ABSTRACT
The problem of
representational equity in Nigeria started with the problem of an unequal
North-South duality, as if that was not problematic enough, the smaller
southern component was split into two to create a deleterious Southern duality
and an equally debilitating national trinity. The attempt to redress
North-South regional imbalance resulted in the creation of states but it
resulted in weakening the South against the North. This then became
the justification for other methods albeit the Federal Character Principle for
the promotion of a sense of belonging in the country by eliminating or at least
minimizing domination resulting from imbalance in appointments. The purpose of
the principle of federal character is laudable, unfortunately the application
and operation of the principle tended to differentiate rather than integrate
Nigeria.
TO GET THIS COMPLETE MATERIAL
PRICE:
Pay #5,000 Naira, (i.e. the price
for this material) into our account.
ACCOUNT DETAILS:
Bank: Ecobank
A/c No: 2691085510
Name: Martins Chima
NEXT STEP:
Send your teller no, name and email
address to 07030722911. We will confirm your payment within 3hrs (working
hours) and you will receive this topic material immediately after confirmation
through your e-mail.
We will also send a text
message to your mobile phone number informing you that we have sent you the
COMPLETE MATERIAL.
INTRODUCTION
The assertion
that Nigeria is a creation of British colonialism is no longer incontrovertible.
Motivated by economic considerations, the colonialists had wanted to limit
their exploitative tendencies to the coasts. However, a combination of factors
which were largely internal threatened the realization of their economic
motive, this encouraged the British to move into the hinterlands. That crucial
decision with time thus annulled the sovereignty and independence of the
hitherto disparate autonomous socio-political entities which had inhabited
Nigeria. The conquest of the country by the British inevitably led to the
establishment of a system of administration alien to the people. Two types of
administration direct and indirect were tried out. The consequence of this
resort is that the various nationalities inhabiting Nigeria have not been
welded into a nation in which all of them would have a stake (Ubah, in Saliu
1999). The immense concern of the British with
exploitation and the ruthlessness that characterized its pursuit made them to
be contented with keeping the nationalities as farther apart as possible, the
so-called amalgamation of the Northern and Southern Protectorates in 1914
notwithstanding (Usman, in Saliu 1999). Therefore it provided an unfortunate
but conducive environment for mutual suspicion and distrust among the disparate
groups in Nigeria.
On October 1st
1960, Nigeria attained clientele sovereignty with lopsided Federation. The
Political tripod was dominated by the “majors” to the exclusion of the
“minority groups”. This brought to limelight the knotty issue of domination
which evoked morbid fears of marginalization (Leadership 2008). Nigeria’s
population is estimated at 140 millions (Bello 2006). The country has between
250 and 400 ethnic groups depending on the criteria used. A total of 374 ethnic
groups were identified by Otite. These ethnic groups are broadly divided into
ethnic “majorities” and ethnic “minorities” (Otite, 1990).
The numerically
and politically majorities ethnic groups are the composite Hausa-Fulani of the
North with Muslim majority, the Yorubas of the South-West and the Igbos of the
South-East with christian majority. Against the backdrop of this
ethno-religious composition, political issues in Nigeria are seen from their
ethno-religious perspectives, thereby giving credence to ethnic and religious
jingoists and war lords. Political offices and appointments are seen as battle
fields among the various ethnic groups, where the battles must be fought with
all the available weapons a group can muster (see Obi and Obiekeze, 2004;
Suberu, and Diamond, 2004).
The problem of
acrimonious existence among the diverse groups and interests in the federation
of Nigeria leading to mutual distrust, suspicion and inter-communal conflicts
has become perennial and endemic in the nation’s body Politic and has militated
against the political stability of the country since independence. The fear of
domination of one ethnic group or section of the country by another and the
national question of who gets what and how the
national cake should be shared constitute a major factor of this problem. As a
result of mutual suspicion existing among the various social groups, whatever
the issue at hand in Nigeria, the patterns of reaction to it will be determined
by geo-political as well as religious considerations. This situation seriously
hampers efforts at national unity as it applies to the building of a united
Nigeria out of the disparate ethnic, geographic, social, economic and religious
elements or groups in the country (Saliu, 1999;
Agbodike, 1998; Gamberi, 1994; Kurfi 1998).
Among the
measures put in place and constitutionally guaranteed as a recipe for national
integration is the doctrine of federal character. The principle of federal
character was formulated and put into use by successive governments in Nigeria
to address and hopefully mitigate the problem of diversity so as to ensure a
peaceful, stable and united Nigeria. As Ojo (1999) persuasively explained,
Federal character principle as an integrative mechanism is defined as fair and
effective representation of the various components of the Federation in the
country’s position of power, status and influence. He however observed that the
principle of federal character touches on array of problems in the political
process which includes ethnicity, the national question, minority problem,
discrimination based on a indignity, resources allocation, power sharing
employment and placement in institution, etcetera. It provides a formula for
participation in the governance of
the country in such a way that a single section of the country will not
dominate another or a segment dominating the rest. The basic assumption, as
noted by Ojo (1994:) is that, if every segment of the Federation participates
in governance, there would be almost equality in the country in the scheme of
things and expectedly, it will engender a sense of belonging and national
integration.
This paper is
set out to examine critically the expediency of the federal character principle
as an integrative mechanism with a view to pointing out whether or not it is
succeeding in integrating Nigeria or widening the dichotomy among Nigerians.
The paper is divided into four sections. Section one introduces the
subject-matter, section two deals with conceptual clarification and section
three examines the paradox of the federal character principle as an integrative
mechanism while section four concludes the discussion.
FEDERAL
CHARACTER PRINCIPLE and IN THE NIGERIA PUBLIC SERVICE
The federal character principle
which made its debut into the Nigerian political and public administrative
landscape through the drafting and adoption of the 1979 constitution of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria appeared to be a normative expression of the historical
belief of Nigerians in equal access to and participation in the political and
administrative affairs of the country in the area of policy formulation and
implementation. To support the above view, Alubo (2003:54-66) points out that
the lack of representation in policy making and implementation by some segments
of the Nigerian society in the past has denied them the opportunities for
education and economic advancement.
In order to drive the implementation
of the federal character principle, the Federal Character Commission (FCC) was
established by decree 34 of 1996, and the powers of the commission was
summarized by Mustapha (2007) to include: working out formula for sharing posts
and services; compliance monitoring; enforcement of compliance through legal
actions; demanding and reviewing data on staffing; and institutional
investigations. The FCC is a commission under the presidency; its members are
appointed by the president, but subject to the ratification of the Nigerian
Senate. To ensure equity in representation, the law establishing the commission
states that the executive chairman and secretary are to be appointed in such a
way that if the chairman comes from the North, the secretary must be chosen
from the South and vice versa. However, Nzeshi (2012:98) argues that “since its
establishment, the Federal Character Commission has been headed mostly by
Northerners.”
To properly implement the federal
character principle, a bill is currently before the Nigerian National Assembly
for amendment to enable FCC “to effectively enforce the principles of equity
and fairness … also enable public officers to comply with rules and regulations
issued by the commission” (Nzeshi, 2012:97). The implication of the request to
amend the FCC act shows that the principle and the structure put in place to
enforce its implementation is not totally effective as envisaged by the
government, and this is amply corroborated by Nzeshi (2012:97) submission that
“the inefficiency of the FCC to effectively enforce its mandate as a government
watchdog in identifying and addressing inequality is increasingly worrisome. In
emphasizing the shortcomings of the application of the FC principle in Nigeria
Gboyega (1989:178) points out that “...the issues of making public institutions
reflect the federal character was taken up haphazardly giving rise to
arbitrariness and victimization of some unfortunate public servants.” In the
same vein, Ekeh (1989:34) contends that “its most radical and damaging
application has been in the bureaucracies and public services of the
federation…permanent secretaries have been kicked around, removed and sometimes
dismissed.” He argues further that the application of the FC principle “has
invaded the integrity and standards of public bureaucracy and…other governmental
bodies that normally require safeguards from the ravages of politics.”
Furthermore, the negative effects of federal character on the public sector
performance in Nigeria can be gleaned from the work of Forrest (1993:76), where
he argues that the implementation of the principle of federal character in the
public service “not only led to poor appointments but also enhanced mediocrity
rather than merit.” To promote administrative effectiveness for performance in
the Nigerian public service, Utomi (2002:48) argues that “we need to engage on
the issues of competence, commitment, corruption and conflict of interest and
career certainty. From there come both threats to the effectiveness of the
civil service and opportunities for the service to be the anchor of a Nigerian
renaissance.”
The contributions of a foremost
scholar and practitioner in Nigerian public administration, Adamolekun
(2008:17) to this discourse were more probing thus: “Has the federal character
(FC) principle promoted or retarded national loyalty and stability? Or has the
area or ethnic region of a person become the key factor in determining his
quality as an individual?” He argues further that “only a critical assessment
of ...years of implementing the FC principle...would help determine the
desirable way forward.” It is quite relieving that he answered the above
questions in a related discussion thus:
The
“federal character” principle that was introduced as Nigeria’s path to
achieving “representative bureaucracy” was morphed into the bad practice of
politicization. Capacity development programmes for public servants that were a
major concern during the immediate pre and post-independence years was
progressively neglected notwithstanding the strong case made for it in the
Udoji report 1974 (Adamolekun, 2007:17).
It is very clear from the above
submission why administrative effectiveness in the Nigerian public service for
sustainable development may continue to be a mirage. Contributing to the debate
on public sector ineffectiveness, Suleiman (2009:33) contends that “poor
capacity of the majority of civil servants, sometimes to the point of
illiteracy” arising from the application of the FC is one of the reasons for
poor performance of the Nigerian public service. The views of Suleiman (2009)
and Adamolekun (2009) goes to support the argument that the neglect of capacity
development programmes for public servants and the implementation of the FC
offer a credible explanation on the ineffectiveness of the Nigerian public
bureaucracy for sustainable development in Nigeria.
Also, Tonwe and Oghator (2009:237)
submit that “federal character allows ethno-regional patrons and their clients
to exploit and mismanage state resources without contributing to any meaningful
development.”
Supporting the importance of merit
as strategy for manpower procurement in the nation’s quest for administrative
effectiveness and enhanced performance for sustainable development, Soludo
(2012:7) argues that the emergence of a merit driven culture is, therefore, a key
outcome of Vision 20:20:20 and an area of immediate policy focus. To this end,
a comprehensive review of ethnic balancing measures and diversity management
related laws such as the implementation of the federal character principle will
be undertaken with a view to ensuring greater promotion of merit for
sustainable development in Nigeria. According to The Transformation Agenda
(2011-2015:10), Nigeria’s inability to attain sustainable development in the
past has been attributed to the nation’s inability to tackle development
challenges such as poverty, unemployment, corruption and security hinged on bad
governance and ineffective institutions/agencies of government. The poor
implementation of the principle of federal character in the Nigerian public service
is therefore capable of bringing into the service incompetent workforce that
lacks the ability to implement the policies of government for sustainable
development. Gberevbie (2010:116-117) however argues that:
Predicating
employee recruitment on federal character does not mean that such an employee
cannot contribute meaningfully towards the enhancement of the goals of the
organization. This is particularly so where appropriate recruitment strategies
involving the screening of potential employees based on relevant skills,
experience and educational qualifications are adopted. What is important
therefore is the ability of the individual employed and his/her willingness to
work for the organization. In addition, through proper staff training and
development by organizations of their workforce, organizational productivity is
enhanced even where incompetent employees would have been employed through
inappropriate recruitment strategies.
In the same vein, Olaopa (2012:56)
commends the federal character principle as one of the “effective
nation-building strategies invented for managing the combustive diversity in
Nigeria.” He however argues that “this principle has badly eroded professional
and competency capacity of the public service.”
In this regard, the application of
the FC principle has failed to offer credible solutions to administrative
ineffectiveness in the Nigerian public service and has actually become a drag
on sustainable development. The implication of the foregoing is that unethical
behaviour among public officials and low productivity in the Nigerian public
service can be explained by the appointment of incompetent personnel through
the application the FC principle that makes it possible for people from the
different segments of the Nigerian society to be represented in government
without due consideration for merit and quality training to enhance
productivity.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
It has been
observed that the principle of federal character is the Achilles heel of
Nigerian politics. It is the most recent epiphany in Nigeria’s troubled federal
theology. It was aimed at redressing historical imbalance and integrate the
country. The attempt was to balance the ethnic groups in order to create a
virile and united nation. Unfortunately, the exercise has turned out to be a
mere substitute for substance. Thus, if we are to accept the intent of the
concept that it carries an unambiguous and unchallengeable national integration
mandate, then the present definition cum application has to be re-examined.
This is because
it gives equal weight to two potentially opposite principles which has been
described as the concept of “irrespectivity” i.e. that no Nigerian shall have
cause to feel aggrieved or excluded on the grounds of his/her place of origin,
sex religion or ethnic grouping, and that of “irreducibility” i.e. ethnic
equation in the main institution of the state. The federal character may well
have got the principle right but has pushed too far its “irreducible”
principle. An all out application of the principle of irreducibility has already
shown signs of head–on-conflict with the co-principle of irrespectivity.
Nigerians are
now being discriminated against in the country on account of ethnicity. Examples
abound in the Educational and Economic spheres. This cannot make for loyalty to
the Nigerian State and therefore bring about the much sought integration (Ayoade
1998, Ogunojemite 1997:112, and Juadu, 2007).
The federal
character as it is; is a doctrine of the emancipated educated elite in the
civil services, armed forces and the business circles. It has little relevance
to the integration problems of Nigeria. As practiced during the tumultuous
period of the second republic (1979-1983) under Shagari’s leadership, Abacha’s
military junta and even under the present ‘democratic dispensation’, the
principle essentially focused on enhancing the dominance of the ruling class
through patronage. The constitutional provision of federal character and zoning
system within the political parties is for appointing trusted prebends, clients
and hangers-on in strategic offices who in turn manipulated their powers by
allocation of contracts, import licences, access to bank loans, fertilizers
etc.
Thus through the
control of state power at the centre, the ruling class not only enhanced her
leverage through patron-client alliances that cut across ethno-regional and
religious cleavages, but also appropriated federal character principle to
ensure its hegemony at all levels (Abubakar, 1998; Ogunojemite, 1987;
Leadership, 2008).
Thus, Nigeria’s
experiences under successive governments as shown above exposes the limitations
of federal character principle as a mechanism for enhancing national integration
and participatory democracy in plural societies. One of the fundamental weaknesses
of federal character as practiced in Nigeria is that it tends to enthrone mediocrity
in governance, at the expense of merit and professionalism. Also in the name of
representation and national unity, federal character allows ethno-regional
patrons and their clients to exploit and mismanage state resources without
contributing to any meaningful development. Furthermore, by focusing on
regional and ethnic representation, federal character exacerbates
differentiation instead of enchancing mutual trust, accommodation and national
integration (Abubakar 1998; -Farrest 1993 Onimejisin 2005).
So far, we have
argued that although federal character principle has been conceived as a policy
mechanism for addressing the contradictions of Nigeria’s national question arising
from British colonial policies of divide and rule, as well as uneven
development; the political class which inherited power since independence
manipulates state power, ethnoregional, religious and sectarian cleavages for
its selfish ends. The federal character as a means of achieving the desired aim
of integration relies solely on the values of the ruling elite. Although it has
been able to keep the territory together more so with the present structure, it
is equally able tot provide support for the central authority but in doing this
it has only succeeded in widening the elite –mass gap because the value
consensus that is necessary for national integration is lacking (Alabi, 2004). Perhaps,
as Ojo (1999) and Popoola (2002) argued, the most chronic of the banes of federal
character principle in Nigeria is that it potentially invades the integrity and
standards of public bureaucracy and such other governmental bodies that
normally require safeguards from the ravages of politics. The result in this
regard has not been the promotion of national loyalty but inertia and
alienation as those who hail from states and communities
which have suffered from federal character discrimination become resentful and
also eventually alienated from the overall body politics. As Ojo (1999:5) and
Okoli (1990:11) rightly submitted, competent people who are disqualified on the
grounds of states of origin and such other spurious criteria cannot be willing
materials on which to erect the unity of the nation. They must feel wanted in
order to volunteer themselves for national sacrifice. Be that as it may, our
submission on the federal character principle as an integrative mechanism is
that the principle, in practice has paradoxically exacerbated the division among
Nigerians rather than uniting them. The principle in its operation cannot but
do more harm than good to the fragile unity of Nigeria.
TO GET THIS COMPLETE MATERIAL
PRICE:
Pay #5,000 Naira, (i.e. the price
for this material) into our account.
ACCOUNT DETAILS:
Bank: Ecobank
A/c No: 2691085510
Name: Martins Chima
NEXT STEP:
Send your teller no, name and email
address to 07030722911. We will confirm your payment within 3hrs (working
hours) and you will receive this topic material immediately after confirmation
through your e-mail.
We will also send a text
message to your mobile phone number informing you that we have sent you the
COMPLETE MATERIAL.
REFERENCES
Abubakar. D
(1998)” The Federal Character principle, Consociationalism and
Democratic
Stability in Nigeria” in Amuwo K. et al (eds) Federalism and Political
Restructuring in Nigeria. Ibadan: Spectrum Books Limited.
Agbaje, A.
(1989)” Mass Media and the Shaping of Federal Character: A Content
Analysis of four
decades of Nigerian news papers 1950 – 1984” in P.P.E
Ekeh and E.E.
Osagae (eds) Federal Character and Federalism in Nigeria.
Ibadan:Spectrum
Books Limited.
Agbage A.
(1998)” The Ideology of Power Sharing: An Analysis of Content, Context
And Intent” in
Amuwo K. et al (eds) Federalism and Political Restructuring In Nigerian. Spectrum
Books Limited Ibadan Nigeria.
Agbodike E. C
(1998)” Federal character Principal and National integration in Amuwo K. et.al
(eds) Federalism and Political Restructuring in Nigeria. Spectrum Books
Limited, Ibadan – Nigeria
Akinwumi, O.
(2005) “ Ethnicsation of Violence” in Saliu, H.A. (eds.), Nigeria Under
Democratic Rule
1999 – 2003. Ibadan: University Press P/C.
Alabi, D. O.
(2004) The National Question and Nigerian’s Fourth Republic: Issues and
Challenges.
Political Science Review vol. 3 Nos 1 and 2 A publication of the Department of
Political Science, University of Ilorin.
Awa, E.O.
(1972)” Foundation for Political Reconstruction in Nigeria” in Ikenga- A Journal
of African Studies. University of Nigeria Press Nsukka Nigeria.
Ayoade J.A.A.
(1982)” Federalism In Nigeria the Worship of an Unknown God” Paper Presented at
a special seminar at the institute of African Studies February,
1982.