"The numbers of the federal senators, house representatives and state legislators are related to the high cost of bloated and out of control governance in Nigeria… I strongly support reducing the number of senators to 37 and to effect similar percentage reductions in the number of members of federal and state house of reps."
so
What if the number of Senators for example is halved and each Senator's emolument package (EP) is doubled or trebled for the reason that they now represent more citizens- their work load has doubled or worse? The concern should not be so much the number of legislators as it is what they cost taxpayers- EP for mostly unsatisfactory or as some say already, dubious performance.
oa
From: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com [mailto:usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Soni Oyekan
Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2015 11:23 AM
To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Fwd: [Raayiriga] Senegal gets rid of its senate to save money
The numbers of the federal senators, house representatives and state legislators are related to the high cost of bloated and out of control governance in Nigeria. The proliferation of states and the lack of accountability exacerbates the abuses of "legalized" power by these governing members. I strongly support reducing the number of senators to 37 and to effect similar percentage reductions in the number of members of federal and state house of reps. Nigeria has to understand that increasing the debt burden for future generations is no way to run a country. Based on my articulated points by others as well, 37 senators should suffice based on the ineffective way that governance is being perpetrated in the senate and house of reps.
Nigerians should be more concerned with how the federal and state budgets are being managed, what the senate and house of reps are doing to help deal with national security, infrastructure development for power and transportation, increasing external and domestic debts, oil thefts, burgeoning and erosive fuels subsidy on the federal budgets, excessive and endemic corruption, environmental pollution, massive unemployment and extreme poverty ( < $2 per day subsistence) for possibly over 40 % of the population. The list is endless and why should bloated federal and state governing bodies be fostered on Nigerians to weigh heavily on federal and state budgets.
Soni Oyekan
On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 10:43 PM, Anunoby, Ogugua <AnunobyO@lincolnu.edu> wrote:
My concern is not as much the number of Senators as it is their individual benefits' package. One Senator per state does not seem right to me. Two per state would be better I think. You do not want many situations in government that do not allow, encourage, and support a plurality of persons and consequently views. The scandal is not the number of Senators; it is their obscene compensation.
From: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com [mailto:usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ugo Nwokeji
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 2:48 PM
To: usaafricadialogue
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Fwd: [Raayiriga] Senegal gets rid of its senate to save money
I agree with you regarding the obscene remunerations, including the heist that happens in the name of severance packages. I am also for looking into the reduction of the numbers of federal and state houses.
One senator per state seems to me a good way of helping to alleviate the high cost of government as a result of having non-viable states that you mentioned. Reducing the number of senators from the current 109 to 74 (I suspect you meant 73) will definitely represent a significant improvement. I believe we can do better than that; the reason for not reducing the number to 37 should not simply be a concern for no having two "governors". The Constitution clearly defines the roles of Governor and Senator, so there would never be two "governors". It is like saying the a state (in a one-senator system) would have two "senators" because it has only one governor.
Ugo
G. Ugo Nwokeji
Director, Center for African Studies
Associate Professor of African American Studies
University of California, Berkeley
686 Barrows Hall #2572
Berkeley, CA 94720
Tel. (510) 542-8140
Fax (510) 642-0318
Twitter: @UgoNwokeji
Facebook: facebook.com/ugo.nwokeji
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/profile/view?id=243610869
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 6:04 AM, 'Klalli' via USA Africa Dialogue Series <usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Why 37 and not 74 senators? The point is you don't want another "governor" representing the state, so I will suggest more than one senator per state. What about reducing the number of people in the federal house and state houses. The point is, as long as we have too many nonviable states and local governments, we will continue to have the problem of high cost of governance. While we are at this, as a minimum, we must eliminate the atrocious separation packages by our political office holders. I don't see why the separation package should be different from what the regular civil servant receives, nobody should be receiving the kind of separation package for working for 4 years (or fewer years in the case of ministers).
Kasim L. Alli.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ugo Nwokeji <ugo@berkeley.edu>
To: usaafricadialogue <usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Jun 18, 2015 8:39 pm
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Fwd: [Raayiriga] Senegal gets rid of its senate to save money
I do agree, to some extent, Victor's and Kasim's takes. However, I don't agree with the binary they are setting.
My post was more than simply whether to abolish; in fact, I explicitly suggested in recognition of the stabilizing role the Senate can play, the reduction of senators from the current 109 senators to 37. How did you guys miss that? Can't we have a conversation along these lines, or is the senate and the current numbers so important to preclude reform?
On the question, Why the Senate? My answer is that the house follows roughly (at least in theory, given our unreliable population figures) and speaks more directly to representative democracy. We can certainly prune the numbers of House members, but I certainly would not suggest, for example, retaining 109 senators while cutting the house down to 37 members!
It is certainly important to have this conversation, but simply keeping the numbers the way they are does not seem optimal to me.
Ugo
G. Ugo Nwokeji
Director, Center for African Studies
Associate Professor of African American Studies
University of California, Berkeley
686 Barrows Hall #2572
Berkeley, CA 94720
Tel. (510) 542-8140
Fax (510) 642-0318
Twitter: @UgoNwokeji
Facebook: facebook.com/ugo.nwokeji
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/profile/view?id=243610869
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 4:33 PM, 'Klalli' via USA Africa Dialogue Series <usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com> wrote:
The comparison with Senegal is not appropriate. First, as stated in this story, half of the Senegal Senate is appointed by the President and not elected. Second, the Vice President's position in Senegal has never been occupied. So what is the savings you are getting here. If you want to reduce the cost of government in Nigeria, why pick on the Senate and not the House of Representatives with more people and a higher budget. In my opinion, you can reduce the cost and size of the government without abolishing or destroying the institution. We all need to think about more creative way of reducing the size and cost of government in Nigeria, rather than abolishing the institutions. Certainly we can all think of ways of strengthening the institutions rather than suggestions that have the potential of concentrating powers in the executive. Maybe one way to reduce the cost of government is to reduce the number of states and local governments, since most of these states and local governments cannot sustain themselves anyway.
Kasim Lekan Alli.
Atlanta, GA
-----Original Message-----
From: Ugo Nwokeji <ugo@berkeley.edu>
To: usaafricadialogue <usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Jun 18, 2015 6:38 pm
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Fwd: [Raayiriga] Senegal gets rid of its senate to save money
I agree with you, Adeshina.
I was thinking exactly about exactly this same solution for Nigeria, in the wake of the obscene amounts regarding the remunerations of our federal legislators! Maybe, the Senegalese case will give Nigerians the will to do so. The Nigerian Senate is supposed to balance power between the big and small states, like its United States counterpart, but has this really been the case in our 16 years under the current system? Methinks not.
The imperative of reducing our overbloated public sector and reallocating the savings toward capital projects and social services (such as education and health care) far outweighs any benefits of the Senate, if there is any to start with. My take would have been different if our senate had served any useful purpose, such as in the U.S. case, for example, where Wyoming's 563,000 people speak in equal terms with California's 37 million. This is not the case in Nigeria. Even if it was, serious questions remain about whether the Nigerian senate, as presently constituted, is financially sustainable. It is not.
The most we can afford is one senator per state, reducing the number of senators from 109 to 37 (a reduction of 66 percentage points). Even then, we will still need remove the useless allowances. (I am, however, not a big fan of reducing salaries to the extent driving public officers to desperation.) The second of option -- of reducing the number of senators from 109 to 37 -- may be a better option, in the hope that nurturing this institution will yield the desired results.
What we need is the will. Certain entrenched interests will likely oppose any movement in this direction. The Senegalese have shown the wisdom in a people adjusting their political system according to changing realities. We must seize this moment -- the Senegal example and the "change" wave -- to push for this change.
I am willing to join up with whoever really wants to see change in this direction. This will require a constitutional amendment. I would not simply submit the proposals to President Buhari and leave it at that. This is something we have to DEMAND by whatever legitimate means possible, including the mobilization of the public.
However, I would leave the office of the Vice President as it is.
G. Ugo Nwokeji
Director, Center for African Studies
Associate Professor of African American Studies
University of California, Berkeley
686 Barrows Hall #2572
Berkeley, CA 94720
Tel. (510) 542-8140
Fax (510) 642-0318
Twitter: @UgoNwokeji
Facebook: facebook.com/ugo.nwokeji
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/profile/view?id=243610869
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 12:11 PM, 'Adeshina Afolayan' via USA Africa Dialogue Series <usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Now, isn't this a very brave political move? Abolishing the senate and the office of the vice president! Talk about making democracy less expensive and more development-friendly on the continent. Then talk about the political will to move a state forward. I am more amazed that the members of the senate were willing to participate in such a scheme without mounting a political "war". This is the kind of news reports that should make PMB's daily news briefing. In the final analysis, development is a possibility. We just need a leadership that perceives and acts.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
No comments:
Post a Comment