Positives from the debate of the vice presidents

For the first time in a long while, the Nigerian political space came alive in the first week of September not for any piffle talk or abuse but on account of a spirited debate on restructuring and the performance of governments, past and present. The debaters were former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and incumbent Vice President Prof Yemi Osinbajo. They traded ideas, perspectives and the facts as it appeared to them.

Commendations to the distinguished gentlemen for conducting their debate, through lectures and point-counterpoint in response, in a civil manner. There was engagement. There was sparring in the best traditions. They articulated issues clearly and succinctly.

The debate is a refreshing departure to the aridity of the current political climate where parties are campaigning ahead of a general election without any manifestoes or clear agenda. Not one of the parties has articulated any philosophy, ideology or programme. There is no vision or mission, no promises. Nigerian politics has become so cynical and unfeeling about the citizenry or the future of the nation that the parties have reduced it to merely a matter of collecting the votes, by hook or crook, and assuming power.

No wonder the poor performance of elected officials across all levels. Governments in the land, without a compass, now celebrate the mundane and the inane as “achievements.” A Local Government chairman recently rolled out the drums to commission building a staff toilet.

It contrasts sharply with the character of politics in the First and Second Republics. Parties then had a semblance of ideological orientations and philosophical grounding. They had programmes such as the “Four cardinal programmes” outlined by the Unity Party of Nigeria or the One Nation, One Destiny platform of the National Party of Nigeria. Analysts could point to one party as for the right of centre and the other as left of centre with one welfarist. Analysing and characterising our parties and candidates must be a tough call for students of Political Science today.

The preceding is the background against which to view the debate of the Vice Presidents. The subject was the necessity or otherwise for the restructuring of the federation, an issue that has been on the front burner in the last 18months at least.

Vice President Yemi Osinbajo kicked off the case. In an address, he dismissed the call for restructuring, stating that Nigeria needs more. He said,“the problem with our country is not a matter of restructuring”. Osinbajo canvassed the view that “geographical restructuring” would lead merely to the creation of additional states. Creation of states is not beneficial, the VP further stated, in a situation where existing states cannot meet their obligations. He said he was all for fiscal federalism.

Many groups, individuals and media organs challenged the Vice President’s assertion. Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar wrote a reply. That, in turn, caused Osinbajo to issue a counterpoint and clarification of his stand. According to Osinbajo, “I argued that what we require now was not geographical restructuring but good governance, honest management of public resources, deeper fiscal Federalism, and a clear vision for development.”

Atiku in further response outlined his concept of restructuring. He cited a long history of engagement with the topic. “I have been in the forefront of the discourse on restructuring since the 1995 Abacha Constitutional Conference, and to the best of my knowledge, there has not been any term like ‘geographic restructuring’. It is a strange concept, not only because it is not what the restructuring debate is all about, but also because the words of the Vice President, which prompted my response where clear, unambiguous and unequivocal.”

In Atiku’s words, restructuring is about devolution of powers and resources to the states; matching grants from the federal government to the states to help them grow their internally generated revenue position; the privatisation of unviable federal government-owned assets. It also includes “a truly free market economy driven by the laws of demand and supply; replacing state of origin with state of residence, and passing the PIGB so that our oil and gas sector will run as a business with minimal governmental interference.”

The two Vice Presidents have started off a good practice. We urge them to continue in this direction. As politicians are wont to do, they threw darts and barbs at each other. That also is welcome as similar engagement in the past, locally and internationally, have added to the grammar of politics.

We need more of these debates. There are many issues canvassed at the 2014 National Conference that call for the attention of the Federal and State governments and the political class. More of these debates would be beneficial to the country and would enable the return of a culture of civility, and ideas as the primary tool for winning the votes and allegiance of citizens.