Few topics in recent Nigerian politics evoke more passion than the debate on whether the 2023 presidency for the next four to eight years tarry in the North or be zoned for the southern part of the country.
Although, deemed by many as a divisive hot-button topic, our main goal in this article is neither to light the spark on this debate nor to support the idea that power should reside in a specific region of the country across time and space.
Rather, we share our perspectives on the question of whether power rotation is good for economic progress, national unity, and political stability; even as we argue that changes in regional average and living standards in the country are not being tracked by the rationing of key political positions in the country.
That said, a widely held view and attention are being lavished on the fact that that political inequality – the unequal distribution of power – breeds economic inequality (some regions are becoming richer while others poorer) and that the best way to redistribute the gains of democracy – the national pie or the national cake – is to ration political power across the regions of the country.
But does regional power rotation in Nigeria reallocate the economic benefits of democracy across the country? Put differently and specifically, is Bayelsa state now more prosperous during and after the presidency of Goodluck Jonathan (former head of state) than it otherwise would have been? Or, will Katsina State be economically well-off because President Buhari (the current president) is a native of the state?
We cannot untangle the truth about this question nor bring everyone into an agreement regarding regional power rotation as this will never happen, for the simple reason that no single scientific truth exists about the ideal of power-sharing in a mixed setting like Nigeria. Ultimately, it is up to public contestations, political organisations, and their processes to determine what should be. Nonetheless, some stylised facts – which seem to rip apart the notion that power distribution matters for growth – are uncontested. These are the facts.
Since independence, the North has had a grip on power for 44 out of 60 years. Ironically, the poverty rate in the region consistently dwarfs that of its counterpart, the South. A closer look at the number reveals a couple of striking truths. Six states – four from the North and two from the South – have ruled the country for 50 years: Katsina (Yar’adua and Buhari); Niger (Babangida and Abdulsami); Kano (Murtala and Abacha); Ogun (Obasanjo and Shonekan); Plateau (Gowon) and Bayelsa (Jonathan).
Given that the poverty rates in these states are higher than in the states that never produced a head of state, many observers may conclude that the concentration of national political power within a region seems to have precipitated the rise of poverty within the region. But could this be coincidence? That the northern region accounts for over 70 per cent of the country’s national poverty rate and roughly 73 per cent of presidential power concentration?
Moreover, between 1999 and 2019, Plateau state from North Central Nigeria has had three of its natives – Ishaya Aku, Damishi Sango and Solomon Dalung – appointed into the presidential cabinet of past governments to head the country’s Ministry of Sports. Yet, the trio were powerless, within two decades, in leveraging the levers of power towards establishing a fully functional international football stadium in Jos, the Plateau State capital, which happens to be their state of origin.
Also, 12 out of 14 military chiefs and other top civilians serving in the current government’s ministry of defence are drawn from one major region of the country. Contrary to expectations, the region is now the most securely challenged part of the country.
The brass of military echelons from this province seems to be ineffective in using the potency of their offices to significantly benefit their native region even in combating the seemingly uncontainable level of insecurity in their states of origin.
The bottom line is clear (ripping off the blinders for us to see): that occupying key political positions is not always equivalent to wielding economic, political and security powers in a manner that suits their interests. This is because the distribution of the national economic pie and the exercise of political power is clearly defined and embedded in the nation’s sovereign document: The Constitution.
In terms of federal allocation data from the National Bureau of Statistics shows no evidence of significant increase in federal revenue allocation to Bayelsa and Katsina states prior to and during the presidencies of Jonathan and Buhari.
Conclusion
Power shifts should not be seen or used as a tool to soothing voters’ concern but as a means of searching for a more suitable and credible leader. A credible leader is known for many attributes. He is not desperate and full of lust for power. If a leader is desperate for power, he is likely to become a tool for evil – for example crushing political foes and purging the country of meaningful dissent – in the hand of power instead of the power becoming a tool for good in his hands.
Given Nigeria’s heterogenous setting, a leader that will not fuel disunity but earns the affection – across ethnic, religious, regional and political parties – of his fellow countrymen and women; and has the capacity to deliver on the demands of the office of the president, is what the nation needs. But who is this leader and where will he come from? It is up to the Nigerian electorate to always decide this, but they must rise above the partisan fray in the quest for a better leader. However, until the electoral institution is strengthened beyond its current capacity, election outcomes will rarely reflect the absolute wishes of most of the voters.
Zuhumnan Dapel and Gashion Danna write via [email protected] and [email protected] respectively
