IS FEDERALISM ABOUT ‘EAT WHAT YOU KILL?’

Federalism is not a Nigerian creation, tempting as one might be led to assume it is. Federalism is a concept in Political Science, with a consensus on what constitutes its grundnorm and what its main features are. I had thought, as a student of Political Science, that I had a modest understanding of what federalism is, having taken a number of courses wholly devoted to it at undergraduate and postgraduate levels. But that was until Nigerians happened on the concept of federalism and I realised how little I knew about it. I have now come to accept that what Nigerians cannot happen to does not exist. Nigerians took hold of federalism, created the aberrant idea of ‘true federalism’, as if there is ‘false federalism’ in practice somewhere, and there has been no rest ever since.

Yet, even though dissensus over definition of concepts is part and parcel of interrogation in the field of Political Science, there is, in fact, a broad consensus on the definition of Federalism. “What sets federal states apart from other national communities is not their values but a number of institutional design principles that include a division of legislative authority between two orders of government, each of which is elected directly by citizens, and each of which is sovereign in at least one legislative domain. This division of powers is set out in a written constitution that cannot be amended unilaterally by either order of government. In addition, federal states provide for the formal representation of their constituent communities (states or provinces) within the national legislature, although the means by which this is done range from direct popular election (Australia and the United States) to indirect election through constituent governments (Germany), and even to the appointment of friends and partisan colleagues of the prime minister (Canada)” (Watts,1998).

In simple terms, federalism is essentially about shared and self rule, is about sharing powers, functions and responsibilities, against the backdrop of forces of plurality and diversity pulling the people apart. In accordance with this principle considered by Political Scientists as the fundamental plank upon which the concept of Federalism rests, Watts (1996) submits that there are 23 federations in the world. “They vary widely, however, in the character of the underlying social diversity, in the form and scope of the distribution of legislative and administrative powers and financial resources, in the form and processes of the shared representative institutions, in the scope and role of the courts as constitutional umpires, in the character of intergovernmental relations, and in the processes for flexibility and constitutional adjustment”.

The variety out there again reinforces the argument against the ‘Nigerian’ assumption of one Federalism as true and another false. It is absolutely erroneous. As I have repeatedly argued, every federal arrangement is a work in progress, each with its imperfections, with no finishing line for any to arrive at, that it might be adjudged as having attained perfection. On account of constant friction and collision by what Tekena Tamuno described as ‘centre-seeking’ and ‘centre-fleeing’ forces, federations are often under stress and in a constant state of flux, coming under pressure to undergo recreation and adaptation.

In North America, Canada has been struggling with what Ronald Watts described as “three decades of political and constitutional crises, rooted deeply in its fundamental cultural cleavages”. Her neighbour, United States has her issues to deal with as the national and state governments clash. Mexico has its own issues, just like Argentina, Brazil, and Venezuela in South America. The situation is the same in Australia, countries in Europe, India and of course, in Africa as well.

While the nature of the stress in Nigeria, as to be expected, does differ from that of other places, that does not in any way vitiate the position that what is in practice in Nigeria is federalism, contrary to what some argue. It is simply a confirmation of the fact that federalism is a coat of many colours, with our green-white-green being one of the variants.

I recall that it was in the course of our conversations around federalism five years ago, that the distinguished Prince, Adekanmi Ademiluyi anchored his submission around a statement he attributed to the former Canadian Prime Minister, John Diefenbaker that ” Federalism means that you eat what you kill”. I disagreed with his position then and I, obviously, still do now. I don’t even think the essence of Federalism is about pulling apart, as the statement seems to suggest, as it is about pulling together. I do not think the essence of the coming together is that each might farm with the mind of self, by eating on the strength of the kill, rather I would suggest that it is more about broadening the collective base, that there might be enough for the collective good.

I have, however, only just decided to check up on the statement by John Diefenbaker to gain insight into the context in which he might have made it. Unfortunately, I have been unable to track it. Well, what does it matter? The statement provoked enough curiosity in me to have inspired this interrogation. Taking a second look at it, I cannot find grounds to agree with it. I would even argue that Difenbaker must have been misled about what federalism to have made such a statement. What will be the point of a federation if it is all about self? Why will anyone want to be a part of a federation if the fundamental plank upon which a group, diverse in culture and other respects, is just to “eat what you kill”?
As I have repeatedly argued, federalism is primarily about pulling together, with accommodation for the interests and peculiarities of the component parts, with a view to widening the pool and leveraging on opportunities that come with size and other factors.
Indeed, there is the economic component embedded in the political shell of federalism and for some, it is about the political component tucked inside an economic shell, especially for federalist arrangements that started out as ‘customs unions’. I do not even think that the primary essence of federalism is about eating. Eating what one kills is not and cannot be the driver for federalism. Fundamental to the concept is shared duties and responsibilities with governance.

As we have come to see, the Nigerian elite has managed to make the arrangement here about eating, the same way everything else is reduced to food. That misunderstanding of the essence of Federalism is at the root of a lot of the crises – real, imagined or contrived. It is what is fueling the confusion around VAT. It is behind the divisive and bigoted positions increasing dominating the civic space. It is about people assuming themselves to be better endowed arguing that it should be about “eat what you kill”. If only the mentality can change from that to “eat what you need”.

The argument about eating what you kill is largely about revenue allocation. On that, I had this to say in 2017: “Much has been made of the revenue allocation system which many see as rather lopsided in favour of the FG and have called for a review. One Senator declared the formula being used by the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMFAC) illegal’ by some weird deduction.

There is really nothing new to the debate as finding the most appropriate revenue allocation formulae, just like the debate, is an age-long one. Some recommendations have been made, just as reviews have taken place over the time, especially in the last 40 years.

Before independence, there was the Phillipson Commission set up in 1946, the Hicks-Phillipson Commission of 1953, Raisman Commission in 1958 and the Binn’s Commission of 1964, even after independence, all with the mandate to work out an acceptable formula, to no satisfaction of any group. There was the Dina Commission in 1968, the Aboyade Technical Committee of 1977 and there was the Okigbo Commission which largely influenced the 1981 Revenue Act which allocated 55% to FG, 30.5% to State Governments, 10% to LGs and 4.5% for Special funds.

• Olorunfemi is the Lead Consultant at Hoofbeat Dot Com, a Nigerian Communications Consultancy and Publishers of Africa Enterprise

Modifications were further made in 1984 and 1992 which allocated 48.5% to FG, 24% to State Governments, 20% to LGs and 7.5% for Special funds, of which 1% for mineral-producing states on the basis of derivation.
By virtue of the current formula, about 52.68 % is allocated to the federal government from the Federation Account, 26.70% to the 36 states and 20.60% to the local government councils in the Federation.

Please note that sharing revenue among state governments and local governments were done on the basis of four principles, with different weights attached to each – population; equality of states or LGs, as the case might be; social development factor, revenue factor.

Also note how the allocation to local governments, in terms of percentage, going from 10% to 20%, even when many argue that the LGs are mostly non-functional, delivering very little in value. So, by and large, there have been only marginal reviews in the structure of allocation formula, over the years, especially the vertical aspect of it.
That, in spite of the fact that experts like Prof Okigbo and other have worked on it. So, when some reduce this to a North-South thing or hide behind the finger of restructuring to push it, it is obvious that they are not as guided on process or details behind some of the issues they pick up or simply echo”.

So, am I saying that there is nothing wrong with the system as it is? Far from it. The point I make is that Federalism is a work in progress and that as the journey goes on, what people do is to engage the process of negotiation to navigate into a more acceptable arrangement. It is not about seeking to bring the roof down. Our undue obsession with who eats what, when and how, makes our conversations convoluted and unhelpful. How we redirect the conversation to enlarging the pot, rather than wanting to have a bigger spoon or even making away with the pot should be of greater concern, a I think that is what federalism is supposed to foster.

There is nothing to suggest, either from historical, ideological or philosophical premise, that federalism is supposed to be a closed shop arrangement, which locks one variant in and a different type out. It makes allowance even for hybrids, with quasi-federalist arrangements as well receiving the nod, as fundamental to the adoption of federalism is the desire to seek accommodation for forces seeking to pull and push. That being the case, where each federation finds its solution and how it adopts it will be up to it, as long as it is democratic, for Adele Jinadu maintains that “democracy is a condition of federalism”.

The challenge with some of our conversations is not just a defective recollection of history but the tragedy of assumptions about a number of things. This time, it is about what federalism is. I would suggest that the real essence of Federalism is in the traditional motto of the US – “e pluribus unum” which means “out of many, one. At the end of the day, we must remember the words of J.J. Linz that “federalism can only assure that nobody could be fully unhappy but certainly not that everybody will be happy with the solution.”
In Football, not everyone in the squad can make the team, not everyone in the team makes the field at once. Perhaps, there is something there as a cue. It should always be about what is in the best interest of the collective. As someone say, federalism can be a flexible system if the partners themselves are capable of flexibility.

Olorunfemi is the Lead Consultant at Hoofbeat Dot Com, a Nigerian Communications Consultancy and Publishers of Africa Enterprise