It must sound a contradiction in terms to talk about a return backwards as a way forward. But in a situation where the present is worse than the past, in terms of value’s, then, oxymoronic as it sounds, progress must in fact, mean a return to the past.
As a matter of fact, there are areas in our national life where in material terms, considerable progress has been made. In the growth in urban areas, in the growth of educational and health institutions, in the growth in provision of social and economic amenities, there have been growth if one uses 1960 as the base line. Of course, if one compares the resources available in 1960 with the resources available in 2004, in terms of what the 1960 resources achieved and what the 2004 resources should have achieved, there is no progress to be measured.
If one compares the expenditure per head on social amenities in 1960, with the expenditure per head in 2004, there is no progress to be measured. All of these only go to prove the point that statistics in themselves are neutral. Analysts can twist them this way and that way. But the scope of this contribution is not going to cover every facet of our national life where either growth or non-growth, progress or non-progress can be measured.
My aim is more limited to the political values that form the core values of our national life at independence compared with our core values now. In 1960, the political elite advocated democracy, true federalism and social welfarism. Now, these core values have been replaced by zoning and power shift, centralized and pseudo-federalism and market-driven economy.
DEMOCRACY:
The 1960 political elite was a fiercely competitive one, who were prepared to go through some form of elections, which produced results that were fairly reflective of public opinion. Several elections were held on both the federal and state levels, spread over two decades. Each election produced winning and losing parties. While one would normally expect the winning parties to be satisfied with the electoral system, the more interesting thing was that the losers did not advocate a change in the electoral system.
They criticized the corruption in the electoral system, and called for a level playing field. But none of them thought of subverting the electoral system and democracy by calling for power rotation, or power shift, or zoning. It was unthinkable. The Azikiwes, the Awolowos, the Aminu Kanos, the Ibrahim Imams, the Alvan Ikokus etc never thought of political gimmickry to circumvent the dictates of democracy. Now, we have imported into our political vocabulary and values perfidious and obnoxious concepts such as power shifts, power rotation, zoning etc.
These concepts are subversive of democracy as they remove the element of choice which is the critical value in democracy. These concepts also dilutes the struggle for good governance as we all become prisoners to the choice put forward by the zone to which an office has been zoned to. Another concept which we have adopted without giving too critical a thought to is what is called term limitation. This has been incorporated into our constitution, and it means that no President or Governor can run for the same office more than twice.
This was not part of the 1960 constitution and it is reflective of our new nihilistic attitude to office which simply means that we believe that any fool (apologies to el-Rufai) can occupy any office in the land. We have so demeaned our offices of state that we are no longer prepared to look for the brightest and the best to occupy them. Any rascal will do. Was this concept adopted to reinforce democracy? No. It was adopted to enthrone the “Amala” or “Tuwo” or “Isi ewu” or “come and chop” politics. It is true that the United States limits its President to two terms for a total of eight years, while France limits her own President to two terms for a total of fourteen years. But all other democracies whether in the first or third world have no limited terms.
TRUE FEDERALISM:
The 1960 Constitution gave us a tolerable balanced constitution where the power over the majority of issues and over resources resided in the regions. The centre was kept firmly in its place and was dependent on the regions for its financial survival. Now, the states are nothing more than glorified local governments, with power over a limited number of issues and with the federal government holding the financial strings. The states have become so dependent on the federal government that they are nothing more than appendages of the federal government. A good case can be made for a return to a system where the federating units are a) viable politically, b) viable and autonomous financially and c) exercise control over majority of issues that matter to the citizenry.
SOCIAL WELFARE:
In the 60s, government ideology irrespective of the differences in the value systems of the political parties was anchored on the firm and rational belief that the only way to ensure rapid economic development and the only way to spread the dividends of self-determination and independence was to adopt social welfarism as an anchor of government policies. It meant free education, free health, infrastructural development, investment in agriculture, ownership of industries whether cottage or medium scale etc. Now, the prevailing ideology is market-driven ideology.
There is nothing wrong with that per se. But in a situation where governments in the developed world have well established subsidy regimes in place, where Nigeria has no unemployment benefits or social security system in place, where there is low capacity utilization in industry and the agricultural sector is comatose, to adopt a market-driven economy accompanied by massive withdrawal of subsidy amounts to a collective death sentence on the citizenry. We do not need a return to the wholesale package of economic socialism of the 1960s. But we need to cushion the effects of the free market economy by policies with a human face and a compassionate heart.
