|
Between States and local Governments By Muktar Garba Maigamo
Local governments were of late been opinionated to be scraped due to what the proposers considered incessant sheer wastages of the entity’s resources, mainly statutory. This galvanized sensitive conscience of ALGON and NULGE to opposed the motion in its entirety.
I wish to join them by saying that local government system has been established and has operated under the ambit of Nigerian constitution. That is to say it has become issue of constitutional importance within the Nigerian context. Also local governments are no more of administrative law but of constitutional law.
The enormous importance of local governments today, by their mandatory functions and by their historical survival have outgrown that of states government who only proves to be mumbo jumbo. The existence of state government in the country have unfortunately thwarted the efforts of the Federal government to fully decongest and decentralizes its functions which in principles and practice will bring home to the masses the necessities of live which is the philosophy of every government whether legitimate or illegitimate.
The presence of State government as a 2nd tier has preposterously emaciated the potentialities of local governments. To say that local governments are more important, that the state, as far as service delivery is concern is to mention the obvious. This can only be understood here, after delving into the brief anatomy of local governments. Local government in Nigeria were a old as the creation of Nigeria itself. Even universally all the higher levels of government happened to sprang from local governments (communities) but in the long run whittled the very power and primacy of the mother government i.e. local government. Alex-de-Toque Ville once put it succinctly that “man creates kingdoms and republic – federal, state, etc but townships – local governments seems to spring from God”. This is to show that local government existed prior to other government.
Before and after the amalgamation of Northern and Southern protectorate in 1914 by the then Sir Fredrick Lurgard, both the scattered regions had their own various innate systems of local administration peculiar to them. Each of the regions were knit together by their common belief and origin, so the local administration. But what yield the bulk of our concern here is the poser – why Local Government? And why State Government? To the first, there are surfeit of evidences. The Fourth schedule of 1999 constitution encompasses and enshrined there in, the raison deter of Local Governments. But much far beyond that the rationale for the existence of Local Government drapes on needs to implement the ideals, objectives, programmes and aspirations of the Federal Government at the localities denizens of the poor who constitutes more than 70%. And whilst citizens ought to have been the centre-stage of which good and services must be affordably at their doorsteps even though it is nominal. Local Governments by definition and by their set natural onus responsibilities exist to bridge the gap, which the Federal or Central Government couldn’t fills due to its remoteness.
Local Governments are telescope that draws the Federal/Central Government closer to the grasp of the local men and women there by making their impacts felt in every nooks and corners of the community. That notwithstanding Local Government serves as a lens through which a common man view Federal Government, and a vehicle that transport the yearnings and aspirations of the people.
If these are fully undertaken then no doubt the state becomes needless.
Local Governments provides opportunities for greater democratic participation both in government and the locality. The central argument here posited by Lady Hicks is that “Local Government is a school in which democratic habit are acquired and practice and infrastructures of democracy laid down”. Not only that it gives the citizens the opportunity to have participation in the government of the area there by enhancing their interest and local patriotism. John S. Mill too saw the principal value of Local Governments as raising the political capacity of the people when he affirmed ”Local Government is a political school and a unique setting for fraternity”. In this case Local Government inarguably tends to strengthen the democratic institutions and also serves as a training ground for the politicians.
All these responsibilities shouldered by the Local Governments are too sensitive and delicate to be left in the hand of the State Government. That is, if Local Governments give way as proposed. The issue I thought would be crucial as far as Local Governments are concern is the issue of increasing autonomy and capacities to the Local Government which if realized will definitely makes them to do more of their mandatory and concurrent functionalities with absolute liberty.
But as ironical as it is, that very constitution which built fort for the local governments and serves as their bulwark by virtue of section 7 sub section 1, but unfortunately circumscribes their power again by putting them at the mercy of the tyranny of the state. State governors willfully use that portion as an excuse to squander the local government’s meager finances and trample on any chairman who dares raises his eyes brow.
For the umpteen times the state governors were found to put the chairmen under their palms. They make the local governments to be their territories were they perform their politics of self-aggrandizement, firing and bullying the chairmen as they wish. This undue control incapacitates the local governments because they don’t have the plan of their own and their estimates more often than not suffers from extra budgetary expenses which is normally imposed by the governor of the state.
Nevertheless, that Evil called joint account that which put local governments under the auspice of the states has further weakening their capacities to perform their functions effectively. No body cares to talk about it.
I strived very hard to justify the rationale of state as compare to local government by administering a set of open-ended questionnaires in our local community. But to them they see state as only duplication of power and functions of both federal and local levels. When asked between the governor and the chairman, to them their chairman is their governor why? “Because chairman’s office is always open from dawn till dusk, also the state government house is much far-flung” With this open door policy the community people feels the presence of government and indisputably this creates a sense of belonging and oneness. And since local people have direct access to their chairman, sectary etc, there would be a flow of information which will help in the systematic determination of peoples’ differential development needs and preferences at the level of demand and the impacts of these development policies at the level of supply. Also an avenue would be surely created in which feed back mechanisms, both top down and bottom up could be institutionalized. The process will leads too, to the accountability, while this accountability will in the long run address the issue of transparency by making the data available and reporting on the performance. Its only then can the community needs would be known and assessed. And without this proximity it will be difficult to realize all these needs.
But on the other hand It is often rhetorical seeking the opinion of a local man between the state and local government which he/she prefer most of which the answer is patently obvious. Definitely they only knows local government because its it that they can only go at any point in time. This social distance will be understandable when looking at the heavy security tight fixed in the governor and commissioners residence. Which is only accessible to winning party executives, lobbyist, opportunist, marauders etc. In a politically developed countries most of the political office holders whether governor or any other used to banter with the poor in their slump areas and their offices is always open for every one.
The issue I thought that ought to be the center piece when comes constitutional amendments is the issue of increasing capacities for local government to carry out its fiscal responsibilities more judiciously. Since yester years local governments were handicapped in addressing development issues at basic level due to the lack of well-grounded manpower to do so. In other to improve the capacities of local governments there is a need to holistically take into cognizance the much-entrenched problems of decentralization. This can be done by giving local governments power to perform their functions effectively. One of the reasons why local government are becoming weak and outmoded is because they were politically throttle and stranglehold by the states to the extent that they cannot articulate a strategic plan of their own. All their policies were determined from else were.
In advance countries for instance America and Britain the higher governments repose a lot of confidence on local governments by devolving on them gigantic projects to undertake. In America for example (though local governments were within the province of states), but they takes cares of police, fire service, public works, libraries, airports harbors, housing etc. these are huge and strategic areas that requires the services of technical expertise. And couple with the fact that local governments were financially autonomous, nothing like trespass from their higher governments as it is the case with our own local governments. This makes them to be buoyant and discharge their statutory functions with zeal.
How ever, another bedeviling problems of local governments that are of great concern is the ineptitude of the staff in the local governments most especially Northern local governments. Most of the staff has low and poor qualifications, ranging from Ordinary to advance diplomas. There are no engineers, surveyors and medical personnel who can help in manning the local governments. These qualities we are talking about can be improved through employing the right new brains with all necessary incentives. Also local government needs to be less beucratic in their dealings. The unfortunate osmotic relations between local governments and other levels of government have had ossified the local governments to be bureaucratic. While they are too close to the people who will always put pressure on them to yield to their demands.
Another niggling issue of great importance that is worth telling here is some sections in the Nigerian constitution that partially subject local governments under the yoke of states control particularly section 162 sub section 6 which contracted there in; an unholy marriage and at the same time ensnare the local government’s efforts, called “State joint local government account” calls for extirpation. Also sub section 5 of that section 162 which says “the amount standing to the credit of local government councils in the federation account shall also be allocated to the states for the benefits of their local government councils on such terms…” ought to be repealed since the state government uses that avenue to siphoned such bursaries meant for local governments.
Nevertheless, that last statement in the section 7 sub section 1 thus “…the governments of every states shall, subject to section 8 of this constitution, ensure their existence under Law which provides for the establishment, structures, composition, finance and functions of such council” have to be expunged for a better healthy polity. All these will, too become chimerical if the people at the local level people refuse to do away with their most stiff value system that which regards the public office as the quickest and only means of getting wealth.
One will hope that the issue of accountability would be at the forefront during the constitutional amendments.
Muktar Garba Maigamo can be reach
At the department of local government & development
Studies, Ahmadu Bello University Zaria.
|