Managing Diversity in the Civil Service: A Brief Examination of the Nigerian Case

Transcription

1 United Nations Expert Group Meeting on Managing Diversity in the Civil Service United Nations Headquarters, New York, 3-4 May 2001 Managing Diversity in the Civil Service: A Brief Examination of the Nigerian Case Tijjani Muhammad Bande African Training and Research Centre in Administration For Development (C.A.F.R.A.D)

2 Introduction A measure of legitimacy of modern government is the degree to which important diversities in the population are reflected in its operations. As an institution which has the pivotal role of carrying out (and advising on) government policies, the civil service is one such body where the diversity of the entity should be found. The dividend in harmony, legitimacy and performance inclusionary civil services bring during an era with justified appreciation of rights, and of globalization, was underscored during the 15 th Expert Group Meeting organized by UNDESA/ DPEPA in May 2000; where it was recommended that Member States strengthen the civil service through diversity and mobility, including the dimensions of gender, ethnicity, age and varied populations. That in the African case the civil service has the added and very legitimate role of nation-building makes the issue of representation even more crucial. Nigeria is Africa s most populous nation and one of the world s most diverse. Its efforts at creating a representative bureaucracy have been marked by both successes and failures. This brief paper seeks to assess the attempts at bringing about a more diverse and representative civil service in Nigeria, drawing lessons from both the successes and the failures of that endeavour. Context Nigerians number some 120 million people, divided into over 200 ethnic groups, who practise several religions and whose histories and cultures at times varied. The processes of integration and differentiation of some of the groups had gone far when, in the late 19th century, the area was colonized and governed as Nigeria by Britain. As it suited its purposes, the colonial system united and/or divided the subjects. Colonial rule and the operations of the post-colonial state (from 1960) at times accentuated the differences, even as objective factors created compelling alliances (Afigbo, 1988; Uzoigwe, 1994; Usman, 1994). But from the standpoint of our theme, an important fact is that Nigeria is a federation. While federal systems exhibit important divergences in their origins, in their internal relations (including revenue generation and allocation) and in their degree of cohesiveness; yet, formal division of powers between or among units marks federal from non-federal systems. In federations, converging as well as conflicting interests exist in some tension, giving the system its special flavour. Students of Nigerian federalism are generally agreed that the earlier years of post-colonial federation ( ) exhibited more faithfulness to the federal ideal. But, with military rule from 1966, centralization of political life became the dominant feature, as even minor appointments at times had to be cleared by federally appointed officials (Ihonvbere, 2000; Ibrahim, 1997; Asobie, 1998; Babawale, 1998). Afigbo (1988) demonstrated that the operations of the colonial state created a dangerous myth of duality in sentiment, outlook and psychology between North and South, as a result of which the post-colonial leadership worked toward balancing interests of the two halves of Nigeria and of the three dominant groups (Hausa, Yoruba and Ibo). The result was insensitivity to rights of minorities and war ( ). 1

3 The increase in state revenues owing to importance of petroleum in the global political economy (1970 s) made available to military leaders unimaginable financial resources. The centre became dominant, and this was reflected in all the constitutions drafted under military supervision (1979, 1989, 1995, 1999). The critical period was , where a combination of poverty due to both mismanagement and the failed Structural Adjustment Program (SAP) (Olukoshi, 1995) and brutal repression (Momoh, 1995; Olukoshi, 1995; Falana, 1997), produced a predictable backlash in the rise of ethno-nationalism. There was destruction of public and private properties and physical insecurity. There were calls for either dissolution of the country or its serious restructuring (Olukoshi and Agbu, 1996; Ihonvbere, 2000; Mustapha, 1997). But through all these, debates centred around three key issues: rights of minorities, revenue allocation formula and representation of groups in government and administration. I turn more specifically to the last issue. Representation in the civil service The idea that the pluralism of the country should be reflected in the civil service and in politics is widely accepted in Nigeria. Community groups and associations agitated for inclusion on the grounds of fairness. While regional elites locked horns ( ) to obtain advantage against their competitors from other regions, there was nonetheless consensus that the under-represented (women and northerners) should be brought into federal service. Partly as a response to increasing demands of minorities in the Regions (and later, States), more and more political units were created in the country. Thus from 3 regions in 1960, second tier governments rose to 36 and a Federal Capital Territory by In addition, by 1993 third tier governments (local governments) rose to 776. Each of these governments had powers to employ, promote and discipline staff. Realistic guidelines, emphasizing training, but careful not to affect negatively advancement prospects of those already in posts, were agreed upon (Gboyega, 1988). But, the 1979 constitutional requirement that in appointments in the civil service federal character must be reflected; and the 1988 reforms making Directors-General political appointees, combined to erode stability and quality (Oluwo, 2001; Gboyega, 1988) of the service. Prior to the promulgation into law of the 1979 constitution, by accretion it had come to be that the presence of students of all parts of the country into federal institutions of learning principally the universities was made mandatory. The Joint Admissions and Matriculations Board (J.A.M.B.), created in 1977, admitted students to all universities. It stipulated that 40% of admissions be on the basis of national merit, 20% for educationally less advanced states, 30% for states in the vicinity of the particular university; and 10% left to the discretion of the university. However, for all entrants, regardless of category, a minimum number of Ordinary Level credits and scores in the J.A.M.B. administered examinations had to be obtained (Yoloye, 1988). In 1999, University Discretion was removed and the proportion for national merit increased. While this did not always work as planned, in the main there were increases in representation of all parts of the country in federal institutions of learning (Yoloye, 1988). The gap in education between most northern states and most southern states was not bridged, as some southern states established their own universities; and community efforts in the establishment of primary and secondary schools in all northern states (excluding Kwara and Kogi) are very feeble. 2

4 Compliance of universities to quotas is secured because the National Universities Commission (NUC) controls accreditation of all universities and the funding of federal universities (36 out of 42 universities in the country are federal government owned). But by far the most important development in the effort to create a representative bureaucracy came in 1979, when the constitution (section 14(3)) required that: The composition of the Government of the Federation or any of its agencies and the conduct of its affairs shall be carried out in such a manner as to reflect the federal character of Nigeria and the need to promote national unity and also to command national loyalty thereby ensuring that there shall be no predominance of persons from a few states or from a few ethnic groups or other sectorial groups in that government or any of its agencies. To operationalize this requirement, a system of quotas was instituted. While there were questions over the areas of operation of quotas, many leaders of the 2 nd Republic ( ) gave employment or elevation to party faithfuls (Oluwo, 2001). Meanwhile, agitations in favour of or in support- of quotas continued. New consciousness of state or local government of origin became intolerable. The irony of the situation is that new political units were created to give expression to autonomy of areas where charges of domination were rampant. The agitation of minority groups over rights and autonomy became even more heightened, especially during the years In 1999, a constitution was brought out being some kind of an extended amendment of 1994 Draft by Abacha s constitutional conference. It expanded the scope of the federal character and specified the role of the Federal Character Commission (established by section 153(i)(d)is. I quote these in full. (from sections 14(3) and (4) of the 1999 Constitution of The Federal Republic of Nigeria) 14. (3) The composition of the Government of the Federation or any of its agencies and the conduct of its affairs shall be carried out in such a manner as to reflect the federal character of Nigeria and the need to promote national unity and also to command national loyalty, thereby ensuring that there shall be no predominance of persons from a few States or from a few ethnic or other sectional groups in that Government or in any of its agencies. (4) The composition of the Government of a State, a local government council, or any of the agencies of such Government or council and the conduct of the affairs of the Government or council or such agencies shall be carried out in such manner as to recognize the diversity of the people within its area of authority and the need to promote a sense of belonging and loyalty among all the peoples of the Federation. In Part I of the Third Schedule to the 1999 Constitution of The Federal Republic of Nigeria, the composition of the Federal Character Commission was specified thus: 7. (1) The Federal Character Commission shall comprise the following members 3

5 (a) (b) a Chairman; and one person to represent each of the States of the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. (2) The Chairman and members shall be appointed by the President, subject to confirmation by the Senate. 8. (1) In giving effect to the provision of section 14(3) and (4) of this Constitution, the Commission shall have the power to (a) (b) (c) (d) work out an equitable formula subject to the approval of the National Assembly for the distribution of all cadres of posts in the public service of the Federation and of the States, the armed forces of the Federation, the Nigeria Police Force and other government security agencies, government owned companies and parastatals of the States; promote, monitor and enforce compliance with the principles of proportional sharing of all bureaucratic, economic, media and political posts at all levels of government; take such legal measures, including the prosecution of the head or staff of any Ministry or government body or agency which fails to comply with any federal character principle or formula prescribed or adopted by the Commission; and carry out such other functions as may be conferred upon it by an Act of The National Assembly. (2) The posts mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a) and (b) of this paragraph shall include those of the Permanent Secretaries, Directors-General in Extra-Ministerial Departments and parastatals, Directors in Ministries and Extra-Ministerial Departments, senior military officers, senior diplomatic posts and managerial cadres in the Federal and State parastatals, bodies, agencies and institutions. (3) Notwithstanding any provision in any other law or enactment, the Commission shall ensure that every public company or corporation reflects the federal character in the appointments of its directors and senior management staff. 9. It shall be the duty of the Board of Directors of every State owned enterprise to recognize and promote the principle of Federal character in the ownership and management structure of the company. It has to be stated that it is still largely unknown what equitable formula is being used to give effect to this provision, or how the proportional sharing of all bureaucratic, economic, media and political posts at all levels of government is to be determined. The promotion, monitoring 4

6 and enforcement of the federal character clause to cover 300,000 federal service employees; employees of all 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory and all 76 local governments seems to be an impossible undertaking by one Commission. Refinement of its mandate is needed if it is to succeed. The heightening of sense of separateness arising from an excessive concern over origins is indeed a problem, especially in a situation where nation-building is a goal. Effective negation of one s Nigerian citizenship is a problem where residents of long-standing are seen as foreigners, despite formal citizenship of the federal republic. So ridiculous is this that at times even elected representatives speaking the same language are referred to as foreigners, as was the case in the Lagos State House of Assembly (Ihonvbere, 2000: 356) recently. Opposition to quotas in the country have been hinged on the argument that it is counter to merit and has a negative impact on efficiency (lowering standards). Support for quotas has been based on the need for stability and even development, as well as equity and fairness. The debate is broadly similar to the U.S. debate on equal opportunity and reverse discrimination (see portions of: Dworkin, 1978; Dworkin, 1985; Posner, 1983; Richard, 1982) and has been ably sketched by Caiden and Caiden (2001). Soglo (1988) makes an effective case in support of quotas in Nigeria. Nonetheless, a brief comment is in order to further explain why representative bureaucracy is needed and the limits of the merit argument in the Nigerian case. From the onset, it has to be stated that in reference to the operations of the bureaucracy, which is taken as a bastion of rationality instrumental, if not substantive hardly anyone can make a case against merit. However, the matter is what constitutes merit in the recruitment of persons to undertake important and often complex functions. Is merit to be taken to mean scholastic achievement, however defined? In Nigeria, unfortunately, the preponderant view is the equation of merit with scores in formal examinations. Yet, here, three considerations should lead to caution: incidence of examination malpractice, including false claims of attainment of qualifications; variation in standards among schools and institutions; and the uncertain if not unsystematic- nature of assessments in relation to the promotion of officers. The incidence of examination mal-practice in secondary and tertiary schools (both of which are for some inexplicable reason higher in southern institutions) is pretty established as a national problem in the country. Related to this are cases of false claims of certificates, the most famous of which are that of the deposed Speaker of the House of Representations, Alhaji Salihu Buhari; the deposed President of Senate, Chief E. Enwerem; and the Governor of Lagos State, Alhaji Bola Tinibu. The point is not that northern or southern institutions of learning have more integrity; rather, the individual cases we seek to emphasize are uncertain. That schools have varying standards is well known; in the case in question, the weakness of regulatory bodies in education, especially from the 1980 s has led to the existence of institutions which are unknown to education authorities, but which offer all kinds of Diplomas. And finally, the laxity in assessments for promotion has led to a situation where there are doubts over whether those elevated from among a pack merit their new posts. This is even aside from 5

7 the question about the yardsticks by which assessments are made. Irked by the arrogance of those who push the merit argument too far, Ken Saro Wiwa asked: What efficiency? Where in Nigeria is there efficiency? All we have had is tribalism organized by those in control of institutions to ensure that they remain in control in perpetuity. (Gboyega, 1988:183) Consideration over how to implement in a fairer and more acceptable way the federal character clause continues. As to its impact on the federal bureaucracy, the table below provides some clue. Consolidated Statistics: The Presidency Federal Ministries and Extra- Ministerial Departments Total Staff Distribution by Zones as at 1996 Zones No. of Staff % of Total North Central 67, % North East 28, % North West 37, % South East 46, % South South 75, % South West 71, % Total 327, % (from Federal Character Commission Publication, 2 nd Edition) It should be recalled that at independence, one section of the country with its 55% of the population had less than 10% presence in the federal bureaucracy. Now that portion has 41%. Gaps in the debate on representation in Nigeria s civil service There seems to be some key issues connected to the attainment of a more representative bureaucracy which have not been taken sufficient cognisance of: monitoring effectiveness; gender, age, disability and population. Let us take each in turn. First, regarding measurement, are our objectives clear? If the objectives are clear, we ought to know what our minimum targets are. Do we have timeframes? Surely, the goal is not that because we have a federation, all states have the same number of employees? What is to be done when, unhindered by the system, a predominant number of young men and women from a particular group choose to fulfil their ambitions elsewhere far from the bureaucracy? Should laws be made to block their path, just to satisfy quotas in one facet of life? This is an important question for both theory and practice. For theory because true pluralism ought not entail rank 6

8 ordering of valued goods in the same way by all groups. This would be counter to respect for diversity. For practice because if it is counter to a deeply held cultural reality, enforcement may not work, and the particular body charged with enforcement will fail. Perhaps the goal should be to continually look at systematic obstacles to recruitment and guarantee open systems, so that any charges of non-inclusion could be investigated and rectified, where need be. Secondly, in a country in which state and local government delineations have not been carried out in an impersonal way, consideration to the size (in population) of the states should be given. Thirdly, there is hardly any consideration about the needs and rights of the disabled. Public buildings take no heed of their requirements, and employment agencies find ways of ignoring them. That explains why the incidence of illiteracy or low level of training among the Nigerian disabled is high. The public service has a duty to affirm positively equal dignity of all, regardless of physical or other challenges. Fourthly, employment is more difficult for the aged. Combined with the absence in the country of a system of welfare, this is a serious problem for which positive measures are required. Finally, and most crucially, any glance at Nigeria s public life will show clearly an embarrassing imbalance in favour of men. Loud proclamations have been made about equality of the sexes. The reality is very different. The civil service must show examples by guaranteeing fair inclusiveness to women. This should be part of the interpretation of the federal character clause of the constitution. Conclusion I have sketched below the attempt of the federal authorities in Nigeria to bring about a more representative bureaucracy. A major success of that endeavour was increased access to education across the entire federation; and with it a remarkable rise in representation in the federal and other public bureaucracies. I have also indicated important aspects of diversity which received little or no consideration. The zeal by which some functionaries pursue the representation agenda is causing problems and beclouding its rationale. But aside from this is an equally serious conflict of two principles, recognition of states (or other diversity) and national unity. Religious extremists and ethno-nationalists have in the past two decades occasionally caused concern and put to question the issue of the meaning of Nigeria. Certainly, a more sober consideration of a workable balance is required. It is my view that appointment of competent, non-partisan, officials to run the Federal Character Commission and the streamlining of its tasks will help in bringing about a more diverse federal (or other) bureaucracy without causing instability in the system. Several approaches can be considered by policy-makers to improve diversity in the country. Constitutional provisions have been central; yet, it could be argued that the codification of differences has brought about its own dilemmas. Clearly, education and widespread dialogue regarding the value of inclusiveness are equally desirable. Those entrusted with management responsibilities in public institutions also need a deeper appreciation not only of differences, but 7

9 also of how to create harmony in the work environment. Management styles need to be more participatory and less hierarchical. In addition, there is need for the involvement of research institutions, national and regional, in the assessment of methods adopted to bring about a more diverse and competent bureaucracy. The return to democratic rule in the country should make this easier, as good governance is the only framework within which any meaningful operation of the bureaucracy can take place. REFERENCES Afigbo, A.E. (1988) Federal Character: Its Meaning and History, in P. P. Ekeh and E. E. Osaghae (eds.): Federal Character and Federalism in Nigeria, Heinemann, Ibadan. Asobie, A., (1988) Centralizing Trends in Nigerian Federalism, in Babawale, T., et al (eds.): Re-inventing Federalism in Nigeria s Issues and Perspectives, Malthouse Press Limited (for Freidrich Ebert Foundation) Lagos. Babawale, T. (1998), The Impact of Military Rule on Nigerian Federalism, in Babawale, T., et al, op. cit. Caiden, G. and Caiden, N. (2001) The Experience of the United States and the United Kingdom in the Area of Diversity, paper prepared for presentation at the Meeting of The Group of Experts on Managing Diversity in The Civil Service, UN, May 3-4, Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 Dworkin, R. (1978): Taking Rights Seriously, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. Dworkin, R. (1988): A Matter of Principle, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. Federal Character Commission (2000): Consolidated Statistics, Abuja. Falana, F. (1997), Civil Liberties, Human Rights Organizations and the Rule of Law, in Ibrahimm, J. (ed): Expanding Democratic Space in Nigeria, CODESRIA, Dakar Gboyega, A. (1988), The Public Service and Federal Character, in P. P. Ekeh and E. E. Osaghae, op. cit. Ibrahim, J. (1997), The Military and the Programme of Transition to Democratic Rule, in Ibrahim, J. (ed.), op. cit. 8

10 Ihonvbere, J. O., How to Make an Undemocratic Constitution: the Nigerian Example, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp Momoh, A. (1995), The Military and Human Rights, in Adejumobi, S. and Momoh, A. (ed): The Political Economy of Nigeria Under Military Rule: , SAPES, Harare. Mustapha, A. R. (1997) Ethnicity and Democratization in Nigeria: A Case Study of Zangon Kitaf, in Ibrahim, J, op. cit. Nnoli, O. (1978): Ethnic Politics in Nigeria, Fourth Dimension, Enugu. Olukoshi, A. (1995), The Political Economy of the Structural Adjustment Programme, in Adejumobi and Momoh, op. cit. Oluwo, B. (2001), Pride and Performance in African Public Services: Analysis of Institutional Breakdown and Rebuilding Efforts in Nigeria and Uganda, International Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 67, Number 1, March Olukoshi, A. (1996), Osita Agbu, The Deepening Crisis of Nigerian Federalism and the Future of the Nation-State, in Olukoshi, A. O. and Laakso, L. (eds.): Challenges to the Nation-State in Africa, Nordiska Afrikainstitutet, Uppsala. Posner, R. (1983): The Economics of Justice, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. Richard, Janet (1982): The Sceptical Feminist: A Philosophical Inquiry, Penguin, New York. Soglo, G. (1988) Justice, Equity and the Logic of Reverse Discrimination in Nigerian Politics, in Ekeh and Osaghae (eds.) op. cit. Usman, Y. B. (1994), The Federation of Nigeria and the Lessons of Historical Experiences of the People of Nigeria, in Elaigwu, J., et al (eds.): Federalism and Nation-Building in Nigeria, NCIR, Abuja. Uzoigwe, G. N. (1994), The Historical Background to the National Question in Nigeria, paper presented to the Seminar on Economy, the National Question and Transitional Politics in Contemporary Nigeria, Nsukka, April Yoloye, E. A. (1988), Federal Character and Institutions of Higher Learning, in Ekeh and Osaghae (eds.), op. cit. 9