Local government autonomy and federalism
From whatever perspective one may be looking at the recently delivered judgement of the Supreme Court of Nigeria which borders on greater financial autonomy for the so long suffocated local governments in the country, it is in sum and truth, a landmark judgement. For instance, to those who believe that local government as a distinct third tier of government has been emasculated by the state governments through wrongful operations of the State -local government joint account; appointment of caretaker committees for local governments by some governors and usurpation of local government functions by state governments, the judgement is of course, victory and eureka for “true federalism”. “An unprecedented judgement and decolonization of local governments”, a commentator enthused. For some moments, even some commentators including well-known federalists when doing further analysis of the judgement submitted that, the federal, state and local governments should now be wining and dining together on Federation Allocation Account Committee dining table on a monthly basis. But the ready question here is this: is federalism no longer a structure of power sharing between two levels of government? But before I explore the conventional notion of federalism and even its dynamics further, one can not deny the fact that local government administration has been wantonly perverse, recklessly abused and rendered otiose by the state governments that are supposed to be guarding and guiding them, on the basis of the fact that they constitute the states’ sovereign territories.
But should we on account of states’ excessive control of local governments grant “absolute autonomy” to them as it is being hastily canvassed by some analysts? While “financial autonomy” may enhance better performance by local governments, no doubt, making the local governments an inch taller than their present height will amount to standing federalism on its head. In his definition of federalism, Kenneth Wheare, a leading proponent of federalism proceeded in his formulation of the concept by saying, “By the federal principle I mean the method of dividing powers so that general (federal) and regional (state) governments are each within a sphere coordinate and independent ” He argued that this constitutional form is adopted in the circumstances where people have resolved to live in unity and diversity.
We are provided further flesh to his notion of federalism when he lucidly laid out its properties in the following terms:
“First of all, since federal government involves a division of functions and since the states forming the federation are anxious that they should not surrender more powers than they know, it is essential that there be a written constitution embodying the division of powers and binding all government authorities throughout the federation. Second, if the division of powers is to be guaranteed and if the constitution embodying the division is to be binding upon the federal and state governments alike, it follows that the powers of amending that part of the constitution which embodies division of powers must not be conferred on the federal government acting alone, or upon the state governments acting alone. It is preferable, though not essential, to federalism that the power should be exercised by the federal and state authorities acting in cooperation. Thirdly … in case of dispute between federal and state governments as to the extent of the powers allocated to them under the constitution, somebody other than the federal and state governments must be authorized to adjudicate upon those disputes. Finally, if government authorities in a federation are to be really coordinate with each other, in actual practice as well as in law, it is essential that there should be available to each of them, under its own unfettered control, financial resources sufficient for the performances of the functions assigned to it under the constitution”..
In his analysis, Kenneth Wheare used the historical emergence of federalism in the USA as prototype, taking a wholistic view of Wheare’s thesis, Oyovbire (1985) approximated the key properties of federalism to include: immutability of the boundaries of the federating units; independent policy-making powers of each level of government; non-encroachment on each other sphere of powers; fiscal autonomy and independent administrative machinery.
While Wheare and his adherents will see any deviation from this rigid cast and formalism as an aberration, the realities in most federal states across the world is that sociological forces have shaped their praxis of federalism without stripping it of its essential ingredients particularly the powers of the two levels of government. It is on this note that the following points should be put on the front burner in this season of theoretical misconceptions and momentary loss of consciousness of the true nuance of federalism.
One, we should not lose sight of the fact that local government is not reckoned with as an independent level of government in the conceptualization of federalism. Federalism connotes power sharing between two levels of government: federal and state. Two, it is ipso facto, very wrong to have listed local governments in the Nigerian constitution as if they are independent tiers of government. Three, territorially they are owned by the states, thus, every state should be able to constitutionally create and evolve its own model of local government. Fourth, it is wrong for the federal authority to be the one to determine when to create more local governments in a state. It is not in consonance with the spirit of true federalism.
Five, the perversions and abuses we have witnessed at the local level by the state governments can be located more in the greed and corruption personification of the political class rather than their ignorance of constitutional provisions. Is it not the same manner in which the State governors have been way-laying local government funds that the National Assembly has allegedly been way-laying the federal government funds in the name of constituency projects and the notorious budget padding? While one is not opposed to good, transparent and accountable governance at the local level, the call here is that we must not engage in any rash amendments to the present constitutional provisions on local government which can further obstruct our yearning for true federalism. Rather, we should be deep in our quest for local government reforms and root it in the context of the long quest for true federalism.
