A Case for Political Decentralisation in Nigeria
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by RMIT Research Repository A Case for Political Decentralisation in Nigeria A thesis submitted in fulfilment for the degree of Master of Arts (International Studies) by Research Bowstock Umaroho Bachelor of Science (Political Science) Edo State University, Ekpoma, Nigeria School of Global Studies, Social Science and Planning RMIT University August 2006 Declaration I declare that this thesis is all my original work, except where due acknowledgement has been made. I further state that this work has not been submitted previously, in whole or in part, to qualify for any other academic award. This work was undertaken during the period of my candidature. Signed: Date: Witness: ii Acknowledgements This thesis was made possible by the Commonwealth of Australia and the many people who have contributed greatly to this research and I would like to acknowledge my appreciation to all of them. I wish to express my sincere thanks and gratitude to God Almighty for giving the grace, good health, strength and protection throughout my stay and entire study in the University. In particular I would like to thank a few individuals who helped in this research with ideas, collecting newspapers and generally keeping me up to date with what was happening in Nigeria. Emmanuel Erakpotobor and Julius Azelema in Lagos were particularly helpful in this regard. Herbert Olowoniyi provided so much encouragement for this research from the very beginning and acted as a constructive force, giving sound ideas on many occasions. Also Scott Philips helped to inspire me and to keep on participating and he has my ever lasting admiration and thanks. To those fellow academics that provided supervisory oversight of this research and constructive assistance during the different stages of the study, I am in their debt— Christopher Ziguras, Damian Grenfell and Dean Coldicott. To Kisilu Kitainge who helped in overcoming my problems with the computer and style and layout for the thesis. Last, and most of all, my gratitude is expressed to Elizabeth Omadudu, Grace Atuseri and Valentine Umaroho for their encouragement throughout my years in Australia. This thesis is dedicated to Tom Akpororor. iii Abstract This thesis examines the process of gradual political centralisation in Nigeria from the colonial period until today. It argues that since the formation of Nigeria in 1914, there has not been an effective state administrative structure in the governing of the nation. Pre-independence Nigeria (1888–1960) was characterised by a flawed structure put in place by the British colonial administration and the changes implemented by the successive military regimes and associated constitutional developments that followed independence have not changed the underlying problems established during this period. Traditional approaches to political decentralisation in developing countries generally involve delegation, devolution and deconcentration. However, the role of traditional institutions in a decentralised governance structure is not always made explicit. Rather the potential roles of traditional institutions are assumed to be part of the local administrative system (e.g. local governments). As a result, they are defined as part of the governance process. This limits applicability of these models to a country as ethnically diverse as Nigeria. The central argument put forward in this thesis is that an ideal decentralised administrative system is practicable in Nigeria only if the traditional institutions actively participate in the governance of the country. However, a review of the administrative system for the period 1914-2005 shows that the powers of the traditional institutions have been eroded over time. The thesis concludes by proposing a model for decentralising the complex administrative structure of Nigeria through ‘institutional reconciliation’. The model iv follows previous approaches, but proposes a separation of the traditional institutions from both the administrative and governmental units (federal, state and local government). The thesis argues that the legitimacy of policies undertaken by any of the government units rests on these policies being consistent with ethnic, religious and cultural beliefs. It proposes one means of putting in place such a form of ‘institutional reconciliation’ while highlighting the potential problems that may also result. v Table of Contents Declaration __________________________________________________________________ ii Acknowledgements ____________________________________________________________ iii Abstract _____________________________________________________________________ iv Chapter One – Introduction_______________________________________________________1 1.1 Background ______________________________________________________________ 2 1.2 Justification for the study____________________________________________________ 6 1.3 Objective of the study and research questions ____________________________________ 7 1.4 Research methodology______________________________________________________ 8 1.6 Thesis structure __________________________________________________________ 12 Chapter Two – Models of Decentralisation__________________________________________14 2.1 Participation_____________________________________________________________ 14 2.2 Decentralisation __________________________________________________________ 20 2.3 Devolution ______________________________________________________________ 20 2.4 Deconcentration__________________________________________________________ 23 2.5 Decentralisation by default _________________________________________________ 26 2.8 Summary and conclusion___________________________________________________ 27 Chapter Three – The Process of Political Centralisation in Nigeria (1914 – 1960) ___________29 vi 3.1 Pre-independence Nigeria __________________________________________________ 30 3.2 Hausa-Fulani states _______________________________________________________ 30 3.3 Yoruba kingdom _________________________________________________________ 31 3.4 Igbo society _____________________________________________________________ 32 3.5 The role of traditional rulers ________________________________________________ 33 3.6 Indirect rule _____________________________________________________________ 34 3.6.1 Indirect rule in the southwest ______________________________________________ 39 3.6.2 Indirect rule in the southeast _______________________________________________ 41 3.7 The Nigeria Amalgamation of 1914 __________________________________________ 43 3.7.1 Problems with the amalgamation ___________________________________________ 44 3.10 Constitutional development ________________________________________________ 53 3.10.6 The 1957 Constitutional Conference ________________________________________ 59 3.10.7 The 1958 Constitutional Conference ________________________________________ 60 3:11 Summary and Conclusion _________________________________________________ 60 Chapter Four – The Political History of Nigerian Federalism (1960 – 1999)________________63 4.1.1 The 1960 Independence Constitution ________________________________________ 63 4.3 The first coup, counter-coup and civil war _____________________________________ 68 4.4 The Murtala and Obasanjo regimes, 1975- 79___________________________________ 71 4.5 The second republic, 1979-83 _______________________________________________ 72 vii 4.6 Return to military rule, 1983-1999 ___________________________________________ 72 4.7 Centralisation and its effects on Nigerian federalism _____________________________ 75 4.8 Summary and conclusion___________________________________________________ 81 Chapter Five – The Consequences of Over-Centralisation ______________________________83 5.1 Corruption and centralisation________________________________________________ 84 5.2 Money politics ___________________________________________________________ 89 5.3 Insecurity and human rights abuses ___________________________________________ 95 5.4 Self-perpetuation and military involvement in politics ___________________________ 100 5.5 Aggressive sub-nationalism and the politics of resource control____________________ 102 5.6 Treatment of the media ___________________________________________________ 106 5.7 Public debt burden _______________________________________________________ 109 5.8 Summary and conclusion__________________________________________________ 113 Chapter Six – Towards Institutional Reconciliation __________________________________116 Conclusion__________________________________________________________________135 References __________________________________________________________________137 viii Chapter One – Introduction Political decentralisation refers to the transfer of authority and responsibility from central to intermediate and local governments. In practice political decentralisation may entail the transfer of certain planning, financing and management tasks to units of central agencies (‘deconcentration’), to lower levels of government (‘devolution’), or to autonomous authorities (‘delegation’). A feature of political decentralisation is that it alters the structure and systems of governance and the relationships between various levels of government and a range of social institutions. While deconcentration and delegation imply a reorganisation of central government, devolution means relinquishing political power (De Mello & Barenstein, 2001). When this geographical distribution