Nigerians React to FG’s Endless Cycle of Superficial Reforms

In a recent post, Professor Ndubuisi Ekekwe pointed out a perplexing paradox in Nigeria’s governmental structure and its supposed efforts to reduce inefficiencies. The Federal Executive Council’s (FEC) decision to abolish the Niger Delta Ministry and the Ministry of Sports Development, while appointing more ministers and reshuffling government personnel, seems less like a genuine attempt at fiscal discipline and more like an exercise in political theater. This raises important questions about Nigeria’s governance structure, its ability to reform meaningfully, and why repeated attempts to “reduce the size of the chequebook” appear doomed to fail.

This conversation resonates with many Nigerians who are deeply skeptical of such reforms, seeing them as hollow gestures that fail to tackle the root of the problem: a bloated, inefficient government apparatus that has become more about sustaining patronage networks than delivering public service. Our analyst examines the public reactions to Professor Ekekwe’s post through a conversation analysis approach, which reveals a critical assessment of the government’s actions. These reactions offer valuable insights into the wider discourse surrounding Nigeria’s perennial governance challenges.

The Failure of Superficial Reforms

Professor Ekekwe’s argument hinges on the need for Nigeria to adopt more meaningful structural reforms to curb government waste and inefficiency. He contrasts Nigeria’s large and bloated government with leaner structures in countries like South Africa and the United States, both of which manage to run their economies efficiently with far fewer ministries. Nigeria, with an economy that pales in comparison, continues to maintain an excessive number of ministers and ministries.

A common theme among the commenters on Professor Ekekwe’s post is frustration with the cosmetic nature of these reforms. Comment A laments the systemic corruption and greed that underpins Nigeria’s governance, describing it as a country that “creates ministries and commissions for every living and non-living thing.” This observation points to a deeper, more troubling issue: rather than eliminating waste, these commissions and ministries serve as conduits for corruption. In essence, Nigeria’s government has become self-serving, creating bureaucracies not to deliver services but to sustain political patronage networks and reward loyalists.

This is a sentiment echoed across the board. Comment C, for instance, expresses disillusionment with the abolition of ministries, arguing that personnel from defunct ministries are simply reshuffled into new agencies, leading to “zero resultant progress.” The metaphor of a scalar quantity—something that moves but does not achieve any meaningful change—perfectly encapsulates the futility of these efforts. It becomes clear that downsizing in Nigeria has become a numbers game with no real intention of increasing efficiency or reducing waste. The illusion of progress is created, but the underlying inefficiencies remain untouched.

Governance and Constitutional Failures

In Comment B, the focus shifts from the moral failings of Nigeria’s leadership to its structural flaws. The commenter critiques the constitution’s lack of provisions that would prevent a president from unilaterally reorganizing ministries, effectively granting the executive unchecked powers to reshape government at will. This lack of legislative oversight is seen as a fundamental flaw in Nigeria’s governance framework. The commenter suggests a “Government Organisation Bill” as a potential remedy, proposing that any restructuring of ministries should be subject to legislative approval, thereby ensuring that such changes are driven by law and not by political expediency.

This critique points to a deeper issue with Nigeria’s political structure. The concentration of power in the executive not only facilitates inefficiency but also allows for arbitrary decision-making that often does little to improve governance outcomes. Moreover, this unchecked executive authority ensures that any restructuring is likely to be superficial, with ministries being abolished in name only, while the actual apparatus of government remains intact.

The need for a more robust constitutional framework is clear. Without institutional checks and balances, any attempt at governance reform will remain cosmetic. As Comment B rightly points out, Nigeria’s problems are not just about waste and inefficiency; they are about the inadequacy of the legal and constitutional framework that enables such inefficiency to persist.

The Illusion of Downsizing

One of the most poignant critiques in the conversation comes from Comment D, which points out the irony of Nigeria’s supposed downsizing efforts. The commenter sarcastically notes that while five ministers were sacked, seven new ones were appointed, leading to an even thicker chequebook. This observation underscores a paradox at the heart of Nigeria’s governance structure: efforts to reduce the size of government often result in its expansion. The creation of new ministries or commissions, such as the Ministry of Regional Development, merely replaces old structures with new ones, leading to bureaucratic redundancy rather than efficiency.

This pattern of bureaucratic bloating is not unique to Nigeria, but it is particularly pronounced in a country where governance is often viewed as a tool for distributing political rewards rather than a mechanism for delivering public goods. As Comment A notes, Nigeria’s government is overloaded with ministries and commissions that serve little practical purpose beyond sustaining a political patronage system. This, in turn, leads to a situation where the country is always “living large,” with a government that is far too large for its economic means.

The Need for Real Reform

So, what is the solution? If superficial cuts and reshuffling of personnel are not the answer, then what is? Professor Ekekwe suggests that Nigeria needs to make deeper structural cuts, reducing the number of ministries and focusing on efficiency rather than expansion. This would require not only a reduction in the number of ministers but also a redefinition of the role of government in Nigerian society.

Comment B’s call for a Government Organisation Bill is a step in the right direction. By institutionalizing the process of government reorganization, Nigeria could ensure that changes in government structure are driven by necessity rather than political expediency. This would also help to curb the president’s unilateral powers, creating a more balanced and accountable system of governance.

Moreover, Nigeria needs to shift its focus from creating new ministries and commissions to strengthening existing ones. Rather than expanding the government’s footprint, the focus should be on streamlining operations and ensuring that the ministries and commissions that remain are effective and accountable. This will require not only legal and constitutional reform but also a change in the political culture—a shift away from governance as patronage and towards governance as service.