Leadership vs Federalism

Beneath the Surface By AKIN OSUNTOKUN

The ongoing conversation on the establishment of state police in Nigeria is essentially a debate on Nigerian federalism. The argument that has mostly obfuscated the understanding and indispensability of federalism to the long term survival and viability of Nigeria is its subordination to the ‘Leadership’ factor. Those who make the argument will tell you that what ails Nigeria is squarely and roundly the problem of Nigeria. Indeed there is no situation in life that does not require leadership even if it is a failed leadership. To this extent the argument becomes a platitude.

The idealisation of leadership goes way back to Plato and his notion of ideal type leaders whom he termed “philosopher kings”. In his vision of this aspirational leadership, he argued that ‘only true philosophers, uncorrupted by greed and driven by a love of truth, are fit to govern for the common good’. If such ideal leaders were to exist, they would most certainly constitute the rare exceptions to the general rule of average and mediocre leadership. Invariably the majority of those who find themselves at the pinnacle of political power range from the suboptimal to the pathological breed.

The nature and process of the acquisition of power itself (otherwise known as realpolitik) makes it difficult for the practitioner of politics to realistically avoid unseemly lapses in the pursuit of his ambition. The more dysfunctional a society the more the brutish prevalence of realpolitik (power politics). This is why many people find it difficult to associate politics with decency, decorum and honesty. I was astounded the other day when a distinguished professor in a WhatsApp group chat wrote in caps for emphasis that ALL politicians are corrupt, All. Would he have politicians like Ahmadu Bello and Obafemi Awolowo, in mind? I am not in complete agreement with the saying that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely but it generally rings true.

So when many Nigerians argue that the problem of Nigeria is solely the lack of good leadership, we should all be alarmed at the implication of this suggestion – which is that Nigeria is destined to ruin and damnation unless and until we get this elusive silver bullet. Yet we do not have a foolproof formula for its procurement. No society does. Unlike science, representative democracy does not follow the logic of two plus two equals four.

At his eloquent best, Winston Churchilll made the pertinent remark that “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time”. He was correct on both accounts. Churchill was acknowledging that democracy is inherently imperfect, messy, and prone to flaws like inefficiency, mob rule, or short-sighted policies, corruption, demagoguery and self-destructive divisions and inherently incapable of assuring that the best candidate wins. Afterall Donald Trump is a product of democracy.

Pretty much the same logic is at play in the solemn Daniel Elazar conception of federalism as ‘tragedy’. His identification of Federalism as a tragedy is intended to make the point that it is a response mechanism to political conflict, not an optimal strategy. It is a suboptimal compromise in the effort to defuse real and potential situations of conflict and ensure that such situations do not degenerate into less attractive possibilities’¹. Yet what is the alternative? Dictatorship, totalitarianism, divine rule, authoritarian dispensation?.

In all societies the factors that tend to determine the emergence of leaders are not such as will guarantee the emergence of good and noble leaders. It is for this reason that constitutions are designed from the perspective of the worst case scenario. Hence the contrivance of ensuring a limit to the damage that bad leaders can inflict with such guardrails as federalism, separation of powers and checks and balances. After good leaders and bad leaders have exited the state, it is the constitution that remains. What is within our reach and grasp at all times, is the constitution whose utility lies in its impersonal efficiency at constraining the abuse of power and facilitating its judicious application.

The lesson we can learn from the unprecedented dispatch of six prime ministers in the political leadership of the UK in the past ten years is the resilience of the constitutional and institutional firmament of the political system. It has demonstrated an inherent capability to respond to the test of a conspicuous reign of leadership crisis and failure. Never mind the absurdity but the situation is nearly suggestive of the proposition that the recurring leadership crisis is irrelevant to the durability of the political system.

Historically and in real time, some of the notorious habits that determine the outcome of elections in contemporary Nigeria consist of rough and ready tons of Ghana must go carrier bags, the evergreen ethno-religious cleavages, criminal political networks styled political structures, rigging – which the report of the American observer mission to the 2023 elections sugarcoated as ground game. Given the backdrop of this bad ensemble and the inherent logical expectation, will it not be a surprise (albeit pleasant) were the relatively moral outlier nevertheless emerge victorious.

What all this means for us in Nigeria is the indispensability of federalism for which there has been a surfeit of intellectually informed rationale. Here I must thank my sister Oby Ezekwesili for the wake up call that the general enthusiasm that has attended the state sponsored Bill for the establishment of state police only tantamount to scratching the surface of the problem. The real game changer is going through the whole log of constitutional restoration of fulsome federalism alias restructuring.

N. S Varma made the point that “It is worth remembering that Nigeria’s regionalized nationalism offers the best hope for national unity”. Beyond this evaluation is also the fact that the socioeconomic development that Nigeria experienced from the 1950s to the early 60s were credited to the regional governments not the federal government

“If the major identifying diversities are territorially arranged, then the society or the political community is potentially federal. But if the distribution of diversities follows a marble cake pattern (i.e. scattered), the society is plural and non-federal. Only when a society contains territorial grounds so markedly different from one another that they require some instrumentality to protect and express their peculiar qualities does the need for Federalism generally arises” (Livingston, 1952:90)-

In its original form, the federal idea was theopolitical, defining the relationship between God and man as one in which both were linked by covenant in a partnership designed to make them jointly responsible for the world’s welfare. (Daniel Elazar)

”Indeed, I do not see how the country can arrest its current drift towards becoming a failed state without restructuring to a true federation of fewer and more viable federating units with greater devolved powers to plan and pursue development and peace in their respective areas” lamented Emeka Anyaoku

“In large states that must contend with geographically based ethnic, religious, or linguistic cleavages, some form of regional autonomy seems inevitable” said Feeley Malcom. M

According to Lithwick, N.H. “Federalism becomes useful when people’s political identities conflict but their political lives are intertwined as members of a single polity or as members of different polities that want to join together. Inevitably, it involves a compromise; a central government is established or maintained, but some or all regions of the polity are granted autonomy over specified governmental functions.

Chief Obafemi Awolowo accurately captured contemporary Nigeria in the following words “In any country where there are divergences of language and of nationality, a unitary constitution is always a source of bitterness and hostility on the part of linguistic or national minority groups.”