The major topic of political conversation in federal republic continues to be President Yar'Adua's extended stay in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia for medical attention. I do not want to say anything about the issue until he comes back home, to Abuja, in full health. When he gets back, I will (hopefully) put together a post discussing the issues arising; for now, I am less interested in the politics and more interested in his health. Aso Rock's spokesmen said it was acute pericarditis, which is treatable. I wish him well.
In other news:
The Minister of State for Education, Hajiya Aishatu Jibrin Dukku has said at least 10 million children in the north of the federal republic are left to support themselves through begging. The root causes of this problematic statistic run the full spectrum of political, economic and socio-cultural, and the reforms necessary to improve the lives of our children are by consequence political, economic and socio-cultural as well. The issue predates the Yar'Adua administration; in fact, the issue, like seasonal meningitis, has been around for a long time, with no one actually doing anything substantive, permanent and long-term about it.
The Independent (independent? are they kidding?) National Electoral Commission (INEC) did not include former Central Bank Governor Charles Soludo's name on its list of "cleared" candidates for the Anambra State gubernatorial elections early next year. They did not list any candidate for the Peoples Democratic Party; the courts are still adjudicating the legality of Soludo's emergence as PDP candidate, and I think INEC means to add Soludo's name if the courts uphold his candidature. I am not sure what they would do if the courts rule against Soludo; the deadline for nominating new candidates has passed. As you might expect, Soludo's emergence as candidate was yet another example of just how anti-democratic the PDP truly is -- not just undemocratic, but viscerally ANTI-democratic. The rest of the parties are just as bad, so it isn't really like voters have any choice; and to top it off, election results do not reflect what voters chose anyway. That Soludo accepts this farce, is happily participating in the joke, and hopes to benefit therefrom is just another reason why I think so-called "progressives" in Nigeria are the worst hypocrites you can find. Men like Ribadu and the late Moshood Abiola (though I hate to speak ill of the dead) are elevated to hero status by these progressives, even though their import and impact of what they actually do and did is and was to elevate, sustain and strengthen EVERYTHING the "progressives" rhetorically claim they oppose.
And finally, Amnesty International has accused the Nigerian Police Force of hundreds of extra-judicial killings every year (two articles, here and here). To be honest, organizations like Amnesty are about as useful as the "progressives" in Nigerian politics when it comes to hard and difficult issues like reforming the police; there is a lot of talk, but nothing comes of it (hey, at least I admit that this blog of mine has ZERO impact on policy-making and governance, and do not pretend to be a relevant or powerful authority making an impact on the world).
Nigerian citizens have always known the Police carried out extra-judicial killings, there just hasn't been anything we could do about it. Or maybe there was lots we could do, but we just haven't bothered ourselves to stand up and do it. When the Boko Haram affair started, we all looked at it as another "Maitatsine", another of the recurring bouts of violence Nigeria has suffered over the decades, but in the long-run the event will probably be remembered for the extra-judicial executions of leading suspects and the Police command structure's lies about it. It is not that we were surprised they lied, nor were we surprised they extra-judicially executed suspects, no, what made the event stand out is the executions were PROVEN and the lies were EXPOSED. In a country run on rumours instead of news, it is rare for something we all know to be proven in such a public way.
The Police have denied the Amnesty Report. They have also denied carrying out collective punishment in Ogun State), attacking an entire village of innocent citizens in revenge for the murder of a Police commander by youths suspected to be from that village. And they have insisted the recent killings in Enugu State were of armed robbers.
I have talked a lot about the Police in the year since I started this blog. Without going into voluminous discourse, let me just briefly repeat that the Police (like our politics) are an extension of our society, an outgrowth of what we collectively do, and (perhaps more importantly) of what we collectively fail to do.
Collective punishment was a British colonial practice that we Nigerians did not discard after regaining self-rule in 1960. Our 1960s leaders remain massively popular, but their refusal to substantively reform the institutions of the colonial state they inherited set the stage for much of what has happened since then. More importantly, we the citizens practice collective punishment too; our version is mostly non-violent, but on occasion Nigeria is hit by communal violence driven in large part by a tendency to blame everyone from Ethnic/Religious Group XYZ for the (alleged and usually unproven) crimes committed by one member of Ethnic/Religious Group XYZ. In the first paragraph of this post, I mentioned Yar'Adua's extended absence raising the temperature of political discourse; a depressing amount of that discourse has revolved around ethno-religious accusations, denials, counter-accusations and threats.
And many members of the public do not, and have not, necessarily frowned on "extra-judicial" punishment, up to and including lynchings, by civilians on other civilians deemed to be criminals (be they alleged pick-pockets, alleged stealers of genitals for juju, alleged kidnappers, alleged anything, including alleged desecrators of holy books), without any credible trial proving their guiilt. Since we don't have accurate elections, or an accurate picture of our polity, it is hard to come up with a statistical picture of just how many of us have been ambivalent about it in the past or present, but not too long ago various ethnic and religious "militia" arose in different parts of the country, ostensibly to fight "armed robbers" (though more accurately serving as political enforcers and armed wings for ethno-religious extremists) and many citizens stood up to defend their extra-judicial violence.
Add in the lack of confidence in the judicial system, and it becomes difficult to create a climate where extra-judicial punishment (including beatings) by police is unacceptable, because so many citizens' knee-jerk reaction to crime is to instantly punish the suspect, lest they disappear into the non-functioning morass of the judicial system. Indeed, there are thousands of people in Nigerian prisons who may be guilty of nothing at all, but who remain there because there is no campaign or pressure to review their cases and/or release them -- at a certain level, the society believes they deserve what they get, because they are "criminals".
All I am saying is there is a reason I call for a level of reform, restructuring and transformation that can only be termed REVOLUTIONARY. You cannot reform Nigeria on a piece-by-piece basis, as everything is connected to everything else, and much of the reforms we need are reliant on other reforms (an intricate, interconnected web of reforms) in order to be successful. And the most important thing to note is we have to change ourselves and change the way we think as individual citizens and as a society.
Nigerian Police officers are not born that way. They are made to be that way. It is not magic, but a sequence of life experiences from outside the Force as much as within it. We are their victims, but we are also their creators.
Seriously, where are the voices and forces of revolutionary reform?
Amalgamation Day in Lagos, 1914
10 December, 2009
07 December, 2009
On Lagos and (still on) Geographic Consolidation
A follow-up to this blog post.
The Lagos State Government, one of the best performers in the federal republic when it comes to Internally Generated Revenue (IGR), does not expect to meets its IGR target for the 2009 budget year (an effect of the difficult economic times), and will borrow to finance projects for the current budget year.
The references blog post is one of many I have made touting the benefits of geographic consolidation at the second and third tiers of our governance. Such restructuring is appropriate for the current economic times, and was appropriate for every year of the last 50 years of our boom-and-bust economy. A 6-state federal republic at 1960, rather than a 3-region federation, could have avoided some (alas not all) of the political issues that bedevilled the First Republic. The fiscal efficiency and elimination of waste are useful in lean times, but are even more beneficial in times of plenty (every Naira wasted on inefficient, wasteful governance is one less Naira for economic infrastructure, education/research, health/welfare, security/defence, etc).
What we today call "Lagos State" should actually be a third-tier governance unit, part of a second-tier state that would be coterminous with what is currently known euphemistically as the Southwest. It should be the "local" government, where the state (i.e. "Southwest") handles regional issues and the federal government deals with issues affecting the entire federal republic, its international trade and diplomacy. Indeed, the Lagos State government as exists today is already the "local" government, directly governing the entire state, effecting turning the local government areas into meaningless constitutional abstractions that suck up money while doing little to justify their existence. In Lagos, and in the rest of the 36 states, the local government areas are mere "departments" of the state governor's office, no more than rubber-stamp puppets to the will of the imperial governorate.
And Lagos is also an example of why geographical consolidation has not happened, despite the obvious fiscal benefits. In lean times (like now), Lagos should want to use its fiscal resources as efficiently as possible, and in times of plenty, Lagos should want to use any windfalls to upgrade the insufficient infrastructure of the mega-city. Yet the signature political quarrel between the Federal Government and the Lagos State government centres around the Lagos governorate's long-running agitation to INCREASE the number of (pointless) local government areas in Lagos State from 20 to 37.
The push for an 85% increase in the number of Lagos-area LGAs began during the reign of ex-Governor Bola Tinubu, the predecessor, mentor and godfather of current Governor Babatunde Fashola, and it continues on today. The federal government's position is such a change would require a constitutional amendment, while the Lagos government counters the federal position is unconstitutional because it federalizes what is or should be a purely state matter. Do not for a second mistake the federal government's position as being in support of geographic consolidation; without going into detail (if you are not Nigerian, you probably won't understand), there is a lot of politics and quite a bit of oil-revenue-distribution fiscal issues linked to the question of how many LGAs a state has (and to the number of states a "geo-political zone" has).
It is depressing that instead of a strong national push, driven by citizens, towards geographic consolidation, we have continuing agitation for "more states" and "more LGAs". And from a rational and logical point of view, I do not understand why a state that does not bring in enough revenue (from internal and federal sources) to meet its budget would be trying to increase its expenses by creating meaningless new LGAs. Each of these LGAS would come complete with a chairman, "supervisory councillors, and "regular councillors" not to mention an expanding concentric web of "legal" and "constitutional" expenses centred on the existence of an LGA and its government that add nothing productive to the polity, economy or society, but nevertheless suck up resources that could be used more effectively and efficiently elsewhere.
Lets be honest.
Bola Tinubu has a giant political machine to support, one of the biggest single-person-controlled juggernauts on the Nigerian political landscape. To maintain his army, Tinubu must deploy finance, provisions, patronage, largesse. There is only so much you can do by controlling the award of mega-bucks contracts, you need more than that. So why not create new LGAs? It is not like you are giving your key lieutenants any power (LGAs have none), just a nice title, a nice office, and the illusion of being important; all that, without the moral, personal and legal quandary of directly stealing public funds to directly hand over to your associates. As a bonus, you get to distribute brand new civil service jobs (albeit superfluous ones) to a grateful electorate; for 50 years now Nigerian leaders (and citizens too, sadly) when given a choice have repeatedly chosen these kind of budget-draining-but-popularity-boosting measures over the more-difficult-yet-more-rewarding long-term investments that would make Nigeria wealthy enough to support all of its citizens. Inevitably there is always a budget crisis, and the governments either "retrench" thousands of workers, keep the workers on the payroll but fail to pay them, or (as Lagos State is doing now) borrow prodigious sums from local and international banks to keep the fiscal taps running (while running up the debt, interest payments, and raising the proportion of the budget that must be committed to interest payment which effectively lowers the proportion that can be spent on other things, thus forcing more borrowing as there isn't enough to finance non-interest-related spending -- not that there was enough to begin with).
It is hard to know for sure, since we don't have real elections (or issue-driven debate about vital questions), but I believe a majority of Nigerians are broadly supportive of consolidating the number of states from 36 to 6. And I believe the same majority would support reducing the number of LGAs from 774 to 72 (with no correlation assumed between the 36 states and the 72 new districts (12 districts to each of 6 new states).
The Lagos State Government, one of the best performers in the federal republic when it comes to Internally Generated Revenue (IGR), does not expect to meets its IGR target for the 2009 budget year (an effect of the difficult economic times), and will borrow to finance projects for the current budget year.
The references blog post is one of many I have made touting the benefits of geographic consolidation at the second and third tiers of our governance. Such restructuring is appropriate for the current economic times, and was appropriate for every year of the last 50 years of our boom-and-bust economy. A 6-state federal republic at 1960, rather than a 3-region federation, could have avoided some (alas not all) of the political issues that bedevilled the First Republic. The fiscal efficiency and elimination of waste are useful in lean times, but are even more beneficial in times of plenty (every Naira wasted on inefficient, wasteful governance is one less Naira for economic infrastructure, education/research, health/welfare, security/defence, etc).
What we today call "Lagos State" should actually be a third-tier governance unit, part of a second-tier state that would be coterminous with what is currently known euphemistically as the Southwest. It should be the "local" government, where the state (i.e. "Southwest") handles regional issues and the federal government deals with issues affecting the entire federal republic, its international trade and diplomacy. Indeed, the Lagos State government as exists today is already the "local" government, directly governing the entire state, effecting turning the local government areas into meaningless constitutional abstractions that suck up money while doing little to justify their existence. In Lagos, and in the rest of the 36 states, the local government areas are mere "departments" of the state governor's office, no more than rubber-stamp puppets to the will of the imperial governorate.
And Lagos is also an example of why geographical consolidation has not happened, despite the obvious fiscal benefits. In lean times (like now), Lagos should want to use its fiscal resources as efficiently as possible, and in times of plenty, Lagos should want to use any windfalls to upgrade the insufficient infrastructure of the mega-city. Yet the signature political quarrel between the Federal Government and the Lagos State government centres around the Lagos governorate's long-running agitation to INCREASE the number of (pointless) local government areas in Lagos State from 20 to 37.
The push for an 85% increase in the number of Lagos-area LGAs began during the reign of ex-Governor Bola Tinubu, the predecessor, mentor and godfather of current Governor Babatunde Fashola, and it continues on today. The federal government's position is such a change would require a constitutional amendment, while the Lagos government counters the federal position is unconstitutional because it federalizes what is or should be a purely state matter. Do not for a second mistake the federal government's position as being in support of geographic consolidation; without going into detail (if you are not Nigerian, you probably won't understand), there is a lot of politics and quite a bit of oil-revenue-distribution fiscal issues linked to the question of how many LGAs a state has (and to the number of states a "geo-political zone" has).
It is depressing that instead of a strong national push, driven by citizens, towards geographic consolidation, we have continuing agitation for "more states" and "more LGAs". And from a rational and logical point of view, I do not understand why a state that does not bring in enough revenue (from internal and federal sources) to meet its budget would be trying to increase its expenses by creating meaningless new LGAs. Each of these LGAS would come complete with a chairman, "supervisory councillors, and "regular councillors" not to mention an expanding concentric web of "legal" and "constitutional" expenses centred on the existence of an LGA and its government that add nothing productive to the polity, economy or society, but nevertheless suck up resources that could be used more effectively and efficiently elsewhere.
Lets be honest.
Bola Tinubu has a giant political machine to support, one of the biggest single-person-controlled juggernauts on the Nigerian political landscape. To maintain his army, Tinubu must deploy finance, provisions, patronage, largesse. There is only so much you can do by controlling the award of mega-bucks contracts, you need more than that. So why not create new LGAs? It is not like you are giving your key lieutenants any power (LGAs have none), just a nice title, a nice office, and the illusion of being important; all that, without the moral, personal and legal quandary of directly stealing public funds to directly hand over to your associates. As a bonus, you get to distribute brand new civil service jobs (albeit superfluous ones) to a grateful electorate; for 50 years now Nigerian leaders (and citizens too, sadly) when given a choice have repeatedly chosen these kind of budget-draining-but-popularity-boosting measures over the more-difficult-yet-more-rewarding long-term investments that would make Nigeria wealthy enough to support all of its citizens. Inevitably there is always a budget crisis, and the governments either "retrench" thousands of workers, keep the workers on the payroll but fail to pay them, or (as Lagos State is doing now) borrow prodigious sums from local and international banks to keep the fiscal taps running (while running up the debt, interest payments, and raising the proportion of the budget that must be committed to interest payment which effectively lowers the proportion that can be spent on other things, thus forcing more borrowing as there isn't enough to finance non-interest-related spending -- not that there was enough to begin with).
It is hard to know for sure, since we don't have real elections (or issue-driven debate about vital questions), but I believe a majority of Nigerians are broadly supportive of consolidating the number of states from 36 to 6. And I believe the same majority would support reducing the number of LGAs from 774 to 72 (with no correlation assumed between the 36 states and the 72 new districts (12 districts to each of 6 new states).
03 December, 2009
Another deficit in 2010 but still no geographic consolidation
The federal government will apparently run another budget deficit next year. I am an economist, and I know what they say about government spending in economic downturns, I have heard everything about fiscal stimuli, I know that revenues will be down but spending priorities will still have to be met, and I know almost every country in the world will be running deficits in the interim period.
But lets get something straight. Nigeria is not "every country". Nigeria is Nigeria.
Japan's government debt is MASSIVE. Likewise the United States, France and the United Kingdom. Each of these country's government debt (all levels of government, not just national) are so enormous that they make the $30 billion debt Nigeria was complaining about a few years ago look like groundnut.
Which is sort of the point, isn't it?
Our tiny "groundnut" debt of $30 billion weighed heavily on our polity, economy and society, didn't it? We could have (should have) handled it a lot differently down through the decades (more on this later), and I remain unconvinced that it was worth it to expend $12 billion in available capital to retire it, but my opinions are not the issue. In the real, practical world our $30 billion debt was a giant, albatross hanging on the collective necks of the people of Nigeria, in ways that I am tempted to discuss here, except that it would take me away from the core point I want to make in this post.
Actually, the genesis of that $30 billion debt goes back to the 1970s, during the cash-rich years of the Oil Boom. There is a possibly apocryphal, possibly true, story that suggests international agencies/consultants told us we were "under-borrowed" for an economy our size. Whatever the reasons, we borrowed a little. Eventually, commodity prices fell on world markets, ending the Oil Boom; this was the start of nearly two decades of low commodity prices that only ended with the explosion in commodity demand from China and India at the turn of the century.
At about the same time the Oil Boom ended (in the late 1970s), the military/civilian diarchy in Nigeria handed over handed over power to a civilian administration, beginning the short-lived Second Republic. The problem was, Nigeria continued living as if the Oil Boom was still on (up to and including an over-valued Naira), and as a consequence our debts grew (as we borrowed to finance spending) even as our ability to pay the interest on those debts diminished. The Alhaji Shehu Shagari-led federal government introduced what were euphemistically known as Austerity measures, then was overthrown by the new military/civilian diarchy. Throughout the years of this second diarchy, under heads-of-state Mohammedu Buhari, Ibrahim Babangida, Ernest Shonekan and Sani Abacha, Nigeria felt the full effects of the continuing collapse in the global commodity markets. We were unable to meet the interest payments, so the interest got capitalized and the debt principal grew fast.
This is how we ended up with $30 billion in debt when civilian-led governments returned in 1999. This is why we paid $12 billion in a lump sum to our Paris Club creditors. Most of the $30 billion was capitalized interest; it is not like we borrowed $30 billion and used it as productive investment capital or anything like that. And of the little of it that was the original principal, only God knows what that was spent on.
The founding of the Fourth Republic in 1999 coincided with the point when Chinese and Indian growth drove global commodity prices up through the roof. It is for this reason the federal government was able to build up enough reserves to pay $12 billion in a single lump sum to retire the $30 billion debt.
And as we entered what seemed to be a second Oil Boom in the 21st Century, the federal government started borrowing again. This time they said it was necessary so that we could get a credit rating. The state governments started borrowing too; there was no legal or legislative limitation on the state governors' borrowing, no credible accounting of how much had come in and what it was spent on, no published plan of how it was going to be paid, and all this was occuring in 36 atomized states, most of which were borrowing to cover for not being economically viable in the first place.
Now I am not opposed to borrowing (it is a necessary part of economic life; heck, I have borrowed myself) but there has to be a point to what you are doing, a reason for doing it. And importantly the money borrowed must be invested in such as way as to create the conditions, the wealth, the assets or even the revenue stream that would support its repayment. Using myself as an example, I borrowed to fund my education, and that education is what is paying back the loan.
But I digress.
Here we are, and the second Oil Boom has, if not collapsed exactly, definitely been offset somewhat by the global economic crisis. And here we are again, same as in the Second Republic, carrying on (at federal, state and local levels) trying to spend as if the Boom was still on. Our reserves have been depleting fast, even as our deficits begin to accumulate.
Instead of opening academic textbooks and telling ourselves that in times like these a deficit is unavoidable, we should acknowledge the fact that our economy and polity can not deal with the medium- and long-term consequences if we don't get our fiscal situation in check. We have not done the things we should have done a long time ago, and cannot now make policy based on the pretence that we have.
Oddly enough, the economic difficulties present us with yet another opportunity to begin the process of "doing the things we should have done a long time ago".
Consolidating banks is nowhere near as important to Nigeria as geographical consolidation, or (put in simple terms) the consolidation of our second- and third-tier federation units. Put even more simply, there should be fewer states and fewer local government areas.
Going from 36+1 states to 6 states, from 774 local government areas to 72 local administrative districts, and from a bicameral federal legislature to a unicameral one will save Nigerian billions of Naira every year. As I have said over and over on this blog, while we the people obsess about criminal acts like theft, fraud, corruption, etc, we actual lose so much more to WASTE, the overwhelming amount of which is perfectly legal. It is not just about the simple savings accruable from supporting the retinues 6 governors instead of 36; each pole of power in Nigeria is the centrepoint of a concentric web of WASTE. And reform is not just about lowering the number of executives and legislators, nor even just about limiting the sizes of cabinets and "assistant-ocracies"; we must impose constitutional restrictions on annual deficits and requirements to be met before legislatures can authorize new debt. Mind you, none of this would be worth anything if we the people continue to lack the ability to substantively guide policy-making through a free-and-fair, transparent and "not-rigged" ballot box.
But before we get into all of that, let us start NOW to push for a consolidation of the states, local government areas and ministries. Even without further needed reforms, reducing expenses such as these and these might be enough in and of itself to turn 2010's deficit into a surplus.
Of course it won't happen.
There is no way these politicians will vote themselves out of a job, and we the people have no way of doing it ourselves through the ballot box.
Here we go again. Doomed to repeat history because we have not learned from it.
But lets get something straight. Nigeria is not "every country". Nigeria is Nigeria.
Japan's government debt is MASSIVE. Likewise the United States, France and the United Kingdom. Each of these country's government debt (all levels of government, not just national) are so enormous that they make the $30 billion debt Nigeria was complaining about a few years ago look like groundnut.
Which is sort of the point, isn't it?
Our tiny "groundnut" debt of $30 billion weighed heavily on our polity, economy and society, didn't it? We could have (should have) handled it a lot differently down through the decades (more on this later), and I remain unconvinced that it was worth it to expend $12 billion in available capital to retire it, but my opinions are not the issue. In the real, practical world our $30 billion debt was a giant, albatross hanging on the collective necks of the people of Nigeria, in ways that I am tempted to discuss here, except that it would take me away from the core point I want to make in this post.
Actually, the genesis of that $30 billion debt goes back to the 1970s, during the cash-rich years of the Oil Boom. There is a possibly apocryphal, possibly true, story that suggests international agencies/consultants told us we were "under-borrowed" for an economy our size. Whatever the reasons, we borrowed a little. Eventually, commodity prices fell on world markets, ending the Oil Boom; this was the start of nearly two decades of low commodity prices that only ended with the explosion in commodity demand from China and India at the turn of the century.
At about the same time the Oil Boom ended (in the late 1970s), the military/civilian diarchy in Nigeria handed over handed over power to a civilian administration, beginning the short-lived Second Republic. The problem was, Nigeria continued living as if the Oil Boom was still on (up to and including an over-valued Naira), and as a consequence our debts grew (as we borrowed to finance spending) even as our ability to pay the interest on those debts diminished. The Alhaji Shehu Shagari-led federal government introduced what were euphemistically known as Austerity measures, then was overthrown by the new military/civilian diarchy. Throughout the years of this second diarchy, under heads-of-state Mohammedu Buhari, Ibrahim Babangida, Ernest Shonekan and Sani Abacha, Nigeria felt the full effects of the continuing collapse in the global commodity markets. We were unable to meet the interest payments, so the interest got capitalized and the debt principal grew fast.
This is how we ended up with $30 billion in debt when civilian-led governments returned in 1999. This is why we paid $12 billion in a lump sum to our Paris Club creditors. Most of the $30 billion was capitalized interest; it is not like we borrowed $30 billion and used it as productive investment capital or anything like that. And of the little of it that was the original principal, only God knows what that was spent on.
The founding of the Fourth Republic in 1999 coincided with the point when Chinese and Indian growth drove global commodity prices up through the roof. It is for this reason the federal government was able to build up enough reserves to pay $12 billion in a single lump sum to retire the $30 billion debt.
And as we entered what seemed to be a second Oil Boom in the 21st Century, the federal government started borrowing again. This time they said it was necessary so that we could get a credit rating. The state governments started borrowing too; there was no legal or legislative limitation on the state governors' borrowing, no credible accounting of how much had come in and what it was spent on, no published plan of how it was going to be paid, and all this was occuring in 36 atomized states, most of which were borrowing to cover for not being economically viable in the first place.
Now I am not opposed to borrowing (it is a necessary part of economic life; heck, I have borrowed myself) but there has to be a point to what you are doing, a reason for doing it. And importantly the money borrowed must be invested in such as way as to create the conditions, the wealth, the assets or even the revenue stream that would support its repayment. Using myself as an example, I borrowed to fund my education, and that education is what is paying back the loan.
But I digress.
Here we are, and the second Oil Boom has, if not collapsed exactly, definitely been offset somewhat by the global economic crisis. And here we are again, same as in the Second Republic, carrying on (at federal, state and local levels) trying to spend as if the Boom was still on. Our reserves have been depleting fast, even as our deficits begin to accumulate.
Instead of opening academic textbooks and telling ourselves that in times like these a deficit is unavoidable, we should acknowledge the fact that our economy and polity can not deal with the medium- and long-term consequences if we don't get our fiscal situation in check. We have not done the things we should have done a long time ago, and cannot now make policy based on the pretence that we have.
Oddly enough, the economic difficulties present us with yet another opportunity to begin the process of "doing the things we should have done a long time ago".
Consolidating banks is nowhere near as important to Nigeria as geographical consolidation, or (put in simple terms) the consolidation of our second- and third-tier federation units. Put even more simply, there should be fewer states and fewer local government areas.
Going from 36+1 states to 6 states, from 774 local government areas to 72 local administrative districts, and from a bicameral federal legislature to a unicameral one will save Nigerian billions of Naira every year. As I have said over and over on this blog, while we the people obsess about criminal acts like theft, fraud, corruption, etc, we actual lose so much more to WASTE, the overwhelming amount of which is perfectly legal. It is not just about the simple savings accruable from supporting the retinues 6 governors instead of 36; each pole of power in Nigeria is the centrepoint of a concentric web of WASTE. And reform is not just about lowering the number of executives and legislators, nor even just about limiting the sizes of cabinets and "assistant-ocracies"; we must impose constitutional restrictions on annual deficits and requirements to be met before legislatures can authorize new debt. Mind you, none of this would be worth anything if we the people continue to lack the ability to substantively guide policy-making through a free-and-fair, transparent and "not-rigged" ballot box.
But before we get into all of that, let us start NOW to push for a consolidation of the states, local government areas and ministries. Even without further needed reforms, reducing expenses such as these and these might be enough in and of itself to turn 2010's deficit into a surplus.
Of course it won't happen.
There is no way these politicians will vote themselves out of a job, and we the people have no way of doing it ourselves through the ballot box.
Here we go again. Doomed to repeat history because we have not learned from it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)