It is difficult to find any governmental activity, which does not involve all three of the so-called “levels” of the federal system. In the most local of local functions – law enforcement or education for example – the federal and state governments play important roles. In what, a priori, may be considered the purest central government activities – the conduct of foreign affairs, for example – the state and local governments have considerable responsibilities, directly and indirectly (Morton, 1960).
The above quotation from an insightful work no doubt encapsulated the imperative of the local government in a federal system of government more so, one with a third tiers. It is well known that in federalism, the local authorities are the closest to the grassroots. Without them government will be too remote to the people and development at that level becomes ‘arrested’.
The consequence of their absence in real sense of it has resulted into what Coleman calls “excessive centralization”, which means “greater vulnerability as a result of non-fulfillment of populist expectations”. Coleman also refers to this as “heightened inefficiency” because, “it means the absence of critical important supportive capacity in the society at large because the public cannot respond to, direct, or restrain a polity which is far removed from it as a centralized government tends to be. What a picture of Nigeria’s over-centralized federal arrangement which has led to ‘federal immobilism’.
It is absurd that ever since 1954 Lyttleton constitution which laid the foundation of classical federation for the country, Nigerians are yet to make-up their minds which model of federalism in terms of tiers of government that should be adopted. In the First Republic, Nigeria operated British parliamentary system of government which crashed with the first military intervention in government and politics in 1966. In 1979, at the inauguration of the Second Republic, Nigeria opted for the American presidential system all-hog without taking into consideration the existential realities of the country.
Whereas, ideal federal states are fragmented into several localities not only to enhance decentralization, which is the hallmark of federalism, but to enhance effective administration. For instance, in the United States of America, which is the model of federalism that Nigeria aped wrongly, according to one estimate, there are a total of over 83,000 local governments even without counting school districts; while Nigeria has a total of 774 local governments without counting the newly created Local Council Development Areas (LCDAs) that are not recognized by the 1999 constitution (as amended).
It should be noted that Federal government is a multiplicity of “locale” of development, all the 36 states, including Abuja the federal capital territory, constitutes another level of development, and that is still different from the 774 councils. As it were, developmental efforts are supposed to be expedited because very many issues are begging for attention more so at the grassroots level. But, presently in the country, there are a number of factors contributing to local government administrative inertia. Without gainsaying, development appears to have been “arrested” at the local level. Whereas, one of the dominant reasons for the existence of local governments is to facilitate the delivery of basic municipal services; those services are critical to the urban and rural residents, their prosperity as well as their ability to function optimally.
An examination of urban and even rural service provisions in Nigeria reveals that it is very poor. This is particularly the case with the municipal services that fall within the traditional roles of local governments. It will be recalled that local councils were quite efficient in immediate post independent Nigeria. A typical example was the defunct Ibadan Municipal Government (IMG) in the Old Oyo State. That council was well-known for efficient service delivery in terms of maintenance of markets and maintenance of law and order by its local police – the Akodas – but its fragmentation into eleven smaller units, which curtailed its financial viability coupled with long years of military interregnum and brazen corruption, have changed the story to a sad one. This parlous state of local government is replicated in virtually all over the country. Even councils in commercial cities of the country making a lot of money through Internally Generated Revenue (IGR) are equally paralysed owing to managerial, administrative and financial incompetence, all of which are further worsened by lack of imagination. Why is the system so?
As rightly postulated by the Holy Writ, in Psalm 11:3 – “when foundations of law and order have collapsed, what can the righteous do?” – Nigeria’s third tier of government is beset with foundational problems. Ab initiowe are still unable to distinguish between a Local Government and Local Administration. For the former, it must be reasonably autonomous and members of the council elected. Without proper election which should not be a sham or a farce that our governors are known for, giving us local administration rather than a local government per se. No wonder, they are not in any way accountable to the electorate but the governors that selected them and got them imposed on the councils. For local government to operate per se, they must be properly elected.
How does one explains a winner takes all syndrome whereby in virtually all the states of the federation ruling parties have been dominating the local scene with the governors’ parties whether popular or unpopular, are winning all the councils including council areas where the governors may be unpopular during their electoral contests. Hence, the clamour in the land for now is: give us local government system with reasonable autonomy. To do otherwise, is to run a two- tier federal arrangement where states subsume local governments. With that arrangement the constitution should not prescribe the number of local government areas. Each state should be allowed to crate whatever number of councils they can carry. The fiscal implication would be that only federal and state governments begin to share revenue. Each state then gives whatever percentage to their local council areas which they created. Until that is one, before we can get away from the current delusion that we have local governments in existence.
The extant warped federal arrangement vis-à-vis local government system is absurd for federal government to create local councils for states thereby bringing about asymmetric relationship. States with smaller population areas in the North were endowed with more local government areas than their counterparts in the South! The best way to wriggle out is to discard with the extant constitution which is more of a unitary system than a federal one. The confession of late Prof. Ben Nwabueze that they deliberately drafted a unitary constitution in disguise to enhance strong centre is enough to put into abeyance the unworkable ground norm the ongoing piecemeal amendments is nothing but mere tokenism.
Aside from the problem of nomenclature which devils the third tier in Nigeria, corruption is a child’s play at the upper echelon of government when compared to what obtains at the grassroots level. The performance of the local government functionaries presumed to be closer to the people and thus, to be a catalyst to rural and urban development seems opposed to what they were either elected or handpicked to do. At a public function, former President Olusegun Obasanjo indicted the local government administrators for lack of focus and indifference to the socio-economic needs of their people. Their governing styles, he said, ‘had engendered so much cynicism that the federal government was being warned that this may be a particularly difficult front for the war against corruption’. Nigerians have since moved away from ‘cynicism’ to indignation and outrage. Corruption in Nigeria’s local government system has been pervasive, open and shameless!
Be that as it may, to compound the situation one cannot lose sight of the overbearing influence of state governors who have been described as “Emperors”. Their perception of autonomous local government councils, no doubt, is like a reduction in their power and influence this is why they are all in unison in terms of aversion to Local Council autonomy. They lack confidence in council administrators’ to be able to manage their affairs independently with little or no supervision. Governors know how best to manipulate state ministries of local governments and the local government service commissions, along with the Joint Accounts Allocation Committee (JAC) to achieve their nefarious ambitions. Local government funds are cornered to execute projects with the governors taking credit rather than the councils.
Conclusively, the next thing is to consider how best to activate the local councils to make them fit to discharge their traditional and constitutional responsibilities effectively. Here, the all-time recommendations of Luther Gulick (1957) becomes apt some of them are: (i) the need to develop a fiscal system for the metropolitan governments in its own right, so that; (a) the wealth, power and credit of the area as a whole may be mobilized for the solution of the over-all problems of the area; (b) the sudden new wealth created through the activities of the metropolitan government may make a fair contribution towards the cost; and (c) the fortuitous tax resources of one lucky sub-region may contribute to support the basic community requirements of another small sub-unit which has no such metropolitan government with suitable arms for (a) analysis, comprehensive and balanced planning, and (b) policy decision-making and (c) execution amongst others. What a best way to keep both government and political decisions “closer to the people”. The earlier we re-invent the warped federal system the better for the over-all development of the country.
Prof. Ojo a one-time former Chief of Staff to late Gov. Ajimobi of Oyo State, teaches Political Science, at the University of Ilorin, Kwara State.
