Reductionism and the national question: From grievance to federal reform (II), by Usman Sarki

“Federalism involves the linking of individuals, groups and polities in lasting but limited union in such a way as to provide for the energetic pursuit of common goals while maintaining the respective integrities of all parties.” — Daniel J. Elazar If restructuring is to serve any useful national purpose, the first task must be to distinguish structural defects from failures of governance.

Nigeria is excessively centralised in several respects. The Federal Government carries responsibilities that might more effectively be exercised at lower levels. The fiscal relationship among the tiers requires reconsideration. Security arrangements must reflect the reality that many threats are local. States require greater economic flexibility, while local government autonomy and accountability remain unresolved.

The concentration of political competition around control of Abuja also raises the stakes of national elections to unhealthy levels. These are genuine restructuring questions. But restructuring will not automatically eliminate corruption or usher in good governance. It will not by itself produce competent governors, efficient local governments, disciplined civil services, effective policing or accountable legislatures.

A badly governed region will remain badly governed merely on a larger geographical scale. This is important because constitutional engineering can become an excuse for avoiding the more uncomfortable question of the integrity of leadership. The so-called national question is therefore about considerably more than tinkering with the map of the country.

Nigeria operated a regional system in the First Republic, and that arrangement produced notable achievements. The regions enjoyed substantial autonomy and developed distinctive economic, educational and administrative institutions. But the same period also experienced intense political rivalry, disputed elections and censuses, regional crises and, ultimately, the collapse of the constitutional order.

The lesson is not that regionalism failed, nor that it should never be reconsidered. It is that no constitutional arrangement can substitute for political accommodation, institutional integrity and a sound democratic culture. Likewise, later state-creation exercises addressed some minority fears and brought government closer to previously neglected areas.

But the multiplication of states also created new minorities, new boundary disputes, fresh grievances, demands for additional states, wastefulness and a high cost of governance. Political structures solve some problems while creating others. That reality should encourage equilibrium and rationality in the restructuring debate. No constitutional design will permanently settle the national question, if indeed it is a “question” capable of final settlement.

Countries are continuously negotiated communities. Even old federations periodically reconsider the distribution of authority between their central and sub-national governments. Nigeria should do the same, but through a process anchored in constitutionalism rather than ethnic hegemony, ultimatum and diktat. The more productive approach may therefore be to move away from the language of a single grand restructuring towards a programme of accommodative federal reform.

Such reform could include a deliberate review of the legislative lists, greater sub-national responsibility for policing and internal security, more rational fiscal arrangements, incentives for states and local governments to develop their own revenue bases, stronger regional economic cooperation, protection for minorities and a clearer constitutional framework for intergovernmental relations.

Some functions could be transferred immediately. Others might be shared. Still others should remain federal because the integrity of the Nigerian state requires common institutions, common standards and a shared national outlook. This would make restructuring an institutional programme rather than an ideological or agitational slogan uttered in abstraction or as an expression of irrational fear and unfounded grievance.

There is also a deeper national responsibility. Nigeria cannot be restructured successfully if every community enters the process primarily as a litigant, claimant or aggrieved party and none enters as a stakeholder and custodian of the federation. A durable constitution requires reciprocal sacrifice. The stronger must accept restraints on power. Larger groups must recognise minority fears.

Minority communities must also accept that federalism cannot guarantee every community its own exclusive political space. Resource-producing areas deserve fairness, while the federation must preserve mechanisms of national solidarity. Regions or states require autonomy, but the centre must retain sufficient capacity to defend the country, conduct foreign policy, manage macroeconomic stability and protect constitutional rights.

The national question is therefore not simply about entitlement; fundament