NOT surprisingly, the crisis engendered by the sudden increase in the price of fuel has metamorphosed into the larger question of the cost of governance in the country. Underlining the urgent question is the grossly disproportionate amount government expends regularly on its officials and in keeping the ship of state moving. Nigerians are unanimous during their protest against government's removal of petrol subsidy that the huge amount is wasteful and unsustainable if the country is to truly forge ahead as a developing nation. Moreover, the bloated expenditure can be more gainfully harnessed either as subsidy or for building infrastructure.The 'cost of governance' encapsulates the huge financial, moral, even reputational cost to Nigeria as a country, and Nigerians as a people, of maintaining elected office holders, appointed officials, and career officials in the three tiers of government in an executive presidential system. What is the cost-to-benefit value of Nigeria's adoption of so expensive a system that may be affordable for a rich United States but not for a poor Nigeria' The view is shared in many quarters that a parliamentary system, such as obtains in the United Kingdom would be cheaper; and would, by its operational form, stabilise a pluralistic Nigeria.However, three points are not in doubt. One, the totality of government 'executive, legislature, judiciary, and the civil service ' unjustly appropriates for itself an unfair share of our commonwealth. Take the 2012 national budget in which sums allocated to fund the needs (and wants) of 'government people' can only be described as obscene in a society where the majority lives below poverty level. At the federal level, how can a government, ostensibly of the people and for the people, assign to feed a handful of its apex elected officials with about N1 million per meal' At the state level, why, according to press reports, would Benue State legislators walk out on the state governor at a 2012 budget retreat because he declined to give them Sports Utility Vehicles (SUVs) as their New Year gift' The expected gift is a traditional gesture of governance in the state, paid for, no doubt, from the public coffer. But the money, put together, could otherwise be made to improve the state of public schools and the cottage clinics; build feeder roads through which farm produce may be more quickly transported to the market, and generally improve the quality of life of the very people on whose mandate the legislators ' and the governor ' hold their jobs, and in trust too.In 2010, the Federal Government's overhead budget was N536.2 billion in a national budget of less than N4 trillion. And, the National Assembly's budgeted share was N136.2 billion or about 25 per cent of the federal allocation. Consequently, working in government has become the most lucrative occupation in Nigeria. The legitimate remunerations - basic, allowances and non-monetary perks are mind-boggling.Many factors are responsible for this situation. One is that government officials wield powers (often in brazen violation of the principle and meaning of public office, of trust and of decency) to allocate resources and dispense favours, be they contracts or jobs. Therefore, it is easy for them, particularly those lacking in self-control to 'hoe the ground toward the self'. They end up repeatedly expressing their concern for the sorry plight of the people, but do nothing to alleviate it.Three, personal character is at the heart of whether a system of government is run responsibly or recklessly. To stay within the bounds of fair and just remuneration sensitive to prevailing socio-economic conditions is a mark of integrity, which is in serious deficit in our governments.The burden of intolerably high cost of its officials is therefore one avoidable albatross around the neck of Nigerians and which keeps them in poverty. The output value of governance is far below the value of resources it takes. How can anyone justify that Nigeria runs a presidential government far costlier than that of most other countries' Our political office holders receive more total remunerations than their counterparts in America partly because political office is considered job for the boys and to partake in a 'national cake'; and there are far more aides to constitutionally recognised positions than can possibly justify efficient and result-oriented governance. These need not be so.If, as government argues, the economy cannot sustain the so-called subsidy of fuel prices, the economy certainly cannot sustain the current cost of governance. Benjamin Franklin wrote in 1782 of America, that 'Of civil offices, or employments, there are few; no superfluous ones... and it is a rule established in some of the states, that no office should be so profitable as to make it desirable'. In any case, no government functions in so opaque manner without running its country aground.The number of political appointees of all categories should be sharply reduced. This country can do with far less officials than are now in government. Two, a reduction of a mere 25 per cent from the basic salaries of political office holders does not go far enough. Allowances should be cut by a specific percentage that would prove that government, in truth, shares the pains of the citizens and desires to make commensurate sacrifices. These measures should be implemented immediately as a signal of government's responsiveness to the feelings of the governed. Three, in the long term, a system to comprehensively reduce the cost of governance should be put in place, beginning now. The Justice Belgore Reforms Committee should consider this as a crucial part of its assignment.Governance must reflect in words and in deeds, a nation in a hurry to develop and to play in the big league. This should begin with the personal integrity of its leaders and anchored upon the transparency, commitment, efficiency and effectiveness of government. Officials should change the current trend of running government business, and return governance to a path of transparency, honour and the service of the common good. If the immediate price they pay for this is loss of pecuniary benefits, so be it. The country surely will be the better for it.
Click here to read full news..
