It is to Chief Obafemi Awolowo that the popular use of the concept is credited. Perhaps he may be the originator of the concept.In a speech during his allocutus delivered when Justice Sowemimo declared him guilty on charges of treasonable felony in 1963, Awolowo described himself as 'the most unyielding advocate of a federal constitution for Nigeria, and called for 'the breaking up of the north into more states, in order to have true federalism in Nigeria, and to preclude the permanent subservience of the people of Nigeria to the aristocratic ruling caste of the North'. Perhaps Awolowo's concern was the unbalanced character of the federal structure in which one segment was larger than the rest of the country combined. Not a few political scientists have declared that structure unsustainable.Today, some of those who advocate 'true federalism' point to the First Republic as an example of 'true federalism'. They point to the fiscal arrangement in that republic as if it was ideal. Yet a look at the political and economic history of the period points to severe contestation of the fiscal arrangement in which politicians changed their positions on the issues according to how their regions were favoured. Those who glorify the first republic overlook the unbalanced federal structure, chicanery of politicians, political tensions, violence and lawlessness that provided the alibi for the coup of January 15, 1966.Some advocates of 'true federalism' point to the United States (US) as portraying what a 'true federal system' is. They fail to realise that the federal system in the US has changed over time. A cursory review of the history of federalism in the US shows clearly that it has developed in several phases. Nicholas Henry recorded seven phases up till the 1990s. The Americans describe these phases with various names to show the peculiarities of the period. They talk about Layer Cake federalism (1890-1930), Marble Cake federalism (1930-1960), Water Tap federalism (1940-1970), Federalism in Flower (1950-1970), Picket Fence federalism (1960-1980), Fend For Yourself federalism (1980-1990s). These phases not only overlap, they reflect the changes made on the operation of federalism to deal with identified challenges of the American State. By 1950, the Americans were so dissatisfied with the workings of their federal system, especially as regards relations between the states and the federal government, and relations among the states that President Dwight D. Eisenhower decided to sort things out. He set up the US Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (UACIR) in 1959 to study the situation and help out. In 1972, under Richard Nixon, a general revenue sharing arrangement was introduced in the US. Subsequent presidents have attempted series of adjustments, some successful, others less so. These moves were helped by the thoughtful analyses of federalism provided by the UACIR. The UACIR was eventually dissolved by Congress in 1996, just as the revenue sharing arrangement among the various governments was abolished. Currently, many state governments are in court over the constitutionality of Obama's Medicaid policy, another dimension of the process of federal adjustment. Those who point to the US for 'true federalism' would have to tell us which phase in the development of federalism in the US is 'true federalism'.In some segments of the country, 'true federalism' means state control of natural resources. In this context, each state is entitled to revenue derived from natural resources in its territory and pays only a small percentage to the federal government. Indeed, those who advocate this view of 'true federalism' claim that no other federal system in the world centralises control of natural resources. At other times, they argue that such centralisation is responsible for corruption and misgovernance in Nigeria. There are many federations that centralise resources and adopt a revenue sharing arrangement that favours the federal government, some of them oil bearing countries. In Brazil, Russia, India, Australia and Malaysia, the central government controls more than 60 percent of revenue from natural resources. These have not made them less federal or less successful in economic development. In Malaysia, the central government controls over 90 percent of revenue from natural resources.Another group considers federalism to be 'true' when it responds to and is capable of satisfying or managing the demands made by political society. There is no particular model of federalism that will answer to all demands. This is because the demands are perpetually changing, because new challenges emerge, hence the need to constantly modify federalism to deal with them. Nigeria's federal system has witnessed several modifications that have addressed some of the issues that led to the Civil War in 1967 and annulment of the June 12, 1993 presidential election and its aftermath. There are still many more challenges to be addressed, hence, the efforts at constitutional amendment.What is obvious is that 'true federalism' means different things to different people. This is not the problem. The real problem with 'true federalism' is that the notion 'true' suggests that alternatives are false. Thus, the phrase 'true' federalism is unhelpful for a robust discourse that is required to effectively and meaningfully adjust our federal system. In fact, it forecloses the negotiation and compromise that should underline the process of federal adjustment and modification. The notion of 'true federalism' is a vestige of the mind-set of military dictatorship. It reminds one of the statements by former Military President Ibrahim Babangida that 'federalism is not negotiable'. We need to move away from talking about 'true federalism' to identifying key issues that confront the country today and identify appropriate modifications that need to be made in the workings of our federal system to deal with them. The phrase 'true federalism' obscures these challenges and how they relate to the workings of federalism in Nigeria. It gives the impression that these problems relating to the federal system can be addressed once and for all.In general, there are several models of federalism across the world that Nigeria can learn from. There is also a lot to learn from our own history and experiences if we have the will to do so. Political Scientists talk about competitive federalism, laboratory or experimental federalism, market preserving federalism and several other models. We need to review the distribution of expenditure powers and revenue sources among the three tiers of government in the light of goals and objectives of the Nigerian State. It is the ways and means of achieving these goals and objectives given historical, social and economic conditions that should inform the adjustment that is made in our federal system. The notion of 'true federalism' is simply nonsensical.
Click here to read full news..
