessary for preservation of liberty and the prevention of tyranny. Hence, both the federal and states governments should possess the means of preventing or correcting unconstitutional encroachments of the other.
As it stands, the Nigerian federal government is self-regulating without institutional support. A
true federalism will be attained if the two levels of governments are partially dependent on one another through checks and balances. When this balance is achieved, the national government is less likely to behave opportunically, whether by
encroaching on the state governments or by tyrannizing its citizens.

POPULAR SAFEGUARDS
According to James Madison, the primary control of the government is its dependence on the people The declaration of American Independence contain the facts,
“… That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and
to institute new Government, having its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness
…”
Popular safeguard is effective in a democratic society where there is respect for electoral principles. Joseph Schumpeter famously argued that democracy was best understood not as a practice of collective self-government by the
“people”, but rather, the selection by the people of representatives to govern on their behalf.

Elections, on this account, are a process whereby “individuals acquire the power to decide by
means of a competitive struggle for the people’s vote … To be democratic, the elections must
consist of “free competition for a free vote” among parties. But the corollary of electoral competition is not just the right “to produce a
government” but “also the function of evicting it” through the electoral process (272). Thus, competition between political parties entails the
possibility of alternation through regular, free and fair elections. A hallmark of democracy, in Theodore Pempel’s memorable turn of phrase, is the ability to “throw the rascals out.”
In the light of the above democratic principles, popular safeguards would be unthinkable mechanism in the present Nigerian federal setting of militant democracy. It is very difficult for the people to exercise their fair judgments on the choice of government or candidates. The
European Union Election Observer Mission was not constrained by diplomatic niceties in condemning the 2007 elections in Nigeria. The
caption of the EU preliminary report was, "Elections Fail to Meet the Hopes and Expectations of the Nigerian People and Fall Far
Short of Basic International Standards". The nature of electoral system causes most Nigerians
to lose faith and confidence in the country’s democratic process.

JUDICIAL SAFEGUARD
Since independence from Britain in 1960, Nigeria has adopted five Constitutions. The present
Constitution which borrowed most of its contents from the United States Constitution is a product of a military led initiative. Unfortunately,
Nigerians fail to understand that it is not what is copied on paper that produces federalistic character; rather, it is the means or mechanism
to enforce the contents of such instrument that matters. Laws are a dead letter without courts to expound and define their true meaning and operation. Constitutionalism is meaningless
without resources of power, in some form, both to achieve and sustain it. For example, in the United States, the constitution imposes limits on
government powers and these limits are meaningless unless subject to judicial enforcement. When trying to ascertain the limits of legislative power, courts … examines and
defines the nature of a federal power itself to see if it contains within it some inherent limitations.

Thus, in a true federal system, it is not out of place for the judiciary, to decide cases of constitutional controversies between the federal,
states and the citizens. It must be poised to intervene in cases where there exist such problems between the central and its federating
units. Unfortunately, Nigerian courts still perceive issues between Federal and States as having political undertones whereas the true test in a federal system is continuously defined and strengthened when the judiciary espouses and decides on issues bordering on the terms and
conditions.
The role of judiciary as a safeguard against federal encroachments is best achieved under an independent judiciary. In Nigeria, there is a
compulsory retirement age for justices of the supreme court at 70 years. A Supreme Court with compulsory retirement age of 70 is breeding ground for insecurity and judicial incapacity. A judge who is burdened with financial considerations of retirement years is not an independent judge. A judge who is burdened with the politics of advancement or succession is not
a free judge. A recent petition against the Chief Justice of Nigeria Supreme Court alleged that the
he had been honest before now, but due to his impending retirement, he has started amassing wealth through the abuse of his office.

In order for the Judiciary to act as a safeguard against any form of government encroachment,
Nigerian Supreme Court Justices should be appointed for life subject to impeachment and removal for physical or mental impairment.
Justices should serve an independent role free from political pressure. A judge who has run his
course and is divested of all ambitions, financial and professional insecurity is the judge, who will
give a bold and honest decision any day.

DISTRIBUTION OF AUTHORITIES AND BOUNDARIES DRAWING
At the center of every true federal structure lies a common feature: the sharing of sovereignty between national and state governments.

These boundaries between national and state governmental authority must be maintained. The problem with Nigerian federalism is the failure or incapability of the federal government to maintain its boundaries and curb the temptation
of states’ sovereignty exploitation. Sometimes it is confusing to distinguish what power belongs
to which level of government. This paper will now turn to examine how the spheres of power sharing could be allocated to each level of government - federal and state. Those within the federal power are earmarked as “centralization”
while those responsibilities within the state jurisdiction are labeled as “decentralization.”

MILITARY SECURITY
(Centralized responsibility of the central government).
It is the responsibility of the central government to provide security and protection for the rest of the units and the citizenry. In Nigeria, it is a
common practice for the President to use his emergency powers to deploy the military at his
whims. Military deployment could only be applicable in times of war or appropriate state of emergency with the approval of the House.

ECONOMIC BENEFITS & EFFICIENCY
(Cooperative function of the central and its
subunits)
In Nigeria, the central government believes and
operates on the basis that the federal
government owned the country, its resources and
all that dwell in the land. The central took the
fund that rightly belongs to the state and local
governments into the coffers of the Federal
Government. The subunits are thereby denied the
wherewithal to carry out their functions for the
progress and welfare of their citizens. Nigerian
states have almost completely lost their
autonomy. The centralization and concentration
of the country’s revenues in the hands of the
central government has resulted in the country’s
poor political, social and economic development.
Decentralization can take advantage of
informational asymmetries; that is, lower levels
of government may have local knowledge that
allows them to tax and spend most efficiently.
The classic example of this informational
asymmetry is the property tax, local
governments have a keener sense of market
value and can more appropriately devise a
formula to calculate tax rates than a central
government. Decentralization can also allow for
revenue specialization based on different
characteristics of the regions. A region especially
endowed in natural resources with extensive
mining operations might best rely on severance
taxes, while in another; tourism offers
opportunities for licenses and user fees.
Developmental projects are most efficiently
handled by the local governments who know
local needs and conditions, while higher levels of
government are necessary to coordinate
redistribution effectively
INNOVATION
(Decentralized sphere of the subunits)
Federalism enables a people to try experiments
which could not safely be tried in a large
centralized country. Justice Brandeis considered
it "one of the happy incidents of the federal
system that a single courageous State may, if its
citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try
novel social and economic experiments without
risk to the rest of the country. When states share
goals but try different policies, the potential for
policy decentralization to stimulate beneficial
innovation is maximized.
Under the current federal government in Nigeria,
all power is centralized, and the states do not
have any control over their resources, hence
there is no incentive for innovation and states
competition. Nigeria's economic development,
political stability, security and peace depend on
extending the freedom, benefits and choice of
autonomy to each ethnic nationality within the
country.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COMPETITION
(Decentralized subunits authority)
Governments compete with one another to the
benefit of their citizens, eliminating waste and
encouraging growth. Intergovernmental
competition directly strengthens the allocative
functions of government. Decentralization
permits governments to match services with
variations in demand. Greater overall citizen
satisfaction can be achieved with multiple
governments offering different packages of public
services at different prices. Competition forces
governments to become more efficient in their
allocative activities, providing better services at
lower costs. Competition forces government to
be more responsive to citizens’ preferences than
monopoly government.
Allocation is the functional that local
governments can perform more effectively than
central governments, because decentralization
allows for a closer match between the supply of
public services and their variable demand.
Citizens migrate to those communities where the
allocation best matches their demand curve.
Intergovernmental competition inspires state and
local governments to be concerned with the
impact of their taxing and spending policies on
economic growth and to become directly
involved in economic development activities.
Competing governments are in a better position
to observe the economic consequences of their
policy decisions. Since state and local
governments are well equipped to pursue
developmental objectives, most public efforts of
this type should be left to them.
EXTERNALITIES MANAGEMENT
(Centralized federal government exclusivity)
The spillover effects of policies are known as
externalities because they are consequences of a
government’s policy that the government does
not consider. In Nigeria, each year, industrial
facilities discharge into the environment large
amounts of chemicals leading to respiratory,
neurological, developmental and reproductive
disorders, and cancers. The spillover effects of
these factories are without any form of
government management or control. The
distribution authority can be adjusted to manage
these externalities. The central government can
be given full control of a policy domain, it can
regulate it, or it can encourage beneficial
behavior. The central government can maintain a
common market between states by prohibiting
state-led industry protection that generates
negative externalities. In environmental policy,
the government can incentivize control; first,
through sanctions should the polluter fail to
reduce output, and the second, by pricing
pollution, to motivate polluters to reduce their
output without the threat of penalties.
MARKET PRESERVATION
(Cooperative sphere between the central
government and its subunits)
A market requires firmly established and credibly
defended property rights. Uniform governmental
regulation can establish rules governing property
ownership and transfer, as well as provide a
forum to adjudicate disputes. However, in order
to prevent government encroachments on
property rights, decentralization and fragmented
authority enable a state to credibly commit not
to expropriate all rents, when couple with other
conditions, such as a decentralization of fiscal
control and hard budget constraints.
In Nigeria the commitment to establishing
property rights and effective markets has not
been accompanied with significant devolution of
power to subnational governments. There is no
triumphal market economy due to lack of
freedom of local governments to set their
economic policies and induce competition among
jurisdictions. Market reforms have proceeded
alongside central resistance to subnational
claims for devolution of fiscal jurisdiction and
policing services. A commitment to market
reforms would require fiscal devolution that
eliminates financial dependence of the
subnational governments and induces horizontal
competition for efficient service delivery.
Thus, probable conditions for a sustainable
market preservation in Nigeria should be
structured to include:
a) A hard budget constraint on subnational
governments;
b) The authority of subnational governments to
regulate their domestic economies but without
the power to restrict the movement of goods and
services cross jurisdictions. And, the assignment
of monetary policy and common market
regulation to the central government; and
c) An explicit agreement on federal arrangement
to make for juridical federal restrictions and a
clean separation of national power including
independent courts.
POLITICAL PARTICIPATION
(Decentralized jurisdiction of the subunits)
Effective democracy depends on citizen
participation. As more people become
enfranchised or enter the political arena, a wider
variety of perspectives contribute to public
deliberation. As diversity increases, all else equal,
collective decision making improves.
The population of Nigeria is about 150 million,
out of which about 60 million people are
registered as eligible voters. The long history of
electoral rigging and fraud has challenged
possibilities for bringing citizens into the political
process. Pervasive electoral rigging and fraud
have increasingly become common practices in
Nigeria’s democratic process. This history has
produced conditions where political tensions
have mounted and violence has persisted. The
outcomes of many elections in Nigeria have been
so contested that the conditions for the survival
of the democratic order have been compromised.
The compromised system has permitted the
formation of political party politics that feed on
these lapses, rather than ethically engaging
citizens in ways that conforms to constitutional
provisions. The politicians employed anti-party
practices such as using money, thugs and
sometimes the police, to eliminate competition.
The general assumption that underpins the
democratic practices embraces the assertion that
power must only legitimately reside with the
people. In Nigeria, contrary to this idea, is the
notion of Godfatherism. While the concept of
Godfatherism remains fairly recent, the
phenomenon and its pervasiveness is as old as
electoral politics in the country. The development
of this phenomenon recognized that
Godfatherism thrives in any polity in which state
power is perceived as a commodity to be
possessed and used to acquire other
possessions Since these individuals in Nigeria
become too powerful to dictate for the rest, the
integrity of the process of choosing leaders is
compromised. Indeed, the idea of godfatherism is
an entrenched ideology that often accentuates
exclusionism and diminished entitlement to civic
and political rights of citizens.
The godfatherism phenomenon, emerges as an
illegal enterprise, but because this practice is
deeply rooted in the political process itself, it
possesses tremendous challenges to efforts at
reclaiming democracy for the people. State
power, here, is heavily commodified, and the
struggle for the exercise of this power restrict
access to power from the majority poor. The
highly privileged minority class constitutes the
dominant class in the Nigeria political setup, who
control the affairs of government.
Increasingly the dynamic relation between wealth
and power has definitely acquired new and
perverted meaning in the Nigeria political
process. The monetization and commodification
of the democratic process is endemic to the
character of, and popular response to, the
political process. The restriction of political and
civic rights from the citizen is now legitimately
justified through the heavily monetized electoral
practices. Increasingly, the amount required to
secure party nomination, in itself, poses a threat
to inclusion as majority of citizens are not able
to pay these amounts. What is troubling here is
that, because of these heavy monetary demands,
some competent aspirants, who have the
knowledge and leadership capability and are
entirely driven by democratic impulses, are
forced to withdraw their candidacy. In many
case aspirants for representative’s positions who
do not have the means to participate in the
processes opt for sponsorship from the wealthy
(Godfathers). This then becomes the ground for
neo-patrimonialism, as these indebted aspirants
are forced under obligations to serve the needs
and interests of their patrons. Thus, Godfathers
have in the most brazen manner hijacked the
political machinery at all levels. It means then
that what is called election in Nigeria is nothing
but the expression of the narrowly defined will of
a few dishonest individuals who feel that they
have the power to manipulate the entire electoral
process in favor of their anointed godsons
The aspirants because they are indebted to a
particular godfather, once in office serve the
interest of these godfathers rather than the
public who voted them in office. Democratic
efforts in this context, fractures the idea of
accountability, as normal political processes (in
terms of formal popular demands and civic
avenues of coercion of representative to do
public biddings) can no longer be recuperate
except through unorthodox means, which
sometimes result to violence.
The power of money has dwarfed the power of
choice… Men and women of ideas without access
to big money do not have a fair chance to run
and win. In fact, the godfather phenomenon is a
major threat to democratic consolidation in
Nigeria. The diminished public in politics asserts
a new path to defining citizenship away from
political rights. The Nigerian political system has
increasingly become a game in which godfathers
install their puppets in political office to do their
biddings.
It is an understatement to suggest, then, that
godfatherism clogs the system of political
representation. While the highjack of power in
Nigeria seems alarming, it is the sense of
diminished ownership of the political process
that threatens to negate commitment to
democratic values among citizens.
MANAGING AND SATISFYING DIVERSITY
(Decentralized sphere of the subunits)
Diverse opinions; they are inherent to humanity,
whether from the logical … or different histories,
or different ways of viewing the world. We
cannot eliminate diversity – whether born of
social differences or just different opinions ...
Diversity is beneficial when states serve as
policy laboratories. Diverse prospective and
desires may lead to new ideas, solutions that
can be transported to other domains and
territories. Federalism may help us to manage
diversity’s detrimental effects so we can harness
its benefits.
Nigeria is a country of extraordinary diversity.
Ethnicity is generally regarded as the most basic
and politically salient identity in Nigeria. Due to
marginalization of these diverse groups and their
non-inclusive in the affairs of the country has led
to Nigerians, more likely to define themselves in
terms of their ethnic affinities than national
identity. In other words, Nigerians tend to cluster
more readily around the cultural solidarities of
kin than the class solidarities of common
nationality. Thus ethno-religious tensions have
become common features in the Nigerian
federation and have constituted what is
commonly referred as the national question in
Nigeria. Nigeria is a mere geographical
expression’, bound together by nothing except
the coercive apparatus of the state. The major
challenge the nation faces is how to galvanize
the various ethno-religious groups into
nationhood with the instrumentalities of
federalism. This paper offers practical solutions
to this challenge (Infra).
ACCOUNTABILITY
(Decentralized subunits exclusivity)
Representation and accountability go hand-in-
hand: elected leaders are more likely to represent
their constituents faithfully when they know they
are held accountable for their actions.
Accountability is impossible without transparent
responsibility. Therefore, it is claimed that
authority decentralization improves
accountability because citizens are more likely to
see the effects of government action at the local
level and respond accordingly in the ballot box.
Nigerian citizens face a key challenge in holding
their political representatives accountable, since
decentralization reforms tend to be partial in
nature, leading to the involvement of multiple
tiers of government in the provision of public
goods. Under complete decentralization, voters
can limit governments rent seeking by setting
appropriate reelection incentives. The ability of
voters to hold politicians accountable is lower
under partial decentralization than under
complete decentralization.
Decentralization of expenditure responsibilities
from central to local levels of government is
generally thought to mitigate the problem by
bringing the policymaking process closer to
citizens and, hence, to increase overall
government accountability. The World Bank, for
example, has strongly advocated decentralization
on the basis that it will help to solve corruption
problems, especially in developing countries. The
standard intuition that decentralization should be
accountability-improving is consistent with
theoretical models considering complete
decentralization, i.e. the full transfer of a given
expenditure responsibility from a higher level of
government to a lower one.
ANTI-TYRANNY AND RIGHTS
(Cooperative between central government and its
subunits)
Federalism’s inherent fragmentation is well-
suited to block tyranny; when decision-making
power is subdivided, they tyrant cannot easily
gain full control. It is a common practice in
Nigeria that the ruling class could abuse its
powers to oppress the governed just as easily as
a king. The minority groups such as women,
children and the less privileged are faced with
the dangers of tyranny of their rulers.
Centralization of power and majority's tyranny
over political and social minorities is "a constant
threat" to Nigerian democracy.
HIGHER QUALITY REPRESENTATION
(Cooperative between central government and its
subunits)
Both centralization and decentralization are
important for federalism to improve the quality of
representatives. With two levels of government,
people can gain experience with their local
leaders. Accountability is easier at this level, so
voters are more likely to make the right
decisions about voting poorly performing
politicians out of office while retaining better
ones. In order to find this solution fruitful in
Nigeria, there must be restoration of confidence
in the country’s electoral system.
FORCED COMPLIANCE
Sometimes the federal government justifies its
encroachments on states non-compliance, even
when the subject of compliance is
unconstitutional or too expensive for the state to
implement. Very often, the federal government
uses intergovernmental retaliation to enforce
compliance. Intergovernmental Retaliation is a
severe type of safeguard. It is a safeguard with
potentially disastrous effects. It can lead to Civil
war. It is best not to involve intergovernmental
retaliation for the mundane matters of minor
transgressions, but preferably to reserve it for
significant transgressions. When
intergovernmental retaliation is the only
safeguard available, it is inevitably a severe
sanctioning mechanism. When it is reinforced by
other safeguards (structural, political, judiciary
and popular – supra) it may have potential to
span a wider range of punishment force. For
example, in the United States the federal
government withholds funds to induce state
compliance, for example, with highway funds,
education, and pollution control. This limited
intergovernmental retaliation is both tolerated
and kept in check by other safeguards,
particularly popular safeguard.
CONCLUSION
The success of Nigerian federation hinges on
widespread confidence in its safeguards. The
ability and commitment of the safeguards to
uphold the boundaries of authority must be
beyond question. No single force – whether
constitutionally derived or tyrannical – should be
able to dictate the boundaries of federal and
state authority or force other governments to
work for it. Each government should remain
relevant. With a well-functioning system, major
violations are punished, upholding compliance;
minor transgressions, when allowed promote
exploration of the policy space and adaptation of
the rules; and the multiple safeguards, each
judging governmental actions independently,
means that the system is not vulnerable to the
failings of one component.