After presenting some evidence of poor service delivery between 1999 and 2007, the following three explanatory factors are highlighted: centralized federalism, unaccountable governments, and weak public administration capability.
The contribution of the problem of corruption to poor service delivery will be highlighted as a cross-cutting issue.
In each of the three areas, some suggestions are proffered on what the federal and sub-national governments could do differently to achieve an improved service delivery report card by 2011.
We do not need to wait for the "verdict of history" - in its various interpretations - to know that there was little or no improvement in the quality of life of the mass of the population of Nigeria between May 1999 and May 2007.
Specific examples would include, among others, electricity supply that was as epileptic in May 2007 as it was in May 1999.
The "explanation" that saboteurs were responsible for the failure of the Obasanjo administration in this area is an astounding admission by a leader whose professional training is expected to have prepared him for anticipating and forestalling sabotage.
The majority of roads - including the Lagos- Ibadan-Ilesa-Akure-Ado-Ekiti - that I frequented during the period, were worse in May 2007 than they were in 1999. Roads for which sub-national governments were responsible were not in better condition.
The poor quality of service in the education sector - from the primary through secondary to the tertiary level - is regularly documented in the print media.
For example, it is on record that all the public universities (federal-owned as well as state-owned) that have become uncompetitive, even by African standards, were in the midst of a 3-month shut-down as the Obasanjo administration left the stage.
And there is the total failure of police administration with one Inspector-General stealing billions of naira that was allocated for improving the quality of the service in the sub-sector.
By May 2007, there was no improvement in the quality of policing in the country compared to what existed in 1999.
Whether it was a knee injury or a catarrh, or any other ailment that afflicted any of the rulers during the period, over-seas treatment was the "solution".
The ill-equipped and inadequately funded health facilities in the country provided poor to mediocre services for the rest of the population.
Even in the show-case telecommunication sub-sector where significant success was recorded, poor power supply steadily eroded the quality of service.
The so-called "Service compact with all Nigerians" (SERVICOM) that was launched in 2003/2004 was no more than a cosmetic imitation of Britain's Citizens' charters (for achieving improved service delivery).
It was run as a British Government technical assistance programme but was not an integral part of a service orientation strategy and programme as was the case in Britain.
Unsurprisingly, SERVICOM had no impact on service delivery and is hardly known outside its secretariat and the small number of government agencies selected to pilot it.
Centralized Federalism
The military legacy of a centralized federal system was maintained and reinforced in some respects by the Obasanjo administration.
The manifestations of the centralized system in terms of concentration of legislative powers, including illegal extensions in the areas of primary education and primary health as well as the allocation of a significant proportion of revenues accruing to the Federation Account was accompanied by poor service delivery.
A good illustration was the illegal deduction from source by the federal government of N18 billion of local governments' share of the Federation Account for the construction of health centres without consultation with the state governments and local governments that had constitutional responsibility for the function.
Improving service delivery was not the objective of this hijack of funds and function. It, probably, had more to do with patronage and kickback in contracting at some levels.
Mercifully, the incumbent administration recently cancelled the contract.
President Yar'Adua's recent statement that the Federal Government committed N230 billion (including all the gains of the Paris Club debt deal in 2005) to the implementation of the MDGs was accompanied by the announcement that the Federal Government (FG) will begin to involve the state and local governments in the process (The Punch, September 17/07).
If the news report is correct, then FG managed the huge expenditure to the exclusion of state and local governments who have either joint or exclusive constitutional responsibility for many of the MDG goals!
The fact that Nigeria has only made slow progress towards achieving the MDGs is proof that the centralized approach needs to be abandoned.
Will President Yar'Adua abandon centralized federalism and embrace decentralized development management? Continued maintenance of centralized federalism will mean that the self-styled "servant-leader" would not be able to ensure satisfactory service delivery to the Nigerian public.
Unaccountable governments
The idea that government is accountable to the governed has not yet become established in the governance culture in the country.
One explanation is the incapacity of the sovereign people to use their votes at periodic elections to sanction unaccountable and poor performing governments at any level.
Because massive election rigging ensured that their votes did not count, those who won power did not feel obliged to be responsive to their demands.
Another explanation is the heavy reliance of governments at all levels on oil money that freed them from having to pay attention to the taxation-accountability nexus, that is, the demand for accountability and quality service delivery by citizens who would normally pay taxes that finance the activities of governments.
This was (and still is?) most vividly illustrated at the local level.
In many Local Government Areas (LGAs), there was close to zero service delivery.
Chairmen of councils, councilors and senior management officials shared the monthly allocations and paid salaries and warm their seats while awaiting the next round of allocations.
Because LGAs rarely collected any taxes, the very little proportion of annual budgets allocated for capital expenditure was inadequate to finance development programmes and projects.
One final explanation for poor service delivery linked to unaccountable government that is worth mentioning is the weakness of the oversight institutions in the polity.
At the federal and state levels, legislatures were either in collusion with the executive arms of government to focus more on personal enrichment than on ensuring quality service for the public or they were engaged in faked impeachment exercises that diverted attention from their responsibilities.
While the media and watchdog-oriented non-governmental organizations paid some attention to urging the governors to focus on serving the people, their investigative reports and advocacy made little difference in a corrupt governance environment.
Are some positive changes already taking place or will it be a case of more of the same?
Weak public administration capability
Political leaders, at both the federal and state levels, regularly complained about the weak implementation capacity of their public services between 1999 and 2007.
The situation was almost certainly worse at the levels of LGAs.
Yet, there is no evidence that any of the governments took any serious actions to enhance the capability of its public service.
The federal government's belated attempt at revamping its public service through the Bureau of Public Service Reform established in 2005 was a case of too little too late.
I would argue that the bypass of the federal civil service that was the preferred option of the previous administration until late in its second term is a major explanation for its poor record in service delivery.
The situation at the sub-national level appeared to be more of neglect than a conscious bypass option but the result was the same: poor service delivery.
Any government at the different levels that is genuinely committed to achieving improved service delivery must immediately commit to enhancing the capability 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, Botswana, Canada, Singapore, and the U.K).
Autor(en)/Author(s): Ladipo Adamolekun
Quelle/Source: AllAfrica, 23.10.2007
