Federal Character Principle and National Integration
CHAPTER TWO
CONCEPTUAL REVIEW
THE FEDERAL CHARACTER PRINCIPLE
The federal character principle is arguably seen as the best solution to solving some of the defects and fundamental problems of Nigerian lopsided federal system (Ammani 2014). The basis of the Nigerian federalism few years after independent was shaken and this culminated into the civil war from 1966-1970. Some of these problems were neither realized nor envisage by some of the nationalist before independence. Osifeso (2011) rightly observed that the political boundaries inherited at the independence did not cut across tribal lines. This explains the political behaviors in the first republic. The ethnic groups were divided along history, customs, beliefs, religious, languages or tribal lines affinity.
Subsequently, party politics becomes increasingly polarize along ethnic and tribal lines while the political elites represented and defended their ethnic and tribal groups rather than national unity, thereby encouraged ethnic accentuations which instigated the first military coup and counter-coup in the country as well as the Biafran civil war (Chukwuma, 2014).
As noted earlier, these problems of national integration or unity and stability have been created at amalgamation in 1914. One cannot gainsay that fact that successive administrations made several efforts to promote national integration and stability. Anyone conversant with Nigerian politics cannot be oblivious of this fact. For instance, Alhaji Abubakar Tafawa Balewa formed an inclusive national government comprised of the three dominant political parties (which represented and defended the ethnic groups); He also introduced the Quota System which has been used by successive governments for admission of students into government schools, recruitment of military personnel and public (civil) service among others. Even the Major General Aguyi Iron’s regime claimed that the introduction of Unitary System was meant to promote national integration and stability, by dismantling regionalism that accentuates tribalism. General Yakubu Gowon’s regime later restored the federal system and further expanded the structure from four regions to twelve States. This, according to Gowon, was meant to protect the right of minorities in the event of a civil war, and invariably give the minority a sense of belonging in the national arrangement. General Murtala Mohammed further increased the number of states to nineteen in an attempt to find solution to these problems of disunity and agitations resulting from suspicions among the various ethnic groups (both majority & minority).This trends of state creation as a mechanism for resolving the problem of national integration and stability continued through the Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida’s and General Sani Abacha’s regimes, even till this momentwhere eighteen more states were recommended by the last National confab.
Beside state creation as a mechanism for maintaining unity in diversity, the Late General Murtala Mohammed muted the idea of introducing the Federal Character in his address to the opening session of the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) on Saturday the 18th of October 1975 (Ammani, 2014, Okolo, 2014).
The paper adopts the definition of Federal character, according to the CDC’s report of the 1977, as a working definition. Federal Character refers to the distinctive desire of the peoples of Nigeria to promote national unity, foster national loyalty and give every citizen of Nigeria a sense of belonging to the nation notwithstanding the diversities of ethnic origin, culture, language or religion which may exist and which it is their desire to nourish, harness to the enrichment of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (cited in Ammani, 2014).
That was an effort to re-address the unbalanced structure and ethnic domination in government in order to achieve national integration (Osman, 2004). The principle arouse out of theneed to reduce ethnic conflict arising out of competition forpolitical power, government appointments, citing of public industries and institutions, employmentinto public organizations etc. (Edigin, 2010). In fact, since its adoption in the 1979, the successive constitutions (1989 and 1999) have retained the federal character principle as part of their provisions. Recognizing its ‘necessity’, General Sani Abacha established the Federal Character Commission for the implementation of the policy in Nigeria.
Federal character was supposed to protect the right of the minority, accommodate the disadvantaged and ensures even distribution of resources among the various federating units as evident in Section 14 Subsection 3 of the 1979 Constitution:
the composition of the Government of the federation or any of its agencies and the conduct of its affairs shall be carried out in such a manner as to reflect the federal character of Nigeria and the need to promote national unity, and also to command national loyalty, thereby ensuring that there shall be no predominance of persons from a few states or form a few ethnics or other sectional group in that government or any of its agencies.
The above provision of the constitution is one of the most controversial provisions, which has generated a lot of controversies and most celebrated issue in Nigeria administrative and political discourse, while its enthusiasts like Edigin, Osaghae, Ammani, etc believe that federal character has helped in consolidating national stability by reducing ethnic competition for political position and ethnic politics and makes it difficult for an ethnic bigot to take over power and subdue other ethnic groups and that the principle is not only desirable but also inevitable in a severely-divided society as Nigeria (Osaghae 1989).
Ammani (2009) enthusiastically sum up the merits of federal character in Nigeria, in Chukwuma (2014) that, the principle provide an equitable formula for the distribution of socio-economic service and infrastructural facilities; provides modalities for redressing imbalances; ensures equitable admission into federal universities; ensures that no one section of the society unduly dominates the elective or appointive positions; provides equal access into Armed Force, the police, etc. protect the interest of minority ethnic groups, ensures even spread in the recruitment into federal civil service among civil servants, has ensured the corporate existence of Nigeria and has douse the centripetal agitations (civil wars).
The Challenges of Application of Federal Character Principle in Nigeria
So far, the application of the principle shows that it is not capable of resolving the problem of national suspicion among the ethnic groups. It has failed in its objective of redressing the imbalanced in the structure and ethnic domination in government and other public institutions so that national integration could be achieved. It has so far failed to prevent Sinter-ethnic conflicts and centripetal agitations in Nigeria, For instance, beside the Boko Haram group who want to carve a Caliphate in the North-East, there is Arewa Consultative Forum,for the Hausa/Fulani and others in the North; from the South-South, there are “Ex-Agitators/militants and the Ijaw Youth Council (IYC); from the West, the Afenifere and Oduduwa People Congress (OPC) speak for the Yorubas, as the Ohanaeze-Ndigbo represents Igbo’s interest. Also, Movement for the Actualisation of Sovereign State Of Biafra (MASSOB), an Igbo ‘radical’ group recently went on air through “Radio Biafra” in pursuant of the ‘Actualisation’ in their name.
Those who are against the application of this affirmative action not oblivious of the fact that federal character is a “fine idea in principle, but the practice is tricky…” they are aware of the fact that for national integration to be achieved and sustained there must be policies or “some sort of ethnic arithmetic must be ensured in Nigeria’s national representative institutions. But they are opposed to a remedy worse than the disease” (Osifeso, 2011). Federal character was supposed to benefit the “underprivileged” but as Ojo 2009) opined, it was designed for the benefit of the ruling class in the Nigerian context, resulting in the further disempowerment of powerless. Hence, it made nonsense of the checks and balances embedded in the original arrangement resulting in geometric diffusion of mediocrity, public service ineptitude, and manifest decline in public morale (Suberu 2001 in Osifeso 2011).
Echoing the defect in this policy, Osifeso (2011) argued that the principle is “engendering federal instability rather than integration that it was intended to serve. Thus, the policy has merely promoted ethnic and sectional consciousness. He argues further that “no unity can result where the application of the principle discriminates against one group and favours another… the principle is even predicated on false premise. Its objective is to achieve distributive justice, the equality of states”. This according to Ojo (2009) amounts to injustice because it is not feasible. “States are not equal in population and they are far from being equal too in the size of the pool of eligible candidates for appointments. There is no greater inequality than the equal treatment of unequal” (Ojo in Osifeso 2011).
Another factor that militates against the effectiveness was fear of domination arising from competition for political power at the center and control of administrative system leading to the institutionalism of federal character principle with the intention of ensuring fairness in public service and addressing ethnic domination. But its application has appeared to be incapable of resolving the problem it was meant to solve. Its opponents argue that the federal character principle sacrifices merit for mediocrity. It also emphasizes on the factors that disunite us (Nigerians). Such factors like language, religious and ethnic affiliation have been the factors that disunite the people over the years.
Many Nigerian experts and analysts are kicking against the application of federal character principles especially now that Nigerians (both the leaders and the led) are determined to change by shifting the paradigm from the business as usual which has crippled the naturally endowed nation’s efforts to develop. For instance, the vice president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Professor Yemi Osinbajo has advised that merit should be given paramount consideration as a criterion in the appointment of persons into public offices instead of federal character. He asserts that in the selection of players for Nigeria’s national football team, Nigerians expect the best to be chosen by the team manager or the coach in order to get the desired results…At that instance, nobody considers where a player or players come from. All they expect of the coach are players who merit places in the team and can get results”. Speaking further, the Vice President said “I don’t take my health for granted. So when going for a medical doctor, I go for the best not considering which part of the country the doctor comes from…if we take government seriously, we must as Nigerians look for merit before federal character” ( Thisdaylive, 2015)
In the same vein, a current Nigerian senator, Ben Murray Bruce has said the application of federal character and the quota system in the country has impeded national development. According to Senator Bruce,
Nigeria must make progress though tribe and tongue may differ. The only way to do this is by saying goodbye to ethnicity and hello to merit…consider the progress that Nigeria made before the quota system (1960-66) and the retrogression we have made since 1960 till date. The difference is clear. Federal character cannot make an electrical power station work, it can’t make refinery work. Only merit can ensure this. As a result of federal character ….. Nigeria Airways went from 30 aircraft to bankruptcy and a debt of over $60m by the year 2000. Quota system and federal character lead to a sense of entitlement in beneficiaries and resentment in others. Merit is a better way of life (Eniola, 2015).
There seems to be wide consensus among social scientists that federalism provides a linkage of peoples and institutions based on mutual consents, without the sacrifice of their individual identities such as tongue and tribe as well as their religion. No wonder, federalism is considered to be the most appropriate framework for governing a pluralistic state like Nigeria. According to Mar and Heraud in Osifeso, (2011) "federalism and ethnicity form a solidarity couple". This view agrees with Duchacek (1973) who posits that the aim of a federal constitution "is an institutionalized balance between national unity and sub-national diversity." It could be safe to deduce here that true federalism is a cure for problem dissension, disintegration and friction arising in a multi-ethnic state like Nigeria. Federalism is reputed to be an effective political and constitutional design for managing governmental problems usually associated with ethnic and cultural diversity (Chukwuma, 2014). Hence, if considered from merit and result oriented perspectives, it is obvious that the federal character principle is counter-productive, in fact a dilution.
The dilution here is that, the principle of federal character which is suppose to stimulate the ideals and aims of federalism in a pluralistic nigerian society has failed because both the Nigeria’s federal system and federal character principle in Nigeria have not being able to “encourage genuine power, they have sparked dangerous rivalries between the centre and the constituent parts. The fall-out from this has been sporadic violence, ethnic strife, inter-communal tension and no holds-barred struggles between the various rival interest groups jockeying for the nation's power and purse” (Osifeso, 2011). Therefore, the two political ideal which are suppose to be complimentary in terms of ensuring equality, unity and national cohesion and integration are in diffusion.
Federalism
The concept of federalism has been severally defined by many scholars from different perspectives. The term is used to describe a system in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (such as states or provinces). It is a system based upon democratic rules and institutions in which the power to govern is shared between national and provincial/state governments, creating what is often called a federation (wikipedia.org/wiki/federalism). Federalism is a principle of government that defines the relationship between the central government and the regional (state) or local levels. Under this principle of government, power and authority is allocated between the national and local government units, such that each unit is delegated a sphere of power and authority only it can exercise, while other powers must be shared.
Similarly, Chukwuma (2014) defines the term as “a system in which two levels of government - federal and regional (or state) exist side by side, with each possessing certain assigned powers and functions”. The most widely acceptable definition of federalism was given by K.C. Wheare, who described federalism or federal principle as “the method of dividing powers so that the general and regional governments are each within a sphere coordinated and independent” (Monahan, 1997:p.1).
From the definitions given above, there are some basic features that distinguish a true federal system from other political system, namely:
There should be at least two levels of government as well as the division of power and authority between the two [i.e. federal (central) and regional (state) governments]; Each of the level of government is coordinated and independent; Both the federal and state government derives their powers from the constitution which is not only written but also rigid; The supremacy of the constitution. Also, in amending the constitution, no any level of government should have undue advantages over the other; Existence of bicameral legislature; Existence of independent judicial institutions to interpret the constitution to justly and fairly settle disputes, among other functions. There must also be duplication of organs of government at both levels (see Monahan, 1977, Anyaele, 2003, Chukwuma 2014).
If Wheare’s definition is anything to go by and some indices of true federalism outlined above are sacrosanct, it is arguable therefore that, that Nigerian brand of federalism is still far from the ideal. Hence, Mato (2010) and Chukwuma (2014) both agreed that current trend of Nigeria federalism is an aberration from the kind of federalism inherited from the British colonialists. According to Mato (2010), the
Nigeria of 1960 was a better federal arrangement than it is now. In 1960, there were three regions that exercised some measure of authority within the federation. The regions had some liberty and politics was thus both regional and national. The capacity of the federating units was high as a lot of aspirations of both the citizen and even member of the political class were at regional level without insisting on getting the attention of the center. Each region was governed independently without undue interferences from central government at the top. This propelled socio-economic development then as the regions mobilized their available human and material resources for their developmental objectives.
This as well was made possible because each region has a relative autonomy to control its revenue. However, the pattern of politics played then as well as the issue of citizenship was shaped by many factors. Prevalent among them were religion and ethnic identity. These two factors (ethnicity and religion) have been the basis for making political demands and seeking political power. Hence, “political parties, voting in elections, appointment to government positions, admissions into government educational institutions, distribution of state resources, creation of more states and local government areas and so on, have been influenced and compromised by ethnic and religious identity” (Osaghae, 2002, p.78).
In a true federal system, development is evenly distributed and not concentrated at one level (the center) because the strength for states’ survival is guaranteed. More so, true federalism is a mechanism apt for multi-ethnic nation. Supporting this view, Duchacek (1973) posit that the objective of federal constitution is intitutionalising balance between national unity and subnational diversity. This implies that federalism ensures that people are united irrespective of their religious and ethnic inclinations. In a true federalism, the electoral process must be free and fair, no god-fatherism or politics of patronage, political appointments must be purely based on merit, promotion in the civil service are done purely on performance and merit; there must be judicial autonomy, freedom for the press, a clearly spelt out separation of power among the executive, legislature and the judiciary, the different tires of government must have their fair share in revenue generation, allocation and resource control (Chukwuma, 2014).
The federating units or regions were allowed free access to decision making and inputs in the polity of the nation. Nigerian federalism is declining on the altar of ethnicity or tribalism and religious affinity. The Nigeria political elites, the traditional heirs of our societies, show no inclination to fostering national integration, and national identity in the country (Osifeso 2011), they are always in “the business of elevating their ethnic group over and above the national interest” (Chukwuma, 2014 ), and they exploited these factors in their bid to capture power at the federal level. As a result, “the mobility of power dynamics, ability to adjust was deliberately frozen in the interest of power elites…, the competitive struggle was manipulated by these political elites without permitting the shearing of political power by all the social political forces of the society…the North, for instance, was hell bent on retaining political control of the center as this, in their permutation, was the only way of counter balancing southern monopoly of bureaucratic and economic power in the country” (Osifeso 2011,p.35). All these plunged Nigeria into crises of national integration, hence the adoption of some mechanism for managing these crises. Such mechanisms include the quota system or federal character principle, etc. The problem is that despite the adoption of the federal character principles since 1979, achieving national integration has been very difficult. Meritocracy and equality which are fundamental ideals of federalism have eluded the country. The reoccurrences of ethno-religious crisis, group insurgences in various parts of the country indicates the failure of the system.
THE CONCEPT OF NATIONAL INTEGRATION
Integration is the process of unifying a society which tends to make it a harmonious city, based upon an order its members regard as equitably harmonious. From this presupposition, the success of integration depends on the perception by the federating units of how equitably cordial the binding order is, at least, in terms of harmonious federalstate relations and interethnic relations (Ojo, 2002). Akinbade (2004) views integration as the process of maintaining the territorial integrity of a state. What this means is that, in a deeply divided society with ‘babel’ of voices like Nigeria, integration becomes a necessary task that must be implemented for the purpose of securing stability and adaptability within the state.
National integration is a multifaceted and multidimensional concept. This thinking according to Fatile and Adejuwon (2012) arises from the plurality that seems to attend attempts at conceptual explication of the term. From the conception of national integration, two things stand out. The first has to do with the geographical or territorial mass of a country. In the light of this thinking, national integration could be achieved if the different parts that make a country are lumped together as a monolithic whole. This implies the unification of different parts of a state which will serve as a forum co-operation and interdependence. The second perspective sees national integration as a process together the various interest groups in a territorial entity to the pursuit of common goals or objectives (Okafor and Okeke, 2008; Iwokwagh, 2008). This second perspective is more relevant to this study.
National integration was firstly used to refer to specific problem of creating a sense of territorial nationality which eliminates subordinate parochial loyalties. In this sense, it is generally presumed that there exists an ethnically plural society in which each group is characterized by its own language or other self-conscious cultural qualities. This integration is used to refer to the tensions and discontinuities on the horizontal plane in the process of creating a homogeneous progressive reduction of cultural and regional territorial political community (Bamiseye, 2003).
National integration can also be seen as the process whereby several desperate groups within a given territorial are united together or cooperate under conditions which do not appear to permit satisfaction of their system needs in any other way (Fatile and Adejuwon,
2012). According to Elaigwu (1987), national integration is determined by the degree to which members and groups in a plural society adapt to the demands of national existence while co-existing harmoniously. On the practical note, national integration is a process, not an end in itself and it is usually affected by contending social forces.
National integration is a process leading to political cohesion and sentiments of loyalty toward a central political authority and institutions by individuals belonging to different social groups or political units. National integration is a process whereby political actors in distinct national setting are persuaded to shift their loyalties, expectations and political activities towards a new centre, whose institution possess or demand jurisdiction over preexisting nation-state (Ogunojemite, 1987; Oyeleye, 1987). As noted by Mazrui (1972), the five major aspects of national integration includes; the fusion of norms and culture; the promotion of social interdependence; the narrowing of the gap between the elites and the masses, the urban and the rural areas, rich or poor etc; the resolution of emergent conflicts; and the sharing of mutual experiences so that people can discover that they had undergone some important experiences together.
For there to be national integration, Ibogje and Dode (2007) stated that there must be a central authority to serve as a common central authority to serve as a rallying point. In the quest for national integration, citizens are expected to respect the overriding supremacy of the national government. 'This entails subordination of institutions and cultural values to the demands of the central authority. Often, intra- and inter-ethnic crisis result in tasking the state's security apparatus. The ability of the state to resolve or regulate the recurring crises and to create an enabling environment where the people's respect and love for their nation is enhanced would definitely affect the tempo of the nation's integration positively. National integration, thus, covers a vast range of human relationships and attitudes, the integration of diverse and discrete cultural loyalties and the development of a sense of nationality; the integration of the rulers and the ruled and the integration of the citizens into a common political process. As diverse as these definitions are, they have a common link in that they all point to the fact that integration is what holds a society and a political system together.
FEDERALISM AND THE QUESTION OF INTEGRATION IN NIGERIA
Nigeria is one of the states that owe their existence to the imperialistic activities of Britain, which by virtue of a superior technology and economy subjugated people from diverse nationalities and organized them to construct Nigeria in 1914, with the amalgamation of the Northern and Southern protectorates. By the time Nigeria won her independence from Britain in 1960, its artificial origin, coupled with other factors, had bequeathed it a number of fundamental problems, one of which is the challenge of integrating, into a cohesive sociopolitical whole, the various entities and strange bed fellows that were lump together by the colonialists (Ayodeji, 1997).
The Nigerian federation has been enmeshed in contradictions, paradoxes, controversies and crises. These are subsumed in the national question, and social groups of varying ideological leanings cohere on the central issues. These are linked to national unity, local autonomy and self-determination, equitable distribution of revenue, rewards, opportunities and power. They also include the observation and implementation of fundamental human rights, among which are the rights of franchise and empowerment, and socio-economic rights to basic needs’ satisfaction, sustainable environment and life (Anifowose and Seteolu, 2004). The Nigerian federal principle has been struggling against the forces of social cohesion. The problem of ethnic minority has been receiving attention of scholars and practitioners of governance and development. This is because ethnic minority is usually sidelined and ignored by the majority in decision making and resources distribution. The consequence of such politics of exclusion has been agitation and demand for social inclusion, which at times by violent actions. Since society is a system of human cooperation, the question of how society can mainstream the minority groups in decision making on welfare matters requires adequate policy consideration (Akinola and Adesopo, 2011). One of the three factors that is important in understanding how a society functions, as identifies by Tocqueville (1966), is the peculiar and accidental situation, which providence places people.
It is no longer plausible to account for the rivalry and disunity among ethnic nationalities in Nigeria strictly in terms of cultural divergence or irrational loyalty to primordial groups. Although there might have existed some traditional differences and hostilities among some of these groups, these are not necessarily absolute or incompatible differences and need not generate the kind of rivalry witnessed in the colonial days and that, sadly, has remained in the relationship among these ethnic groups until today. At least, prior to the institution of the colonial regime, some of these ethnic nationalities engaged in productive relationships. Besides, many of them have claims of common ancestry and basic similarities in their cultures. For instance, the Yoruba and the Benin peoples trace their origins back to a common ancestry in the Oduduwa and Oranmiyan legends. Similarly, the Kisra myth traced the ruling dynasties of a good number of the tribes in the Middle-Belt region of Nigeria to the Eastern region.
In Nigeria, ethnic balancing has been pursued via different strategies: the creation of more states, the adoption a uniform system of local government in the country, the multiplication of local government units in the federation and finally the constitutionalization of a system of quotas for political appointments in the form of the federal character principle as well as the provision for revenue allocation. However, as the author just quoted pointed out in the work under reference, ethnic and regional balancing does not only aggravate the problems it was designed to resolve, it also subverts the very essence of federalism. While it is possible to accept the theoretical soundness of Nnoli’s position above on the grounds of scientific and objective analysis, the recommendation for the need to forego all attempts at regional balancing in Nigeria will be difficult to put into practice for the important reason that politics is not all objective and rational. There are also strong subjective, emotional and irrational forces that propel the political process (Ikeji, 2011).
The problem with national integration in Nigeria is that people are made to feel like strangers in their fatherland; whereas, chapter II paragraph 15(2) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria as amended states that:
Accordingly, national integration shall be actively encouraged, while discrimination on the grounds of place of origin, sex, religion, status, ethnic or linguistic association or ties shall be prohibited.
The problems of national integration in Nigeria stare us in the face all the time and no one can argue that we ignore them. But they are problems which require long term solutions and yet we deal with them on an ad hoc basis without a consistent or coherent policy or ideology (Ajayi, 1984).