The question of whether Nigeria should restructure its political system is one of the most persistent and contentious debates in the country.

There is no simple "yes" or "no" answer, as the concept of "restructuring" itself has various interpretations, and the potential benefits and drawbacks are significant.

What is "Restructuring" in the Nigerian Context?

"Restructuring" in Nigeria generally refers to fundamental changes to the country's federal system, moving away from the highly centralized structure inherited from military rule towards a more decentralized one. Key aspects often discussed include:

• Devolution of Powers: Shifting more legislative, executive, and fiscal powers from the federal government to the states or new regional units. This would reduce the federal government's extensive "Exclusive Legislative List."

• Fiscal Federalism/Resource Control: Giving states or regions greater control over the natural resources within their territories (especially oil and gas) and allowing them to retain a larger percentage of the revenues generated, with a reduced contribution to the central government.

• Creation or Merging of States/Regions: Altering the current 36-state structure, either by creating more viable states, merging existing ones into larger, more economically sustainable regions, or reverting to a regional structure (like the pre-1966 era).

• Local Government Autonomy: Granting greater financial and administrative autonomy to local governments, freeing them from the control of state governors.

• State Police: Allowing states to establish and control their own police forces, rather than having a single, centralized federal police force.

• Constitutional Amendments: Overhauling the 1999 Constitution to reflect these proposed changes.

Arguments for Restructuring:

1. Promotes True Federalism: Proponents argue that the current system is a "unitary federalism" or "feeding-bottle federalism" where states are overly dependent on federal allocations. Restructuring would align Nigeria more closely with the principles of true federalism, where federating units have significant autonomy.

2. Enhances Economic Development and Competition:

   • Resource Control: Allows states to harness their resources (agriculture, solid minerals, tourism) and develop them, fostering internal revenue generation and reducing over-reliance on oil.

   • Healthy Competition: Creates a competitive environment among states/regions to attract investment, develop infrastructure, and implement innovative policies to improve the lives of their citizens.

   • Economic Viability: Restructuring (especially merging states) could create larger, more economically viable federating units, reducing the high cost of maintaining numerous unviable states.

3. Addresses Marginalization and Injustice:

   • Inclusivity: Many groups feel marginalized or unfairly treated in the current system, particularly concerning resource allocation and political appointments. Restructuring aims to address these grievances by providing a greater sense of ownership and participation.

   • Reduces Ethnic Tensions: By giving more power and resources to sub-national units, it's argued that ethnic groups would focus more on developing their regions rather than competing fiercely for federal power, potentially reducing ethno-religious conflicts.

4. Improves Governance and Accountability:

   • Closer to the People: Devolution of powers brings governance closer to the grassroots, making leaders more directly accountable to the local population for service delivery.

   • Reduces Centralized Corruption: A powerful center with vast resources often becomes a major target for corruption. Decentralizing power and resources could reduce the intensity of this struggle.

5. Reflects Nigeria's Diversity: Given Nigeria's immense ethnic, cultural, and religious diversity, a more decentralized system is seen as better suited to manage this pluralism and allow for diverse approaches to development.

Arguments Against Restructuring (or Concerns):

1. Fear of Disintegration/Secession: Opponents, particularly from some parts of Northern Nigeria, fear that extensive restructuring, especially resource control and regional autonomy, could lead to the fragmentation or eventual secession of federating units, threatening Nigeria's unity.

2. Elite Interests: Critics argue that the clamor for restructuring is often driven by political elites primarily seeking to re-negotiate access to power and resources for their own benefit, rather than genuinely addressing the needs of the masses.

3. Increased Ethnic Tensions/Conflicts: While proponents argue it reduces tensions, others fear that empowering regions along ethnic lines could exacerbate ethnic chauvinism, internal conflicts within regions (between majority and minority ethnic groups), and boundary disputes.

4. Cost and Complexity of Implementation: Undertaking fundamental constitutional changes, re-drawing boundaries, and redistributing assets and liabilities would be an enormous, expensive, and potentially disruptive undertaking.

5. No Guarantee of Good Governance: Critics argue that simply changing the structure without a fundamental shift in political culture, values, and the commitment to fighting corruption and ensuring accountability will not automatically lead to better governance. Corrupt practices could simply decentralize.

6. "What Kind of Restructuring?": The lack of a single, widely agreed-upon definition of "restructuring" makes the debate difficult. Different groups advocate for different models, leading to suspicion and deadlock. Some fear that vague calls for restructuring mask agendas that would disadvantage specific groups.

7. Northern Apprehension: Many in the North fear that resource control would significantly disadvantage their region, which is less rich in oil, leading to economic decline and widening disparities. They often advocate for a focus on strengthening existing institutions and good governance within the current structure.

Conclusion:

The debate over political restructuring in Nigeria is ongoing because it touches on fundamental issues of identity, power, resources, and justice. While there are valid concerns from all sides, a strong argument can be made that Nigeria should seriously consider some form of political restructuring.

The current highly centralized system, a legacy of military rule, is widely seen as inefficient, inequitable, and a major contributor to Nigeria's underdevelopment and persistent ethno-religious tensions. However, any restructuring process must be:

• Inclusive and Consensual: Involve broad consultations with all stakeholders, ethnic groups, and regions to build consensus and address fears.

• Phased and Strategic: Perhaps implemented gradually, focusing on specific aspects like fiscal federalism or police reform first.

• Accompanied by Institutional Reforms: Must go hand-in-hand with strengthening anti-corruption agencies, reforming the judiciary, ensuring electoral integrity, and promoting ethical leadership. Without these, a mere structural change may achieve little.

Ultimately, the goal of restructuring should be to create a more equitable, efficient, and stable federation where all component units feel a sense of belonging and have the autonomy and resources to drive their own development, fostering healthy competition rather than destructive rivalry.