NIGERIA NOTES (New Series)

By Ladipo Adamolekun

“The most reliable method yet invented to ensure that governments provide people with social and economic necessities is called politics”

– The Economist (London), March 24^th 2007.

The salience of the politics of service delivery is aptly put in the above assertion.  And I would argue that the provision of public services would be better in countries with developed political processes than in those with underdeveloped political processes.  The core elements of political processes to develop and nurture for this purpose are a predictable legal order; free, fair and credible competitive elections; strong oversight institutions such as legislative oversight; zero tolerance for corruption; and a competent administration.

Most observers of politics and service delivery in Nigeria over the last two decades are likely to agree that the country’s more or less consistent low scores with respect to each of the core elements of political processes highlighted constitutes the major explanatory factor for poor service delivery by governments at the federal, state and local levels.  In this essay, I summarise the linkage of each element of a political process to service delivery and I conclude with some suggestions for governments that desire to get the politics of service delivery right.

A predictable legal order

It is a combination of judicial independence and judicial efficiency that ensures a predictable legal order. And it is the same predictability and capacity of the justice system that ensures equality of all under the law, the protection of property rights, the enforcement of contracts, the protection of individual (human) rights, the settlement of citizen-state conflicts as well as citizen-citizen conflicts.  Furthermore, when there are cases of exclusion or discrimination in service delivery in a country with a predictable legal order, citizens are normally able to seek redress in courts.

Based on reports in the print media, there is strong evidence of significant limitations to both judicial independence and judicial efficiency in Nigeria since 1999 and it would, therefore, be correct to say that the country lacks a predictable legal order. This explains the numerous instances of the violation of human rights during the last two decades with the continued detention of Omoyele Sowore and Olawale Bakare by the Department of State Security (DSS) despite the order of a competent court for their release as the latest illustration.  Another consequence of the lack of a predictable legal order is the inability of citizens to seek redress in courts with respect to flagrant cases of discrimination or exclusion in service delivery, notably with respect to education, health and electricity supply.

Free, fair and credible competitive elections

A government that emerges through free, fair and credible elections is expected to be accountable to the citizens that have entrusted the exercise of political authority to it.  In turn, the citizens who, through their votes, have determined who governs them (this includes using their votes to remove non-performing governments) are also expected to demand accountability from their rulers. The combination of rulers who are accountable to their citizens and citizens that demand accountability from their rulers is generally considered as one of the key ingredients of good governance characterised with satisfactory delivery of services to citizens.

ALSO READ: Oyo govt earmarks N1bn for primary health care delivery

Although Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution requires that governments at both the federal and state levels must emerge through free, fair and credible elections, five of the six election cycles in the country to date (1999, 2003, 2007, 2011 and 2019) did not qualify as free, fair and credible – the exception was the 2015 election, especially at the federal level.  The elections were marred, in varying degrees, by violence and irregularities, and there were protracted electoral contestations in courts. In these circumstances, it is unsurprising that, almost without exception, federal and state governments have failed to deliver satisfactory social and economic services to Nigerians. And the certification for the continuous poor service delivery record is the country’s infamous categorization as the poverty capital of the world in 2018.

It is important to stress that evidence in the development literature that some governments provide satisfactory social and economic services to their citizens without the ruler-citizen-ruler accountability highlighted above is no more than a time-bound counterfactual. Almost without exception, after a couple of decades or so, such countries (notably, Singapore, South Korea and Chile) have embraced the principle of government emerging through the conduct of free, fair and credible competitive elections.

Strong oversight institutions

Of the three constitutional functions of legislators in both developed and emerging democracies – representation, law-making and oversight of the executive – it is through the oversight function that Nigerian legislators can seek to promote the delivery of quality services to all citizens by the executive in respect of the constitutional functions assigned to the different levels of government. It is also through their oversight function that federal legislators can ensure that there is fairness in the distribution of services across states and geopolitical zones.

Overall, it is a poor performance of legislative oversight function that has been widely reported in the media during the past two decades, including worrisome examples of legislators who extort bribes from government agencies during so-called oversight exercises.

In addition, there is the notorious distortion called constituency projects through which federal legislators seek to directly deliver services in their constituencies across the federation – a nonsense that, according to President Buhari’s recent lamentation, has resulted in a waste of about one trillion naira during the last decade (see Daily Trust, November 19^th 2019).

Zero tolerance for corruption

There is abundant evidence in the literature on corruption that countries with a high level of corruption tend to be characterised with poor service delivery while countries with low-level of corruption tend to be characterised with quality service delivery.

Notwithstanding the attention paid to anti-corruption in the early 2000s under President Obasanjo and from 2015 to date under President Muhammadu Buhari’s watch – presidents Yar’Adua and Jonathan did not consider anti-corruption as a priority – the level of corruption in the country has remained consistently high. Strong evidence is provided in Nigeria’s very low average score in the Corruption Perception Index (CPI) of Transparency International: below 30 per cent (high corruption level) every year from 1999 to 2019.

A competent administration

In an earlier essay, “Understanding poor service delivery” (Vanguard, October 24, 2007), I made the following observation:  “Any government at the different levels that is genuinely committed to achieving improved service delivery must immediately commit to enhancing the capability [competence] of its public service and maintain the commitment throughout its tenure – this is the lesson of experience from countries acknowledged as leaders in the provision of quality services for their citizens (for example, Australia, Botswana, Canada, France, Singapore, and the United Kingdom).” And closer to home, there is evidence that the competent public services at the federal and regional levels during the decade from the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s ensured above-average service delivery overall and quality services in some cases.

Although administrative reform programmes that seek to enhance the capability of public services have been launched and re-launched at the federal level and by a significant number of state governments from the mid-2000s to date, only a few “pockets” of good performance have been acknowledged across the federation. Strikingly, the limited competence of the federal civil service was admitted by the immediate past head of the institution during her final months: “[Federal] Civil servants suffering from skills deficiency – Oyo-Ita” (Daily Trust, April 22^nd 2019).

 Conclusion: Getting the politics of service delivery right

The broad recommendation for getting the politics of service delivery right is implicit in the observation made in the opening paragraph of this essay: progress from underdeveloped to developed political processes is a precondition for ensuring that Nigerian governments provide social and economic necessities for the citizens. Based on the illustrations provided in the discussion of the five elements of political processes, getting the politics of service delivery right requires efforts aimed at achieving simultaneous improvement with respect to each of them.

ALSO READ: Nigeria inflation rises to 12%

A predictable legal order: Although the reform measures that are required for achieving judicial independence and judicial efficiency in the country have been widely canvassed during the last two decades, implementation has been half-hearted. ]

Furthermore, the combination of a failure of successive executive power holders at the federal level to respect judicial independence and obey court orders and the widespread corruption throughout the legal system have resulted in an unpredictable legal order. To achieve a predictable legal order and the associated positive results, reform measures for assuring judicial independence and efficiency must be consistently implemented and there must be an end to the bad practices highlighted.

Free, fair and credible competitive elections: Getting ruler-citizen-ruler accountability right requires implementing electoral reforms that would help ensure free, fair and credible elections. The desirable next step is for the executive and legislative arms of government to agree on reform measures that enjoy broad support within society.

Two notable examples are (i) allowing for independent candidates in elections and (ii) measures for assuring prompt and appropriate punishment for persons involved in election malpractices – both are spelled out clearly in the Uwais Report (2008).

Strong oversight institutions such as legislative oversight: For legislative oversight to contribute to improved service delivery in the country, legislators who already receive huge salaries and allowances must eschew bribery during the conduct of oversight exercises.

Without question, money used to bribe legislators are deductions from the budgetary funds allocated for service delivery.  And as a matter of urgency, nonsensical constituency projects that constitute so much waste must be abolished and federal legislators should focus sharply on ensuring that there is fairness in the distribution of services across states and geopolitical zones

Zero tolerance for corruption: The obvious goal is to move from high to low-level corruption – achieving a significant improvement in CPI score, from an average of below 30 per cent to 50 per cent or higher within a decade. As the country’s corruption level progresses from low to moderate or higher, there will be a corresponding improvement in the quality of services delivered to citizens.

A competent administration: A majority of the public (civil) service reform programmes adopted at the federal and state levels since the mid-2000s correctly emphasize the critical dimensions of a competent administration that include the efficiency and effectiveness of the organizational structures of public service institutions; the adequacy and quality of human resources and compensation levels and incentives; and the efficiency of public financial management.

What has been missing, almost uniformly, is genuine commitment to faithfully implement the adopted reform measures. Only governments that implement appropriate administrative reform programmes on a continuing basis will succeed in delivering improved services to their citizens.

Professor Ladipo Adamolekun writes from Iju, Akure North, Ondo State.

Vanguard