Politics of sectional interests

The central tenet of public-choice theory and public realism posits that political parties, which are supposed to aggregate public interests or public needs into public policy, often end up as platforms to advance personal interests of office seekers, or “political entrepreneurs,” and their quest to access the commonwealth of a nation.

Legend has it that Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte of France used to allow the written requests of the citizens to pile up in a heap, which was then disaggregated into categories of issues every 13 days. He then addressed those categories of issues instead of sitting down in long sessions, holding court to dispense patronage to the citizens.

That appears to be a more efficient approach to governance, a template that political parties of modern states appear to have copied in order to provide the greatest good to the greatest number of the people of a country.

But in this Fourth Republic Nigeria, it appears that the greatest good of the greatest number of the people has been beaten to the backseat to satisfy the interests of individuals who campaign as champions of parochial and vested interests.

The prebendal predators of Nigerian politics have found a clever way to sneak this tendency into public policy by placing it smack in the 1999 Constitution, which is the grundnorm, or “operating system” for the Fourth Republic.

Section 14(3) is the first innocuous constitutional blow against the people. It says, “The composition of the Government of the Federation… and the conduct of its affairs shall be carried out in such a manner as to reflect the federal character of Nigeria… ensuring that there shall be no predominance of persons from a few states or a few ethnic or other sectional groups in the government or any of its agencies.”

The purpose of this constitutional provision appears not to be to expect public officers to perform any tangible work for the progress of the people of Nigeria, but merely to show up as representatives of sectional interests.

The second blow is in Section 147(3), which reechoes Section 14(3) by providing that ministers shall be appointed “provided that… the President shall appoint at least one Minister from each State, who shall be an indigene of such state”.

With these constitutional provisions in their armoury, Nigeria’s prebendal politicians felt justified to regard public office as a personal resource for patronage to access and divert public resources to personal use, without any iota of remorse.

This thinking must have informed the opportunity taken by presidents and state governors to divert state resources to “settle” desperate constituents through the opaque special-purpose vehicle of security votes.

By the way, the security vote was introduced by General Yakubu Gowon to pay “out of budget” funds to military governors to garner public support for the civil war through influential civilian elites, traditional rulers and senior military officers.

This projection of sectional interest, or “what is in it for us?” placed the selfish interest of the prebendals above that of the nation. Individuals who want to promote their personal interests hide behind regional, religious, gender and other selfish interests.

It was said that a populist politician, caught putting his hands in the till of Ibadan District Council, where he was chairman, fought his accusers by getting a group of musicians with the talking drum and shekere to sing, “Ma k’owo wa na… Sa maa k’owo wa na,” continue to spend (or steal) our money, to the chagrin of the Obafemi Awolowo government of the 1950s.

A caller once told journalists on a popular TV talk show, “Journalists’ Hangout,” not to criticise Niger Delta politicians who appeared to be diverting the 13 per cent derivation fund allocation to petroleum-producing states to personal purposes.

Many who would otherwise never qualify for certain high public offices got them because of the need to settle vested sectional interests, which ends up promoting mediocrity in the discharge of public service throughout the country.

If Nigerians will prioritise merit and national Interest over parochial sectional interest, they will certainly be served by competent public servants who can act in the overall best interest of everyone living in Nigeria.

This should not mean that the peculiar needs of certain minorities, like People Living With Disabilities, youths and women, will not be considered. But “what is in it for our parochial interests?” will no longer form the basis for government policies and allocation of resources.

Too often, the prebendal promotion of sectional interest short-circuits the country’s overall economic, social development and other strategic goals. In the recent past, the Central Bank of Nigeria thought it was expedient to relocate some banking inspection functions and personnel to Lagos because the headquarters of most banks were situated in Lagos.

What did Nigerians witness? Hue and cry that CBN Governor, Yemi Cardoso, wanted to make Southwest Nigeria a beneficiary of preferential allocation of resources. Even sitting Senators, who should know better, rose to condemn what they should have stoutly defended, or at least ask for explanations from the CBN authorities.

Except that the CBN Governor was strong-willed enough to stare them down, they would have reversed an otherwise intelligent policy choice. It was later rumoured that some of the politicians who raised the most dust privately acknowledged the wisdom of the decision but only had to appear to be politically correct.

It is interesting to note that those who defended the siting of a naval base in Kano, Northern Nigeria, and the decentralisation of the Nigerian Law School to other parts of Nigeria as a tribute to equity, now describe the decentralisation of some security agencies to Southern Nigeria as “offending the North.”

This is evidence of the sense of entitlement that harms Nigeria in no small measure. These people do not seem to care if it makes sense to decentralise these security agencies so that the response system of those security agencies will be multi-pronged and swift in addressing emergencies.

But what is the argument that the “North will be offended” by the decentralisation of Nigerian College of Aviation Technology, Zaria, Nigeria Police Academy, Kano, and Nigeria Army Depot, Zaria, by a “Southern President”, if not to allow some people quick access to military hardware to suppress their compatriots?

Former President Muhammadu Buhari’s government once ordered Nigerian victims to disarm while indulging marauding herders, who later turned out to be bandits and terrorists, to openly carry lethal weapons.

These individuals arguing for concentration of military facilities never thought of the multiplier effects of spreading economic drivers, and using additional facilities to admit more candidates and increase necessary manpower for those critical services?

Where is the argument for efficiency, effectiveness and equity in a system that only seeks to satisfy sectional interest? Maybe protagonists of these points of view need to be reminded that the whole is a sum of the parts.

Please pardon the unintended pun on the surname of Kemi Badenoch, leader of the United Kingdom’s Conservative Party. But it is bad enough that Nigerians “select” (usually incompetent) people into high political office only to represent sectional interests.

Instead of hiring competent individuals who can deliver good governance, to advance the society and the economy, Nigeria seems to be preoccupied with satisfying sectional interests that divert focus away from the higher purposes of government.

X: @lekansote1, lekansote.com