The above quote was my earlier prediction. Thus far, NLs are yet to prove me wrong.  Imagine this topic was about, for instance, how my girlfriend gave my gonorrhea, boy, it would have been on page 99 by now. It is a reflection of the mental laziness that afflicts many citizens of our country.
[quote][/quote] I really agree with u bro., we take time to argue on useless threads but when it comes to national issues all we do is to overlook it. God save the future of this nation.

fayemi was asking the right questions but i still don't support true federalism instead i would prefer a form of semi-federalism with flexibility. i definitely support the change in relationship between the government and its citizens because the status quote has not changed mus since 1999.

jason12345:

fayemi was asking the right questions but i still don't support true federalism instead i would [b]prefer a form of semi-federalism with flexibilit[/b]y. i definitely support the change in relationship between the government and its citizens because the status quote has not changed mus since 1999.

could you explain further?

Princek12:

could you explain further?

true federalism would DEFINITELY be a precursor to spilt the country. the reason is, it would give the regions more freedom to import weapons, train soldiers to start a secession war. the flexibility i meant was a national army, a form of mixed collective growth and etc. this is to make sure no group or region can leave nigeria.

i hope you get what i mean. if not, i would explain further.

Jason

I get what you mean. But that is where balance of power comes in, as in there will be certain areas over which the feds have exclusive jurisdiction, there will be areas with concurrent jurisdiction, and there will be areas reserved strictly for the states.  Under true federalism, states are not permitted, for example, to form an army, for the power to form an army belongs exclusively to the feds. Under that system, states will not be allowed to import weapons, either, because the ports would be controlled by the feds. But the power to form the police should belong to the state, since rooting crime usually concerns locals, so it will make more sense for locals to hold responsible their state and local governments when crime is not eradicated. Taxing power should be an area of concurrent jurisdiction, and control of everything else should be given to the states. But there should be some areas reserved exclusively to the feds.

Princek12:

Jason

I get what you mean. But that is where balance of power comes in, as in there will be certain areas over which the feds have exclusive jurisdiction, there will be areas with concurrent jurisdiction, and there will be areas reserved strictly for the states.  Under true federalism, states are not permitted, for example, to form an army, for the power to form an army belongs exclusively to the feds. But the power to form the police should belong to the state, since rooting crime usually concerns locals, so it will make more sense for locals to hold responsible their state and local governments when crime is not eradicated. Taxing power should be an area of concurrent jurisdiction, and control of everything else should be given to the states. But there should be some areas reserved exclusively to the feds.

@ bolded

that will not work since the country still looks at each other with suspicion. groups would start to import weapons as a form of self defence against external aggression i.e other ethnic groups.

it would be a very dangerous game.

jason12345:

@ bolded

that will not work since the country still looks at each other with suspicion. groups would start to import weapons as a form of self defence against external aggression i.e other ethnic groups.

it would be a very dangerous game.

What is dangerous about it? I said states are not permitted to form an army, so how would that be a dangerous game? So are you advocating for a system in which states are allowed to form their own army?

Princek12:

What is dangerous about it? I said states are not permitted to form an army, so how would that be a dangerous game? So are you advocating for a system in which states are allowed to form their own army?

no, i am not. what i am saying is, each group would not trust the other, thus, they would import weapons "illegally" in the disguise of self -defence against external aggression since they have more freedom.

jason12345:

no, i am not. what i am saying is, each group would not trust the other, thus, they would import weapons "illegally" in the disguise of self -defence against external aggression since they have more freedom.

I don't think so. States would only be given power to the extent necessary to maintain law and order within its territory. I also think that the interests in preventing a form of dictatorial leadership where one person has excessive power to the detriment of the entire country outweighs any fear that one state will have import weapons illegally in guise of self defense. Hey, the touchstone of the system is balance, for the entire country cannot be subordinated to any arbitrary and capricious decision of a leader in Abuja. It will also encourage competition between states, and it will increase the need for accountability. Currently, it is inconvenient for locals, for example, to drive to Abuja to complain about the ineptitude of the Nigerian Police Force in combating crime in their respective communities. Currently, one president's decision practically cripples the entire country, and it has been going on for 50 years. You can't keep doing the same thing and expect a different result.

Princek12:

I don't think so. States would only be given power to the extent necessary to maintain law and order within its territory. I also think that the interests in preventing a form of dictatorial leadership where one person has excessive power to the detriment of the entire country outweighs any fear that one state will have import weapons illegally in guise of self defense. Hey, the touchstone of the system is balance, for the entire country cannot be subordinated to any arbitrary and capricious decision of a leader in Abuja. It will also encourage competition between states, and it will increase the need for accountability. Currently, it is inconvenient for locals, for example, to drive to Abuja to complain about the ineptitude of the Nigerian Police Force in combating crime in their respective communities. Currently, one president's decision practically cripples the entire country, and it has been going on for 50 years. You can't keep doing the same thing and expect a different result.

okay, if you say so . but i still remain a sceptic

jason12345:

true federalism would DEFINITELY be a precursor to spilt the country. the reason is, it would give the regions more freedom to import weapons, train soldiers to start a secession war. the flexibility i meant was a national army, a form of mixed collective growth and etc. this is to make sure no group or region can leave nigeria.

i hope you get what i mean. if not, i would explain further.

That is absolutely not true! Why should Nigeria be different from many other countries that practices true federalism? Take the Nigerian police for example, why should we all be stuck with a completely useless institution when there are states that can do a better job.

True federalism does not mean a state can import weapons or have it's own militia.
There are clearly laid out rules by which all units must abide.

The old four regions were probably the closest we had to true federalism. It should have been nurtured and improved but unfortunately it was bastardized by the military and reduced to the current pseudo federal structure.
Nigeria will remain unstable for a long time if these anomalies are not resolved.

Princek12:

I don't think so. States would only be given power to the extent necessary to maintain law and order within its territory. I also think that the interests in preventing a form of dictatorial leadership where one person has excessive power to the detriment of the entire country outweighs any fear that one state will have import weapons illegally in guise of self defense. Hey, the touchstone of the system is balance, for the entire country cannot be subordinated to any arbitrary and capricious decision of a leader in Abuja. It will also encourage competition between states, and it will increase the need for accountability. Currently, it is inconvenient for locals, for example, to drive to Abuja to complain about the ineptitude of the Nigerian Police Force in combating crime in their respective communities. Currently, one president's decision practically cripples the entire country, and it has been going on for 50 years. You can't keep doing the same thing and expect a different result.

I support Jason12345 on this one.

We are too divided along religious and tribal lines to opt for full federalism. After the civil war, the idea to make the center strong was in order to provide swift security . In the first republic, people voted along regional lines like NCNC, NPC and AG. Its not like in the US where 2 parties are present in all states. Problem is we have politicians who have learned to stir up religion or tribe as tool for unrest, hence our democracy is not yet suited for full federalism. The creation of states was to diffuse regional powers.

My take on this issue is to reform local government administration, that way no one is marginalized. No new states should be added. I feel politicians are using the federalism issue to cover incompetence. As it is, any state can do better than the way they are now.

kcjazz:

I support Jason12345 on this one.

We are too divided along religious and tribal lines to opt for full federalism. After the civil war, the idea to make the center strong was in order to provide swift security . In the first republic, people voted along regional lines like NCNC, NPC and AG. Its not like in the US where 2 parties are present in all states. Problem is we have politicians who have learned to stir up religion or tribe as tool for unrest, hence our democracy is not yet suited for full federalism. The creation of states was to diffuse regional powers.

My take on this issue is to reform local government administration, that way no one is marginalized. No new states should be added. I feel politicians are using the federalism issue to cover incompetence. As it is, any state can do better than the way they are now.

You have to 'force' state to generate their own revenue.

kcjazz:

I support Jason12345 on this one.

We are too divided along religious and tribal lines to opt for full federalism. After the civil war, the idea to make the center strong was in order to provide swift security . In the first republic, people voted along regional lines like NCNC, NPC and AG. Its not like in the US where 2 parties are present in all states. Problem is we have politicians who have learned to stir up religion or tribe as tool for unrest, hence our democracy is not yet suited for full federalism. The creation of states was to diffuse regional powers.

My take on this issue is to reform local government administration, that way no one is marginalized. No new states should be added. I feel politicians are using the federalism issue to cover incompetence. As it is, any state can do better than the way they are now.

thank your support

we are too politically naive to start federalism without breaking up the country!

jason12345:

thank your support

we are too politically naive to start federalism without breaking up the country!

then we can as well forget any meaninful development in the country.

asha 80:

then we can as well forget any meaninful development in the country.

We can and we will develop but it takes time to heal old wounds. And we will get there. We need a system of government that works for us, a system that takes into account our differences, something different from Europeans.

kcjazz:

We can and we will develop but it takes time to heal old wounds. And we will get there. We need a system of government that works for us, a system that takes into account our differences, something different from Europeans.

i do not think we are even trying to heal any wound let alone taking time to heal it especially with the way our politicians whip up ethnic sentiments.

kcjazz:

We can and we will develop but it takes time to heal old wounds. And we will get there. We need a system of government that works for us, a system that takes into account our differences, something different from Europeans.

i do not buy that.Spain is a good example

Jason is correct. There is a very thin line between a "local police force" and a local army. What happens if Lagos State has a local police force and brings in Navy SEALs to train them? Buy them enough weapons too, and that is a force that can very likely kick the @$$ of the entire Nigerian army.

I completely agree to what princeK12 posted.the topic in question requires critical thinking so as to profer a realistic solutions. Having said that,i belive in complete practice of true federalism were power will be completely decentralise and d center will only be saddled with essential national responsibilites such as securities,emmergencies i.e natural disaster management,health & a few more. The states shld ve more responsibities snc its closer to the people and can easily tailor its services base on their needs snc every state needs varies from the other. It will also enable states to become more self sustaning and discover its potentials and maximise that as against the parasitic system which d unitary style of governance has instituted in2 d dumb skulls of our governor's who do nothing but wait for federal allocations & sharing money from excess crude oil account. U can imagine 58% of our anual budget goes  to the FG,While the remaining 42% is shared among 36 states who has more responsibilities. This type of arraingement will always pave way for stagnation among various states.

byrron:

I completely agree to what princeK12 posted.the topic in question requires critical thinking so as to profer a realistic solutions. Having said that,i belive in complete practice of true federalism were power will be completely decentralise and d center will only be saddled with essential national responsibilites such as securities,emmergencies i.e natural disaster management,health & a few more. The states shld ve more responsibities snc its closer to the people and can easily tailor its services base on their needs snc every state needs varies from the other. It will also enable states to become more self sustaning and discover its potentials and maximise that as against the parasitic system which d unitary style of governance has instituted in2 d dumb skulls of our governor's who do nothing but wait for federal allocations & sharing money from excess crude oil account. U can imagine 58% of our anual budget goes  to the FG,While the remaining 42% is shared among 36 states who has more responsibilities. This type of arraingement will always pave way for stagnation among various states.

in a country of over 250 ethnic groups? imagine having more than 6 ethnic groups in a state. what happens if 3 of the ethnic groups in the the state are "minorities" and they feel marginalised?

we really need to be careful if we are going to practice federalism. we need a sought of "new" type of federalism that works, that is flexible and that fits each state's or region's specific problems.

if we are not, then genocide would be an understatement with what would happen.

jason12345:

in a country of over 250 ethnic groups? imagine having more than 6 ethnic groups in a state. what happens if 3 of the ethnic groups in the the state are "minorities" and they feel marginalised?

we really need to be careful if we are going to practice federalism. we need a sought of "new" type of federalism that works, that is flexible and that fits each state's or region's specific problems.

if we are not, then genocide would be an understatement with what would happen.

There is a way of preventing the marginalization of a minority ethnic group.  Also, the ethnic groups in a state, even though different, are more likely to work together. Currently, if we have a president from one ethnic group, that president can pretty much favor members of his own ethnic group, even if that ethnic group is the minority. Bottom line, there is no perfect system, but I think the advantages of federalism outweighs the our current system; hey, our current system has not worked for fifty years, and it is about time governors and local government chairmen are given more responsibilities so they can be held accountable by their local constituents.

I also agree with you that we need to design a system of federalism that will fit our local customs, but it requires critical thinking to come up with a workable solution.

Lol. . . Who would have thought. . .40 years later and people are proposing their own Aburi accords. Unfortunately, after 1966, it is either an arrangement like the present one, or complete dissolution. People have thought these things through before. There is a sort of stumbling block to federalism in the fact that there is absolutely no way that  the country will not be "subordinated to any arbitrary and capricious decision of a leader in Abuja" only for the other federating units to reject that  (in their view, he/she would be an idio.t, whether or not what he was proposing was only a small and simple thing that merely appeared capricious and wrong to this or that particular region, that's the nature of politics), leading to a political gridlock which would no doubt escalate into secession of some or most of the federating units, especially if ethnic or religious angles were introduced into the discussion (conflict, actually, not discussion. . .)

The thing which must be admitted is that, with each small area able to progress in any or most areas it deems necessary without central government approval, or without money from the center, it could progress at a rate proportional to the ability of the people in the state. Of course such a scheme might leave a certain very large region of Nigeria out in the cold and helpless. I think we all know what this region is. Recently, people from this region have been complaining that something is zoned to them. And people often suspect that the only reason there is no federalism is because of this region.

On the other hand, the things many people here are complaining about are mostly economic. Admittedly good economic development comes with good governance, so the fundamental problem here is mostly one of quality and competence of leadership, not necessarily the supposedly more productive governments that would somehow immediately follow from more local control.


It's about quality, my friends. One Jerry Rawlings (and no, not just somebody to kill off corrupt politicians, because those can always spring up again, somebody to actually develop the country as well), one Deng Xiaoping, and the particular brand of government becomes quite irrelevant. A benevolent dictator is many times better than several "elected" idiots.

The truth is when people talk about "true federalism" and "resource control" they're talking about far more than creation of state-controlled police, so lets leave such nearly trivial concerns out of this. What people are saying is that the current system has utterly failed to properly address their potential - both their human potential and that of their lands - to bring them out of their very low standard of living. But if, in the years following 1970, the leaders, most of them military leaders, had actually succeeded in developing Nigeria just off of sheer competence rather than failing woefully out of their actual gross incompetence and simplistic throw-oil-money-at-everything policies, lack of vision, and militaristic tendencies, would we hear so much about how "structure" or "lack of resource control" were the reasons for Nigeria's problems?

Of course not.


The problem is and always has been that some people, most of them from a certain geographical area that I'll leave unnamed for now, are just not up to the task of turning one of the most populous undeveloped nations in the world into a developed nation because that is a monumental task that they are not equal to in terms of quality. With the ascendancy of the PDP, a party composed chiefly of people unequal to this task, and their claim that they will rule Nigeria for 150+ years, and the apparent reality that they are in fact correct and that they will rig elections and rule for decades while the populace sits back and does nothing, I cannot blame people for inventing phantoms like "structure" and "resource control" as the panacea to all of their problems. Times are truly getting desperate. However the reality is that some of the "primitive" totalitarian states have seen enormous development without a regard for local voices over the strong center simply because the most competent were allowed to rise to the center.

With regard to the original post, I commend Fayemi for being a thinking governor, though I hope it is not just all for show.

@physicsqed,
End of discussion.
What more can one add?
Nothing.