FAILED FISCAL SYSTEM AND POLITICAL BEGGARY

 FAILED FISCAL SYSTEM AND POLITICAL BEGGARY

By Kay Aderibigbe

The nexus between state and economy in Nigeria is such an inertial type which is why both institutions are antithetical. This is because there is rarely a meeting point between government prioritized endeavours and the needs of our people. Over the years, Nigeria has solely depended on fossil fuel and eschewed all other meaningful commercial alternative avenues that could provide as much as we earn from oil today. The resultant effect being that all the 36 states of the federation draw their yearly budgets based on the allocations from Federation Account. Ancillary palliative measures to budgetary provisions like internal/external loans, bi-lateral grants from abroad and 'federal bailout' e.g. the recent intervention fund approved by president Buhari are "occasional Jesus Christ that may or may not attend the wedding ceremony of our poor states and turn their water to wine".

 

A flashback into the era of regionalism will show how unashamed, unscrupulous  and unintelligent political administrators in this country are. Before the proliferation of states, regions are specialists in various agricultural products which served as veritable sources of income. Regional governments are the Landlords that contributed taxes/quotas to the federation which actually weakened central monopoly of power, encouraged competitive developments and enhanced our terms/balance of trade and payment in favour of Naira as a currency.

 

Fiscal system during the period of regionalism does not allow uncountable retinue of aides for state governors and parliamentarians alike. There were lesser unnecessary and non-performing ministries. Agriculture made government the largest employer of labour not fraudulent and opaque NNPC. Civils service contained ingenuous and industrious individuals with job roles not ghost workers that do nothing and earn tax payers' money.

 

Initially, multiplication of states was borne out of the calculations of military government [Gowon/Murtala] to reduce the negative effects of tribalism and ethnic chauvinism; while Babangida and Abacha created seventeen more states as political rewards, ' economic pots of soup' for their godfather loyalists. In all, state creation since 1967 does not afford vestigial states the kind of regional economic platform that could enable them exist in commensalism with federal government. More so, many state governors are thieves, foolish and too greedy that they loot through any imaginary means they could fathom. Since most of these state governors lacked creative mentalities that could serve as alternative to oil revenue, they must look up to federal government for survival and retain their second class statuses.

 

As undismayed with decadence in state management as state governors remain, they still take after federal method of politicking such as creating avalanche of ministries with uncountable political appointments that are surplus to requirement. Collapse in oil price mete out an attendant effect  on Nigeria and states have fallen into financial crisis. federal government and states are all indebted. Almost 24 states are owing their workers between 5 and 16 months.

 

The wage bill of these states is almost 75% of their monthly allocations; little wonder they couldn't embark on any meaningful developmental projects, but borrow from anywhere possible even, to pay salaries. This national embarrassment prompted Buhari to approve a sum of #713.7 billion bailout for the federal and states governments to offset workers' salaries. Out of which #413 is an intervention fund while #300 is a soft loan from CBN.

 

 The important questions are the following [i] for how long will this ‘political babihanla’ continue on the part of the states? [ii] when will state governments in Nigeria develop their internal capacities to generating wealth? [iii] for how long would oil crisis degenerate into financial crises for Nigeria? [iv] what is the plan of the current federal government on economic diversification? [v] must state governments employ/appoint so many people that contribute nothing to the economic development of the state but receive salaries in the name of carrying files? [vi] what happens to these backward-thinking states after bailout? [vii] since the dwindling oil price is still nose-diving would Buhari continue to source from the proceeds of NLNG to fund states with dysfunctional economies?

 

My submission is that fiscal federalism would go a long way to put to rest the case of dearth/shortage of finance and financial impropriety; economic imbalance; weeding out of non-performing sections of the civil service; promote internal competition among states; create job opportunities; enhance mass market; diversify the economy; silence or reduce the ubiquity of federal character principle and also promote state-centred against nation-centred federalism.

 

In a simple language, different states have mineral resources; they should be constitutionally empowered to put those into industrialization, and remit taxes to federal government. States with little or no resource(s) can resort to pure agriculture or energy-based production. Against this backdrop, federal politics will be less chaotic; since there is no much goodies to suck, as a result, the centre will be administrative-driven, purposeful and rule-oriented. The reliance on oil revenue will reduce drastically. Moreover, financial problem will not warrant ‘political babihanla’ that will continue to encourage ineptitudeness, dormancy, over-reliant on federal government and external loan which will only add to the backward movement of the Nigerian economy.

 

Without this, failure of public policies will not be seen as a setback but rather, as a propellant for government functionaries to arise and stereotyped Nigerians as refugees in their own country despite the volume of illegitimate largesse enjoyed by political office holders in the midst of fiscal imbalance that pervaded the country.

AFTER THE RAIN WILL THERE BE SUNSHINE FOR NIGERIA?

AFTER THE RAIN WILL THERE BE SUNSHINE FOR NIGERIA?

By Kay Aderibigbe

It rained a lot of socio-economic hot water on Nigerians between 2010 and 2015; and up till now our political garments are still wet. Some had serious economic cold, some incurred irreparable physical damage while some died. The rain gathered storm at the time majority crave it but we didn't foresee discomfort and pains contained in it because our people gave their hearts to the government of Jonathan the way we are all singing 'change' now.

 

The manner in which Jonathan's government dilly-dallied without purposefulness on so many important public issues simply eroded his popularity and paved the way for shift of allegiance by Nigerians, except those that eat directly from federal government e.g. legislators, oil marketers, political officials and co. One thing has to be underlined in whatever perspective anybody might want to assess Mr. Jonathan's government, that is the position of 'prebendal politics'. May be that Muhammadu Buhari took notice of by importing Eric Bourdon's line of "I belong to everyone because i belong to no one" in his inaugural speech.

 

Prof. Richard Joseph in 1987, in his "Democracy and Prebendal Politics in Nigeria: The Rise and Fall of the Second Republic" stated that "prebendalism is when political office holders put the state resources in their care to their own personal use because they do not perceive the people as the rightful owner of the resources". Politics in Nigeria since first republic is typical of prebendal mannerism because of ethnic division that warranted dispersed federal system of government. Consequently, federalism is the root of political failure and dysfunctionality.

 

The situation seems irremediable because  the nucleus of federalism in Nigeria is 'federal character', being the basis for political appointment into all arms of government. I referred to the concept of 'office-for-the-highest-bidder' in my last article as the basis for party representation, really , that method is profoundly erected on the principle of federal character or quota system. This is why each state must produce Ministers, Directors of Ministries and parastatals whether they are daft, dumb, capable or not. Since we placed ethnic representation above capability and efficiency the end result is likely to be dysfuntionalism.

 

In comparative politics what we normally ask is why did a system succeeded or failed? Why did many regimes failed in Nigeria? It is simple logic. The structure of governance is the rudder that regularly sinks the ship of Nigerian state. In the face of this kind of evidence it is difficult to maintain that all actions and processes of thought will automatically lead to methods of transition from political upheaval and economic disintegration to its abatement.

 

Certain problems await the Buhari's government. Firstly, 'it will be thrown into indefinite actions'. A society erected on the platform of ethnic chauvinism and religious bigotry will always expect more from the regime that has little to operate with. Secondly, political regime cannot be divorced from the idea of elite-self-rule. In fact, Buhari himself is a product of the same system. Since political office holders are quite aware of the 'ring nature of the political business' as such they produce rule that are integral to the safety and continuity of the ‘elite self-propagation in politics’. These two different bipods i.e. the poor, but expectant and the rich but conservative and greedy with power, form the opponents against which the government we are expecting changes from would have to wrestle.

 

Salvation campaigns by politicians since second republic had yielded nothing, rather, it ended in more bastardization of the system and economic strangulation of the people. I still wallow in abject confusion and surprise when our people look up to the government for redemption. The same politicians are recycled through partisan politics at different times, and the same people still feature in our political lives all the time.

This is the most favourable sort of case where there is a prima facie ground for terminating state of 'satisfaction' enjoyed by politicians; for in most cases the impediment to good governance is studiously planted in the system while whoever intended to rule well is simply made look like a nuisance to the public since our people believe that politicians are heretics of their own principles.

 

In one word, changes required in Nigeria is more than a wish. It is going to be a social re-engineering; a concerted effort; legislative struggle and ideological war against abnormality and aberration that has become a model of governmental operation since the era of oil boom. The questions in my mind are many: How do we start? How will Buhari go about it? Is it a case of we against them? What do we have to give as Nigerians? Can Buhari fight it alone? Is he going to disappoint us? Is he going to fail like his predecessors? Will he become a public enemy through his policies? I think only time will tell.

 

THE ELECTION FEVER: POLLS, RESULT AND VIOLENCE ALL PREDETERMINED

THE ELECTION FEVER: POLLS, RESULT AND  VIOLENCE ALL PREDETERMINED

By Kay Aderibgbe 

Majority of our people have been made to adjust their allegiances to either of the two leading political parties (APC and PDP) in the current scheme of politics in Nigeria today. The raison d'eter being the 2015 general elections. Hardly would one see anything without political implications these days. Imagine when you are told to come back for your debt that is due after election. In fact, political issues are deliberately blown out of proportion by politicians. Nigerians in their large numbers suddenly became politically conscious as a result of number of reasons. Factors such as the country's economic condition; security situation; cost and standard of living; religious affiliations; political deprivation; terrorism; meaninglessness of education achievement; general defrauding of our people through the use of public utility; and what has been vigorously argued as the perennial failure/success of the present political regime accounted for the reactionary posture of the politically aware public.

 

As perfectly plausible as these factors seem today they have always remained the same policy narratives that have been featuring on our political agenda ever since the days of Balewa. How come Nigerian Politicians do not think positively about the situation of things if every thinker ought to be greatly influenced by the circumstances of his day? The circumstances surrounding electoral politics in Nigeria cannot be discussed outside the larger concept of ecology of Nigerian politics. The said ecology of politics was a product of thoughts, doctrines and proclamations that were reluctantly arrived at. This body of rules form the substructure upon which every other driving forces of Nigerian politics was laid.  

 

"Such foundation is the idea of political federalism which was informed by the ever-complex and ill-perceived tribalcentric concepts that
underpinned the formation of the state itself" (Aderibigbe, 2014)
The problem nowadays is that "the ecology of Nigerian politics revolves around visible and invisible ethno-cultural, religious, class cum political mentalities that have in the recent times transgenically metamorphosed the Nigerian people from the overwhelming notion of Nigerianity to that of 'individual selves', who are primarily and absolutely concerned with self and other 'extra selves' who can unquestionably work intermingled for the same 'self-propagation' at the detriment of the state. (Aderibigbe, 2014).

 

Let me identify certain issues that altogether form the skeletal framework of the organization of Nigerian electoral politics. This can at least help to unravel the annoying subject of 'do or die' affair and 'electoral violence'. One, the elitists mindset and the idea of 'class in itself'- which is the bedrock of any legislation made for us. Two, the psychological mind frame of religious and ethnocultural defence- which is the problem of the common people. Three, the composition, power and value of the electoral regime- which is de jure factor in who gets what. Four, economic fulfillment, and lastly national security- which affect both the rich and poor and how they fare.

 

The perception of election by the political class is different from the expectations of an ordinary Nigerian because the democracy that hosted election in the first place came at a cost (political mortgage), and also feature party system of 'political office for highest bidder'. The dichotomy therefore, is the reality where politicians employ numerous antics including fascination for policy failures in order that politicians can always stay around and preach 'change' or 'transformation' that will not encapsulate our problems.

 

My position is that Nigerian politicians and the so called administrators are socio-economic individual selves which through politics have stood above an average Nigerian and the collective self of the Nigerian state. The reason is obvious, "different kinds of government do not derive their legitimacy from the people, but rather from the pool of elitist individual wealth which was in the first place stolen from the state and reinvested into the process of retaining governmental powers". (Aderibigbe, 2014)

This is why elections in the past have been characterized with violence and would continue to result into chaos. Certainly, those state actors that invested their money are irrevocable committed to be dogmatic, serious and desperate to win; haven realized that political power is the only possible and viable means through which they can steal, store, display and buy cheap respect in the public realm with the fund meant for the development of the state.

 

Since the process of electoral politics in Nigeria is mostly characterized with interactions that have been schematically calculated by actors that do not expect any outcome other than positive. Politician ensured that programmes that aid peoples' participation, electoral manipulation, and organization of crises, are inherent with the organization of economic life. It can  therefore be deductively summarized that it is inchoate, inconclusive and also an inertia argument to have concluded that the popularity or public support for a political party will determine the success or failure of the party because politicians have game plans that have been segmented into (i) economic deprivation (ii) religious/ethnic divisionism (iii) intimidation (iv) rigging and (v) violence, all erected on 'money politics' which must not fail. So, where is the place of those aromatic mass of our people singing CHANGE or TRANSFORMATION?. I guess another four years in the miasma of deprivation as usual. What a shame!