What The Papers Say
National Concord, Nigeria, March 8, 1986
Saving the endangered OAU
Hardly any continental body has been more vilified and castigated in recent history than the Organisation of African Unity (OAU). Described at various times as grossly ineffective, tagged a toothless bulldog, or worse still, branded as having outlived its usefulness, the OAU is currently suffering a stifling economic crunch as a result of lack of funds. According to the current OAU Chairman, Mr Abdou Diouf, the activities of the continental body may soon be paralysed, if member nations fail to pay up their contributions, most of which are now in arrears.Mr Diouf's danger alarm, to be sure, is not an empty wolf cry. Part of the problem arises from the tattered state of the economies of most African countries. With a staggering continental external debt of about 174 billion dollars, it is obvious that most African nations are going through the throes of economic woes; hence their inability to contribute their quotas to the OAU fund.
Apart from the general poverty affecting many African states, however, there are those that do not feel encouraged to pay their dues to the OAU, ostensibly because the OAU has failed to fulfil their yearnings and aspirations. Despite the OAUS 23-year existence, Africa today is still far from attaining the political and economic independence which formed the cardinal objective of the organisation at its inception in 1963. In fact, the continent has since been driven further into the slavery of neo-colonialism and further into the abyss of political decay, economic mismanage- ment and social dislocations. There are also other countries, where the belief that the OAU finances had not been properly managed in the past, has tended to discourage a strong commitment to contemporary obligations.
While there is definitely some substance to each of the above views on the OAU, we believe that the body can still be rescued from its predicament, reactivated and propelled towards the solution of Africa's myriad problems. The immediate starting point is to save the organisation from the imminent economic collapse. And in this connection, we are calling on member states of the OAU to discharge their obligations to the organisation to enable it to perform its functions.
However, we are also of the view that the OAU needs to put its house in order, by making changes in its internal organisation and administration. In this regard, the plans of the body to cut down on personnel and to close three regional offices in Bangui, Accra and Kampala are quite expedient. But the OAU needs to further cut down on overhead expenses, if it hopes to operate strictly on the basis of its 1986/87 budget of N25.3 million.
It is our view that the organisation needs increased financial, moral and political support if Africa is to have any semblance of an effective continental body. Perhaps the time has come for the OAU to review its charter and embark on a reorganisation programme that may engender a stronger sense of belonging among its member-states. The OAU should also intensify its efforts in enhancing the economic position of member-states; for if member states are poor, the OAU in turn is bound to remain poor.
The Guardian, Nigeria, March 8, 1986
Of committees and public consultation
The democratic principle is still, understandably, a stranger in our midst. We have been ruled, for most of our history, by military men, whose style of governance, because of their training, has been the rule of fiat. It is, therefore, not surprising that President Babangida's departure from that dictatorial tradition, and his almost spontaneous recourse to committees for discussion and advice before taking major decisions, has baffled many, and is beginning to meet with opposition.The complaints here are that, first, this constant recourse to panels creates the impression of government helplessness, or at least, of its regular reluctance to take a stand on matters of policy. Secondly, it is claimed that this committee method is time-consuming, and tends to slow down considerably the process of government. Thirdly, there is the accusation that the setting up of committees marginilizes the civil service, and hence, further demoralizes it. It also increases administrative costs. These complaints may be genuine enough, but then the arguments are not all to the issue.
First, one of the problems of government in the past, a problem brought to its worst climax during the Buhari Administration, was precisely the refusal of rulers to consult with the governed. Public opinion was viewed with contemptu- ous disregard, and our governments rapidly became alienated from the people. Where a government decides wisely to learn from this, and act accordingly, there seems in our view no alternative, in the absence of elected councils or assemblies, to using chosen advisory committees. We may worry indeed about the composition of these committees, but that is a different matter from criticising the process itself. Form is one thing, substance is another. So far, the names selected for some of the committees have been judicious, reflective of radical intentions to break with the past, and the government deserves to be commended on this. Furthermore, in the light of the on-going controversy over the OIC, where no prior consultation was taken, we cannot but be alarmed by the call on the government to retreat from committees and begin to take decisions without consultation with the wider society. It should not.
There are other advantages in the present practice of wide consultation. It is useful, particularly for future democracy, to initiate the process of getting more and more of our citizens involved in policy-making. This has always been the exclusive preserve of politicians and civil servants. Now, people from all walks of life, technocrats, trade unionists and traders, etc, can learn and benefit from the experience of participation. Thus, government becomes less esoteric, and some flexibility is introduced into the seemingly rigid and stultifying structures of the civil service. Obviously, this may somehow slow down the decision-making process. But that is assuming that the process was fast at all in the first place, which it was not. And if there is any antagonism with the orthodox civil service as we knew it, then, it is a healthy antagonism towards a nobler goal and it needs to be promoted. Our governmental structures can do with the healthy disturbance of fresh winds blowing from the outside.
The other accusation, that these panels help the government to prevaricate, must not be seen as an entirely negative thing. Again, the argument can be sustained, that such a tactic of prevarication helps to defuse tension. When some issues threaten to tear the nation senselessly apart - again the OIC issue is the prime example - there is great virtue in the government refusing to make up its mind, at least until passions cool and men return to rational thinking.
Obviously, like all good ideas, the use of panels and committees in the governmental process can be abused. It can become a surreptitious governance. When things reach that stage, then there is cause for concern. But we do not share the view that we have arrived at such a point. Let us involve even more citizens in the governing process, and help cement the road for true democracy in our country.
