To the ordinary Nigerian on the street, there is the heavy sense of complete and utter neglect by all tiers of government in the country and many feel the Federal Government is the biggest culprit.

The current crop of political leaders in the country especially at the Federal level appears not to have an inkling about how to fix the numerous economic, political and  now indeed security challenges that continues to bedevil the country. Attempts made by some of the political leaders are often driven not by the interest to redeem the Nigerian state but rather an innate and seemingly intrinsic desire to enlarge their estate, with conflict of interest often resulting in the wrong approach being employed in proffering solutions to problems or challenges that even in the private sectors one could find good examples of how best these problems could easily be solved.

One of the main reasons why so many of the problems and challenges that have cast shadow of the Nigerian state have remain can be traced to political leaders appointing individuals (often close political associates and friends) to head sensitive and non sensitive governmental ministries, agencies, and departments withsuch individual having little or no experience in the subject filed of the ministry or Agency they are sent to head, with the overall result being abysmal performance and no show, policy somersault and financial profligacy.

Since our political leaders have shown not to be competent Per Se at fixing the Economic and Security woes of the country, should Nigeria adopt a Technocratic government as an option? Will the 'Nigeria factor' allow such technocratic government to function properly? Yes, Technocratic Government are usually associated with Parliamentary Systems of Government where the parliament directly or indirectly handover the government to a group of technocrats to enable them profer solutions and fix a dire economic and/or security situation as currently being witness in Greece and Italy. However, I still believe same can be achieved in a presidential system of government with a slight adjustment.

In the case of Nigeriam, some may ask isn't the Economic Team of the Executive arm of government really what a Technocratic Government is all about? In my own candid opinion, it is a close call but still it is far from what a Technocratic Government should be for the sole reason that much of what the Economic Team do is still subject to the scrutiny and direct inputs of the politicians, more so, much of those that make up the Economic Team as in the present case of President Goodluck Jonathan are career politicians and their decisions no doubt will one way or the other be swayed by their political bias and interest.

With the present situation in Nigeria, should President Jonathan reach a deal with the National Assembly for a 'side-A-side' situation for an ammendment to the constituition to allow for the formation of a Technocratic Government to fix the Nigeria economy for the good? I think Jonathan himself wants something like that in place given the manner in which He has invested so much power and authority on the present Finance Minister to provide her with the flexibility to handle the economy - which to me is a self addmission by Him that the Political class lack the ideas require to fix the woes that have bedeviled Nigeria for a long long time.

So what do you think? Should Nigeria go for a Technocratic Government? Your turn to have your say.

@OP,

Technocratic government or not, Nigeria has been robbed of decent governance. No one can change the way things are run in government except those in government themselves. The current cycle of a corrupt government officials has often been a recipe for disaster. My point is, regardless of whatever style of govt--- Military, democratic, technocratic or whatever, in as long as the core principles are lacking, leadership isn't heading ANYWHERE.

manny4life:

@OP,

Technocratic government or not, Nigeria has been robbed of decent governance. No one can change the way things are run in government except those in government themselves. The current cycle of a corrupt government officials has often been a recipe for disaster. My point is, regardless of whatever style of govt--- Military, democratic, technocratic or whatever, in as long as the core principles are lacking, leadership isn't heading ANYWHERE.

Okay my thinking is this: All over the world and including in the private sector in Nigeria, we have so many distinguished Nigerians who in one way or the order have made impact in their field of study or endeavour. These Nigerians who are technocrats have the means to fix up Nigeria's woes but they can't stand the ugliness of the political side of governance as all these care about is getting things done the right way and not whether thier immediate brother, sister or political friend stands to benefit. More so, these zeal is not driven by money but by the desire to succeed in the challenge they tackle head-on. Why can't we give these clouts of Nigerians a chance to get things fixed up in this country? Look at Europe, they have quickly realized that political idealogy has blinded thier eyes for years and have ended up extinguishing thier collective welath in the name of 'social welfare' but gradually they are turning in thier governance to technocrats to fix things up and allow the politicians do their bits of international negotiaitons, law making etc while the actual nitty gritty of what is actually required to get things fixed are done by the technocrats.

Technocratic government under what political foundation. Can you build a 3-storey house on a bungalow foundation.

Until the structure of Nigeria is addressed just as South Africa addressed Apathied and USA addressed slavery and racism before their country soared economically, technologically and industrially, Nigeria will still be a fool at 100 years.

What is the structure that should be addressed? Simple. Nigeria unity is not sacred and non-negotiable. Should Nigeria be one? Yes because the population size is a huge potential. But the structure of the union should be redefined so that

1) Each union would control its economical and technological destiny.

2) Each region would pay an economical penalty of its incompetent politcal leadership and lack of security of life and property.

3) Each region would no longer use its resources to subsidize stealing and pillage at the centre and other regions.

However if one nigeria is impossible, we should peacefully go our separate ways. Every region will suffer in the short-term but in the long-run we will better off. And who knows, we might later decide to come back in future as equal partners.

Until then it will be soilder go soilder come.

Uchek:

Technocratic government under what political foundation. Can you build a 3-storey house on a bungalow foundation.

Until the structure of Nigeria is addressed just as South Africa addressed Apartheid and USA addressed slavery and racism before their country soared economically, technologically and industrially, Nigeria will still be a fool at 100 years.

What is the structure that should be addressed? Simple. Nigeria unity is not sacred and non-negotiable. Should Nigeria be one? Yes because the population size is a huge potential. But the structure of the union should be redefined so that

1) Each union would control its economical and technological destiny.

2) Each region would pay an economical penalty of its incompetent political leadership and lack of security of life and property.

3) Each region would no longer use its resources to subsidize stealing and pillage at the centre and other regions.

However if one Nigeria is impossible, we should peacefully go our separate ways. Every region will suffer in the short-term but in the long-run we will better off. And who knows, we might later decide to come back in future as equal partners.

Until then it will be solider go soldier come.

While I agree that the foundation maybe ridden with fault lines, an enumerated by you, in my own opinion, I think the typical average Nigerian would careless is it was an igbo, yoruba, Hausa that gives them light, water, good health care facilities and subsidies for their every day food staples and consumables.

I think more often, we only see the fault lines of ethnic imbalance when failure Starr at our face, bereft of ideas on who to address, and as humans would always do, look for the nearest animate or inanimate object to attribute the blame to.

If you permit me to cite as an example, when our Sister Dora was succeeding at NAFDAC, how many gave a hoot where she was from in Nigeria? How many cared whether the East was hard hit by her desire to cleanse Nigeria of fake drugs and allied consumables? But many saw her success and commended her and wished others could emulate her. What am I saying in essence? It is because as a Nation, we have failed to do the right things first purely on grounds of economic prosperity with national interest that we are now resorting to regional resource control. If there were good roads, high speed rail links connecting North to South, East to west, etc, or 24/7 electricity all over the country, would you give a hoot where the electricity was being generated or how it is being distributed? I sure the answer would be no. same goes with all other issues where we have failed to do the right things on grounds of economic prosperity with national interest.

I think your assertion that each region that fail to develop her resources due to incompetence would pay the price is completely flawed. If one region is developing and the other isn't, what makes you think economic migration would not be the order of the day? With economic migration as we are currently witnessing in Lagos, Kano, etc, there will be strain on resources as government would struggle to keep up with the demand for infrastructural expansion that would be required to keep up with such economic migration.

To also think that each region when prosperous would like to integrate back to become one nation is a notion that falls flat of historical evidence. Scandan avian countries in Europe is a very good example. Currently you could see the agitation going on in Scotland for independence from the UK, why? Cos they have seen that with their relative economic prosperity, they can succeed by building bridges elsewhere not necessarily with England that would help sustain that prosperity.

" If there were good roads, high speed rail links connecting North to South, East to west, etc, or 24/7 electricity all over the country, would you give a hoot where the electricity was being generated or how it is being distributed"

"I think the typical average Nigerian would careless is "IF"it was an igbo, yoruba, Hausa that gives them light, water, good health care facilities and subsidies for their every day food staples and consumables.

Nigeria is a country of "IFs" while other countries are experiencing the result of "IFs". The generation of Soyinka's are passing on without experiencing the "IFs". My generation born during and after the civil war have come of age waiting for the "IFs". Our children met the "IFs" and will come of age waiting for "IFs"

Sister Dora achievement is an exception rather than the rule. Otherwise Nigeria would be teeming with Doras in all spheres of life and in all its institutions.

"If one region is developing and the other isn't, what makes you think economic migration would not be the order of the day? With economic migration as we are currently witnessing in Lagos, Kano, etc, there will be strain on resources as government would struggle to keep up with the demand for infrastructural expansion that would be required to keep up with such economic migration"

Economic migration is perfectly in order. For example some states in USA (NY, Florida, TX) are more populated and richer than others ( WV, AL). In NIgeria, the region with the best environment will attract labor and capital (both local and international) while the region that fails to control kidnapping or killing of non-indigenes and prefers to loot its resources or fails to plan will pay the economic penalty. They won't have access to free money. Do you think Boko Haram will still exist today if  Nigerians(both southerns and northerners) leave Borno and Yobe state to other peaceful regions and both states gets little or nothing from the federal allocation? No they will be forced to take action and deal with the issues? But as it is now, federal allocation insulates them and every other states( including unitary centre) where  mediocrity and incompetence is the order of the day.

And by the way. we practiced this system during 1960-1966 before military government instituted centralization of power. And guess what? Nigeria witnessed real economic development and  market competition during this 6 years than we have in post-civil war era. In the last 40 years all we have witnessed are :increased economic activity, growth, construction - thanks to oil which is produced by western technology, non indigenous - but no real development. Example: Can you compare our universities and its products 50 years ago to the present day Nigeria, even though we have more universities (quantity) now?

And by the way, we don't have to integrate. Its just a suggestion. 4 or 6 independent regions of present Nigeria economically developed and doing well will have reater contribution to humanity than the present "geographical expression' called Nigeria.

Meanwhile, lets keep on waiting for the big "IFs"

Its quite tiring to continue reading threads where the OP has zero political nouse and wishes to apply bandages of ignorance on severe structural problems. Without true federelaism, Nigeria will continue to flounder, the basic structure must first be got right.

Restructure or disband the country. Technocratic govt is a foolish concept like all the other foolish concepts that have got us where we are.

Uchek:

" If there were good roads, high speed rail links connecting North to South, East to west, etc, or 24/7 electricity all over the country, would you give a hoot where the electricity was being generated or how it is being distributed"

"I think the typical average Nigerian would careless is "IF"it was an igbo, yoruba, Hausa that gives them light, water, good health care facilities and subsidies for their every day food staples and consumables.

Nigeria is a country of "IFs" while other countries are experiencing the result of "IFs". The generation of Soyinka's are passing on without experiencing the "IFs". My generation born during and after the civil war have come of age waiting for the "IFs". Our children met the "IFs" and will come of age waiting for "IFs"

Sister Dora achievement is an exception rather than the rule. Otherwise Nigeria would be teeming with Doras in all spheres of life and in all its institutions.

"If one region is developing and the other isn't, what makes you think economic migration would not be the order of the day? With economic migration as we are currently witnessing in Lagos, Kano, etc, there will be strain on resources as government would struggle to keep up with the demand for infrastructural expansion that would be required to keep up with such economic migration"

Economic migration is perfectly in order. For example some states in USA (NY, Florida, TX) are more populated and richer than others ( WV, AL). In NIgeria, the region with the best environment will attract labor and capital (both local and international) while the region that fails to control kidnapping or killing of non-indigenes and prefers to loot its resources or fails to plan will pay the economic penalty. They won't have access to free money. Do you think Boko Haram will still exist today if  Nigerians(both southerns and northerners) leave Borno and Yobe state to other peaceful regions and both states gets little or nothing from the federal allocation? No they will be forced to take action and deal with the issues? But as it is now, federal allocation insulates them and every other states( including unitary centre) where  mediocrity and incompetence is the order of the day.

And by the way. we practiced this system during 1960-1966 before military government instituted centralization of power. And guess what? Nigeria witnessed real economic development and  market competition during this 6 years than we have in post-civil war era. In the last 40 years all we have witnessed are :increased economic activity, growth, construction - thanks to oil which is produced by western technology, non indigenous - but no real development. Example: Can you compare our universities and its products 50 years ago to the present day Nigeria, even though we have more universities (quantity) now?

And by the way, we don't have to integrate. Its just a suggestion. 4 or 6 independent regions of present Nigeria economically developed and doing well will have reater contribution to humanity than the present "geographical expression' called Nigeria.

Meanwhile, lets keep on waiting for the big "IFs"

Permit me to say you have taken a simple expressive scenario out of contaxt. The 'IF' is not an 'IF' of wish but of what the obtainable would be when the supposed expectation is met.

Sister Dora achievement is an exception rather than the rule. Otherwise Nigeria would be teeming with Doras in all spheres of life and in all its institutions. What a statement to be read or heard! Her acheivement is no exception but it is the rule and many of such abound in Nigeria. It is a sad reality that they hadly see the light of the day unless they are in a Federal position! An example is the Commissioner for Fianace and Economic Planning in Lagos State.

Economic migration is perfectly in order. For example some states in USA (NY, Florida, TX) are more populated and richer than others ( WV, AL). In NIgeria, the region with the best environment will attract labor and capital (both local and international) while the region that fails to control kidnapping or killing of non-indigenes and prefers to loot its resources or fails to plan will pay the economic penalty. They won't have access to free money. Do you think Boko Haram will still exist today if Nigerians(both southerns and northerners) leave Borno and Yobe state to other peaceful regions and both states gets little or nothing from the federal allocation? No they will be forced to take action and deal with the issues? But as it is now, federal allocation insulates them and every other states( including unitary centre) where mediocrity and incompetence is the order of the day.

I think the same school of thought was what played out in Britain in the 70's and 80's and soon they realized that making the UK ever so prosperous with the vast majority around the globe no able to fend for themselves was a ticking time bomb that would explode right in thier face. Economic migration driven out of necessity to survive is NEVER PERFECTLY IN ORDER! Need I say the example you gave of the US is the least best examples to be given, really. Your example of Boko Haram doesn't cut it either, simply because Federal allocation has nothing to do with the quest for power by some groups of persons. Boko Haram is a fundamentalist group with extremist views being used by some political criminals to achieve their sole aim of holding unto to power for selfish political ends. What makes you think the same Boko Haram can not spring up or will not spring up in other parts of the country? Or were you not aware of the SSS report that name 6 states of which one was in the South-West, Two in South-South and South-East where Boko Haram have taken roots already? My take is this: If those in the fringes of poverty in Yobe and Borno had access to standard world class Educational facilities, Working hospitals, good roads, pipe borne water, etc, would Boko Haram gain ground in those states? Iran is an islamic nation by their own proclaimation, yet their standard of Education is still comparable to that of the West to an extent. Yes you would always have those with extremist views but I think the case of Boko Haram is aggraveted because of the ease at which they can convince people to join in their struggle using cheap means like government neglect.

And by the way. we practiced this system during 1960-1966 before military government instituted centralization of power. And guess what? Nigeria witnessed real economic development and market competition during this 6 years than we have in post-civil war era. In the last 40 years all we have witnessed are :increased economic activity, growth, construction - thanks to oil which is produced by western technology, non indigenous - but no real development. Example: Can you compare our universities and its products 50 years ago to the present day Nigeria, even though we have more universities (quantity) now?

And by the way, we don't have to integrate. Its just a suggestion. 4 or 6 independent regions of present Nigeria economically developed and doing well will have reater contribution to humanity than the present "geographical expression' called Nigeria.

Really the system you talked about only brought about increased economic activities in regional centres and power houses and not even across the region. I give you an example. In the old western regions, Places like Benin City, Warri, Sapele, etc got much attention and very little was done in several other towns and rural villages especially in the riverine areas. You can not call such development good for the region. I tell you, had that system existed for longer, there would have been further aggitation for a split into more smaller regions - which of course gave rise to the birth of states in the subsequent governments-

Can suggest you take another look at Germany and see why regional approach to national development may not be the best solution for Nigeria after all.

Beaf:

Its quite tiring to continue reading threads where the OP has zero political nouse and wishes to apply bandages of ignorance on severe structural problems. Without true federalism, Nigeria will continue to flounder, the basic structure must first be got right.

Restructure or disband the country. Technocratic govt is a foolish concept like all the other foolish concepts that have got us where we are.

Need me say this that it is more tiring seeing how you flip flop every day on issues of national development and you only think in the direction where your coast will be enlarged!

Clouts like you keep shouting True Federalism when in actual fact your sole purpose of doing that is to further your political interest just like Ibori kept on shouting resource control so He could corner more of the proceeds from the oil in the Delta region for himself, his family and political friends and associates!

Get real! Will you? Structurally, there little left to be done about the Country called Nigeria. Even after implementing what you define to be True Federalism, my bet is that you will still find the same problem of corruption, ineptitude and profligacy within.