Chapter 6 (2): Reducing the Cost of Governance

Expanded View of Critical Areas to Further Look Into for Good Governance

Reducing the Cost of Governance

The issue of reducing the cost of governance is a critical concern for many nations, particularly in developing countries like Nigeria, where bloated government structures and excessive spending have significantly impacted economic progress. When a governor employs 2,000 special advisers and assistants and labels it as “empowerment,” it is imperative to recognise that such actions reflect an abuse of office. Far from being an empowerment initiative, it enslaves the majority of the population, as these individuals’ salaries and allowances are drawn from public resources, burdening the remaining citizens. This approach does not stimulate economic growth but worsen inequality and poverty.

Governments that create excessive ministries, agencies, and parastatals under the guise of satisfying quota systems further inflate the cost of governance. Each new ministry or agency necessitates hiring more staff, special advisers, and administrators, which in turn increases overhead costs. For a country like Nigeria, which is striving to overcome economic challenges, the proliferation of redundant ministries and parastatals must be curbed. Downsizing cabinets, streamlining operations, and reducing unnecessary expenditures such as remuneration, allowances, and overhead costs are essential steps towards economic recovery.

A glaring example of this inefficiency can be seen in the Nigerian National Assembly, where members receive substantial constituency allowances meant for developmental purposes. However, the core responsibility of the National Assembly is to legislate, not to oversee construction projects or other infrastructural developments. The allocation of such funds raises serious questions about accountability and efficiency. It is evident that this provision is often used as an opportunity for members to pocket money, as evidenced by the disproportionate relationship between the funds received and the projects completed. Constituency allowances, lacking strict oversight, have fostered a culture of financial mismanagement.

A key example of this can be drawn from reports across various constituencies in Nigeria. Large sums of money are disbursed for supposed developmental projects, yet in many cases, there is little or no tangible evidence of completed work. This trend is symptomatic of a governance structure that prioritises personal gain over public service. Moreover, it raises the question of why members of the National Assembly are performing functions typically assigned to government contractors. This duplication of roles not only increases costs but also leads to inefficiency, as elected officials are not qualified to oversee large-scale infrastructure projects.

Globally, many countries have recognised the importance of reducing the cost of governance by streamlining their political and administrative structures. For instance, Rwanda has demonstrated how a lean government structure can lead to improved governance and economic stability. Under President Paul Kagame’s leadership, Rwanda reduced the number of government ministries and agencies, focusing on efficiency and performance. As a result, the country has experienced rapid economic growth, with streamlined government operations and reduced public spending on unnecessary administrative roles.

In contrast, Nigeria’s current structure includes both the Senate (red chamber) and the House of Representatives (green chamber), which together form the National Assembly. However, maintaining two tiers of a legislative body is a costly endeavour that Nigeria’s current economy may not be able to sustain. It is worth re-examining whether the bicameral system is necessary for a country in economic distress, particularly when other nations have successfully managed with unicameral legislatures. For instance, Denmark, a highly developed country, operates with a unicameral parliament, which has proven effective in managing governance without excessive financial burdens.

Furthermore, reducing the cost of governance requires eliminating the duplication of roles and responsibilities. In Nigeria, several ministries and parastatals often perform overlapping functions, resulting in wasted resources and increased operational costs. An example can be found in Nigeria’s power sector, where multiple agencies, including the Ministry of Power, the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC), and the Rural Electrification Agency (REA), perform similar roles, leading to inefficiencies and delays in decision-making. Streamlining these agencies into a single, well-functioning body would reduce costs and improve service delivery.

Another pertinent issue is the excessive remuneration of political officeholders. In Nigeria, the salaries and allowances of public officeholders, particularly legislators, are disproportionately high when compared to the average income of citizens. The cost of maintaining legislators, including their allowances for vehicles, housing, and travel, accounts for a significant portion of government expenditure. This situation is not sustainable, especially in a country facing rising poverty rates and unemployment.

Reducing the cost of governance in Nigeria and other nations facing similar challenges requires a multifaceted approach. Governments must prioritise efficiency, reduce unnecessary appointments, streamline ministries and parastatals, and ensure that public officeholders are adequately compensated without burdening the economy. Adapting governance structures to fit economic realities, as seen in Rwanda and other successful nations, is key to fostering sustainable development and improving the lives of citizens. Nigeria, in particular, must recognise the need for urgent reforms to address the growing concerns of fiscal mismanagement and governance inefficiency.