Over the years, the cost of governance in Nigeria has become a vexed issue that has continued to dominate socio-economic discourse. Sadly, it has been more talk and less action, creating the unfortunate impression that a lot more is embedded in this system than meets the eye.
Furthermore, and in a bid to overcome the obvious challenges generated by this phenomenon, successive governments, since the return to democratic rule and even before, have consistently harped on the need to rein it in so as to make more money available for development.
However, it is sad to note that rather than reducing it, every new administration seems to increase it beyond the level it inherited. What makes it even more worrisome is the fact that government expenditure has not in any way translated into genuine development of the country. This perceived profligacy in governance can also be captured within the economic context of the long retinue of ministers, commissioners, special advisers, special assistants, and the high cost of maintaining the National Assembly members, States’ Assemblies and Local Government Areas.
Each budget year, so much money is voted for recurrent expenditure, while a not too significant percentage is earmarked for capital expenditure requirements in critical areas of infrastructure, health, education and other key sectors that enhance the quality of the life of the people. It is equally disturbing that these huge allocations have no multiplier effect on the economy and the overall development strategy of the country that is still ranked among the poorest nations of the world.
The unaccounted security votes of the president and governors stress the point that presidential democracy the country borrowed from the United States of America is the most expensive and unsustainable system of government for any developing nation. Compounding this self-imposed financial recklessness is the monster corruption that has eaten deep into every fabric of the polity.
It is against this backdrop that this newspaper calls for the amendment of the 1999 Constitution to reduce the size of government through a drastic reduction in the membership of the federal and state cabinets, including the number of advisers and assistants. There is also the need to merge Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs).
Simultaneously, the prevailing jumbo salaries and emoluments of political office holders and their retinue of aides at all levels must, necessarily, be reviewed downwards. It is our considered opinion that if this is done, it will help cut down wastages. As part of the cost-cutting measures, we recommend that the country, while retaining the bicameral legislature, will also insist that the members serve on part-time basis and be paid sitting allowances only.
We recall that the former governor of Central Bank of Nigeria and now Emir of Kano, Alhaji Muhammadu Sanusi II, called for a reduction in the cost of governance in the country with a warning that about 70 per cent of the federal government’s revenue goes into the payment of salaries and entitlements, leaving 30 per cent for development. Indeed, this is not the way to run a country that desires to grow, develop and make its mark among the comity of nations.
While acknowledging that the constitution empowers the Revenue Mobilisation, Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC) to fix pay packages for the president and other political office holders, we also consider it not morally defensible from the perspective of social justice and other known moral criteria that such huge sums are consumed by a small fraction of the people that belong to the so-called ruling political class.
We also acknowledge the fact that the task of reducing the cost of governance is at the same time challenging but imperative if the country must bring under control the pervasive haemorrhaging that is threatening the socio-economic advancement of the nation.
It is, in our view, a task that demands the collective effort of all and sundry, especially those benefitting from the awkward system. The benefit to be derived from the exercise, if effectively carried out, will far outweigh the consideration of the selfish gains which has continued to stymie its implementation.
It is pertinent to emphasise that a lean government will reduce waste, inefficiency, corruption and duplication of government functions as well as make capital spending more effective. At the same time, we think that there is a compelling need to intensify the war against corruption by strengthening the constitutional powers of the various anti-corruption agencies in the areas of arrest, investigation and prosecution of offenders.
