COMPARING FEDERAL SYSTEMS: Assessing Nigerian Federalism Through K.C Wheare’s Framework

INTRODUCTION

This paper explores the nitty-gritty of federal systems through comparison and contrast.

Scholars have long argued that without comparison, true knowledge remains incomplete. Therefore, this study examines the similarities and differences among federal states to determine which can truly be said to practice federalism.

The analysis is guided by the ideas of Kenneth Clinton Wheare, a foremost classical scholar who developed the concept of the coordinated federal system. This paper specifically compares Nigerian federalism with that of the United States in order to determine which country more closely practices the principles of a true federation through the lens of Wheare’s theory.

Furthermore, the study evaluates which of these systems particularly Nigeria’s quasifederal structure that requires restructuring to achieve a truly coordinated and independent federal arrangement. This assessment is based on Wheare’s five key principles of federalism: the principle of balance, the principle of indivisibility, a written constitution, true bicameralism within the federal arrangement and the supremacy of the judiciary. These principles must be properly entrenched and effectively practiced to prevent over-centralization and to ensure that neither the central government nor the regional units become excessively dominant or burdened.

MAIN FINDINGS

Federalism is considered more suitable than a unitary system because powers are shared among various regions to promote autonomy, ensure equal representation, enhance administrative convenience, and enable the people to live in unity and harmony as one indivisible and indissoluble sovereign nation

Nigerian federalism can be traced back to the amalgamation of the Southern and Northern Protectorates under Frederick Luggard in 1914, which was carried out for administrative convenience. It was during the Richards Constitution (1946) that the idea of regionalism emerged, laying the foundation for Nigerian federalism with three major regions: North, East, and West. More regions were later created under the Macpherson Constitution (1951). In 1960, Nigeria’s independence marked a turning point, as autonomy was devolved to the regions. However, this arrangement was later disrupted by the military intervention of 1966.

In Wheare’s book Federal Government (1963), Wheare argued that any definition of federal government that fails to include the United States would be unrealistic. He maintained that if we examine the American Constitution of 1787, we would conclude that governmental powers are divided between a general authority and regional authorities, which are not subordinate to one another but are coordinate. In the words of a modern American historian, the general government is supreme within its sphere, but that sphere is defined and limited, while each of the 50 states is equally supreme within its own sphere.

A question therefore arises as to which type of federalism best suits a modern state. Should it be creative federalism, where the national government allocates resources to states for projects such as roads, healthcare, and education? Or centrifugal federalism, where states demand greater autonomy and powers? Should it be dual federalism, characterized by a clear separation of powers between the national and state governments, or cooperative federalism, where both levels of government work together to promote development? Another possibility is competitive federalism, where states compete economically by lowering taxes and attracting investment, as practiced among the cantons of Switzerland.

From the foregoing, one major truth is that all these types of federalism are relevant and necessary, though cooperative federalism appears most suitable in modern systems such as those of the United States and Canada. However, to ensure a true federal system, it is necessary to assess Wheare’s five principles of a coordinated federal system, which must be incorporated into every federal arrangement.

Wheare defined federalism as the division of powers between the central (national) government and subordinate (regional) governments, where each is independent and coordinate within its sphere. The United States largely aligns with this principle. However, in the case of Nigeria, especially since the military intervention, the federal system has been disrupted and has become highly centralized. For instance, the federal government dominates the subordinate units in terms of fiscal allocation and controls an extensive Exclusive Legislative List (about 68 items), including defense, foreign affairs, police, railways, oil, and ports. It also shares powers from the Concurrent List with the states.

Furthermore, there is a fixed revenue-sharing formula in which the federal government receives 52.68%, the states 26.72%, and local governments 20.60%. This is unlike systems in the United States, Switzerland, and Canada, which do not operate such rigid fiscal arrangements. This indicates that Nigeria’s fiscal federalism is highly centralized, making it appear as quasi-federalism that is, federal in theory and constitutional form, but not in practice. While cantons in Switzerland compete through policies such as lower taxation to promote development, Nigerian states depend heavily on federal allocations to carry out their responsibilities. This makes them appear more like dependents than equal partners. For example, in the Niger Delta, despite being richly endowed with oil resources, a large portion of the revenue is controlled by the federal government.

Rotational presidency is another factor affecting the effectiveness of federalism in Nigeria.

It is an unwritten arrangement where the presidency alternates between the North and the South to ensure inclusiveness. While this helps reduce the fear of domination among different ethnic groups, it also encourages voting based on region or ethnicity rather than merit, qualification, and competence. This often leads to political tension and ethnic based conflicts during elections. Ideally, federalism should manage diversity to promote unity that is, unity in diversity

State policing is another issue affecting federalism. In the United States, each of the 50 states has its own police force. However, in Nigeria, policing is centralized, and the Inspector General of Police must operate under federal authority. This limits the ability of states to effectively manage their own security.

 PRINCIPLES OF TRUE FEDERALISM AND THE NEED FOR RESTRUCTURING IN NIGERIA

Through a comparative analysis of several federal states, it becomes evident that some countries, such as Nigeria, have deviated from the principles of true federalism. Consequently, there is a strong need for restructuring in order to establish a truly coordinated and independent federal system.

According to Wheare (1963), five major principles are essential for the effective operation of a coordinated and independent federal state:

1. Written Constitution: A federal system must be founded on a well-defined written constitution, which should be regarded as supreme. Constitutional amendments may be necessary to reduce the excessive powers concentrated in the Exclusive Legislative List of the central government. Each tier of government federal and regional should be coordinate and independent within its own sphere of authority. The roles and responsibilities of both levels must be clearly, fairly, and explicitly stated. The constitution also serves as a limitation on the powers of both the central and regional authorities (Wheare, 1963).

2. Bicameralism: Bicameralism is an essential feature of federalism. In Nigeria, the National Assembly consists of the House of Representatives (360 members) and the Senate (109 members), with each state represented by an equal number of senators. This structure is designed to accommodate the country’s ethnic diversity, promote inclusiveness, reduce conflict, and ensure equal representation across diverse groups (Wheare, 1963).

3. Supremacy and Independence of the Judiciary: In any federal arrangement, the judiciary must be both supreme and independent. It should perform its role diligently and impartially by resolving conflicts and fiscal disputes between different levels of government. The judiciary serves as the final interpreter of the constitution, ensuring that each arm of government operates within its defined powers. This helps maintain coordination and independence within the federal system and prevents over-centralization by either the federal or regional governments (Wheare, 1963).

4. Principle of Balance: Wheare (1963) argues that a federal system must maintain a balance of power between the central and regional governments. However, Nigeria’s federal system remains largely imbalanced, as it is highly centralized both fiscally and administratively. Although Nigeria is described as a federal state in theory, in practice it often falls short of the principles of coordination and independence. Therefore, a true federal arrangement must promote equality, balance, and mutual respect to ensure a cordial and harmonious relationship among all levels of government.

5. Principle of Indivisibility: Wheare (1963) likens federalism to a marriage, in which there is no provision for separation. Thus, the principle of indivisibility must be embedded in any federal system to maintain unity. No ethnic group or region should possess the constitutional right to secede. For example, during the Nigerian Civil War, there was an attempt by the Biafra region to secede; however, it was ultimately unsuccessful. This underscores the importance of maintaining national unity within a federal framework.

                             Additional Recommendations

Furthermore, Nigeria should consider adopting state policing across all 36 states to address insecurity and reduce over-reliance on the federal police. However, such a system must be carefully regulated to prevent abuse.

Inculcate and implement the federal character principle, which ensures that all ethnic groups, states, and regions in Nigeria are fairly represented in government appointments, jobs, and the distribution of resources.

In addition, the practice of rotational presidency should be properly structured to reduce fears of domination among different ethnic groups. There should also be a review of the fiscal allocation formula to reduce the disproportionately high share of resources allocated to the federal government relative to the regional authorities, thereby promoting fairness, equity, and true independence among the various levels of government.

  CONCLUSION

This study reveals that while federalism aims to ensure unity through the division of powers, its success depends on the proper application of its core principles. Using Wheare’s framework, the United States more closely reflects a true federal system, where both levels of government are coordinate and independent within their respective spheres.

In contrast, Nigeria’s federal system remains highly centralized, making it largely quasifederal in practice. Therefore, there is a clear need for restructuring particularly in areas such as fiscal decentralization, state policing, and the reduction of excessive federal powers. Implementing these reforms will help Nigeria achieve a more balanced, effective, and truly coordinated federal system.

  REFERENCES

Federal Republic of Nigeria. (1999). Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). Government Printer.

Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission. (n.d.). Revenue allocation formula in Nigeria. https://rmafc.gov.ng ⁠

Wheare, K. C. (1963). Federal government (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.

This article has been earlier published on Medium 

https://medium.com/@ojopeace535/comparing-federal-systems-assessing-nigerian-federalism-through-k-c-eb52a89f17b8