State Creation & Institutional Inefficiency in Nigeria

By

Gideon Nyan

shebanyan@gmail.com

A critical factor in the failure of the modern African state has been the inability of nations to analyze institutional forms (cultural, political, and economic) by locating contradictions in the rules and systems necessary to the production of those forms.  These states operate systems and institutions that exist as a byproduct of colonial rule that was designed to create rivalries and distrust among groups, thus promoting allegiance to the Europeans and resource exploitation.

Nigeria, like most African countries has not addressed these social forms and implemented a collective strategy that will identify and eradicate these contradictions and failed policies to benefit the country.  Instead, Nigeria still suffers from fundamental nation building issues such as wealth and resource distribution, poor infrastructure, ethnic and religious conflict, and a failing parastals.  How does a country like Nigeria with some of the most educated citizens on the continent and in the world handle these institutional inefficiencies? By creating more states?

For our case study we are going to examine one of the states being discussed as a potential candidate for division, Kaduna State. Kaduna was the former capital of the northern Nigeria and became a state in 1976.  Eleven years later, the state was further divided into two sections based on the two colonial period provinces of Zaria and Katsina.  Today, the tribes south of Zaria who form a majority want autonomy from the state to create their own.  These tribes whom are organized under the Southern Kaduna Peoples Union (SOKAPU) are asking for a new state based on ethnic, religious, economic, and political marginalization.  They feel that in order to be sustainable and have a voice in society, they have to be by them selves because the larger group dominates and oppresses them, therefore he who musters the influence to be granted a state will rise from destituteness to exuberant wealth and prestige.  This premise diminishes democracy and speaks more to the understated point that we do not treat each other as equals in Africa and that lack of equality has created distrust and deep hatred among groups, making it difficult to create a modern state that is multi-ethnic, multi-religious, and inclusive.

Historic Perspective

When the Europeans came to northern Nigeria, they met an effective Emirate system that collected taxes and ran an organized administrative system. More importantly unlike other areas in Africa like Senegal, Guinea, South Africa, Ethiopia and Sudan there was no military challenge to the British invasion in northern Nigeria.  So the British installed an indirect rule that strengthened the Emirate system by putting the force of the colonial army behind the emirate, in other to benefit by collecting a percentage of the taxes.  When the missionaries arrived later in northern Nigeria, they were sent to areas that the emirate had no control over because those tribes defeated the Jihad and remained animalist or pagans. The missionaries stressed Christianity and education and that is where non-Muslim northerners have excelled as a people. Since the British did not concern themselves with equal distribution of power or appointing administrators based on merit, political appointments were left to the Emirs.

Northern Nigeria still operates under the same Emirate system today.  This may have been unnoticeable in the nineteenth century but unfortunately after independence, political administrators were appointed based on religious affiliation to administer institutions that they were not equipped to run, while their college educated Christian colleagues served beneath them. Inherently the systems failed, and continues to fail due to incompetence and a lack of understanding of the importance of policy governing the institutions and the people governing them.

Present Day

Due to a long history of poor administrators and the politics of “divide and rule”, most of the development within the state has occurred in the predominantly Islamic areas.  The southern Zaria people who are the predominate indigenes of the state live in communities with little to no electricity, public water, advanced secondary school systems, economic development, or infrastructure.  While Zaria and Kaduna towns enjoy these amenities, the southern Zaria man is left to feel that the preoccupation with religion as an instrument of resource distribution is state policy.

In the age of globalization, the Kaduna State Government has not realized that their biggest competition is not the Christians in the state, Lagos State, or even Kano State.  They are competing with New York, Texas, London, Beijing, and other major states in the world.  Kaduna and other states will not be able to move forward until there is a critical examination of the existing institutional framework and policies governing the state. Also, necessary adjustments need to be made in other to be inclusive and be competitive in a global world. In Africa if you question the status quo, you are seen as a trouble maker and someone going against culture and tradition. The question we need to ask ourselves is that is our culture and tradition static or dynamic?

New State

State creation does not solve the fundamental issue of institutional inefficiencies.  What we see with new states is that a new crop of elite rise and exploit whatever divisive issue that they can to maintain power.  This is self evident by the different committees and groups currently fighting for the control in order to be recognized as the official group to represent the new state creation.  This struggle is not ideological or axiological based, however whoever gains control of the new state controls the money while he who controls the money he can embezzle and live ostentatiously, while their subjects live in abject poverty.  Also, in a new state there will be a new majority and a new minority, therefore subsequently, someone else will feel marginalized and want his/her own state.

In my opinion, the SOKAPU leadership needs to take two strategic approaches to strengthening the current institutions within Kaduna State in order to better serve them. 

One, the leadership needs to generate a strategic development plan that will be included within the existing state budget for education, health, and infrastructure.  If there is a clear plan to improve a particular region and the state government ignores it, then the next action will be to politicize the issue. 

Secondly, there needs to be a focus to increasing the number of polling stations to match the population in southern Zaria and the necessary resources to support those stations. Fair access to voting stations will lead to fair political representation and access to state resources.

If the current SOKAPU leadership refocuses from a divisive effort of creating a new state to a united effort of rural and economic development, then their goals can be achieved faster and easier through the current institutions in Kaduna State.  But if the state and country choose to deal with institutional inefficiencies by creating new states, then Nigeria will resort to creating more states to represent every disenfranchised tribe, village, local government, religious group, and organization in the country.