In the contemporary discourse on ‘true federalism/restructuring,’ most Nigerian scholars and commentators attribute exclusionary the principle character of the institutional approach to the subject of federalism. Elaigwu (2002: 84 in Kalu 2016: 346) linked this tendency to the post-military rule situation that has led to the emergence of a powerful central government in Nigeria. To some extent, most analysts consider the United States to be the perfect model of federalism; Nigeria and others have to approximate the American model to be considered truly federal (Oyovbaire 1979). Undoubtedly, all theories of federalism are more or less based on the intellectual and political status of the federal models of the United States, Germany, and Switzerland, which played a vital role in the elaboration of concepts and theories. According to Elaigwu (2002: 84 in Kalu 2016: 347):
The protagonists of a weak central government refer to a ‘confederation’ or what they claim to be the classical model of federalism delineated by K. C. Wheare. The callers insist true federalism should express clear demarcation of powers and functions among the levels of government, which should be autonomous in the exercise of those powers and functions assigned by the constitution.
The call for Wheare’s original conception of federalism is by no means limited to Nigeria. According to Kalu (2016: 346), the quest for ‘true federalism’ or Wheare’s institutional approach to federalism is equally popular in several other federal countries across all continents: India, Pakistan, Mexico, and Russia. Even in the established federations like the United States, Canada, and Germany, ‘occasions have arisen where scholars have needed to emphasize the term “true federalism” as against a mere mention of federalism alone’ (Kalu 2016: 347). ‘The argument is that the center’s omnipotence and interference over the affairs of the states should be replaced with true federalism.’ Heidler and Heidler (2006: 16 in Kalu 2016: 347) equate ‘true federalism’ with the conferment of significant autonomy to sub-national governments, which should be unencumbered to superintend their affairs, to cope with dynamic economic, social, and racial diversity of the country in question.
Scholars like Verny (1998 in Kalu 2016: 347) argue that ‘a true federalism has both distributions of political power specified in the constitution and a direct relationship between political power and the individual citizen.’ This school of thought utilizes the sociological approach to the study of federalism. They believe that there is nothing like ‘true federalism,’ every federal system is designed to achieve some specific goals concerning the peculiar situation of each society; therefore, whatever realizes this mission becomes ‘true federalism’ for that particular society. William Livingstone, Carl Friedrich, and William Riker, among others, have examined the social and political forces that produce varieties of federalism.
Birch (1966) identified four basic approaches to the study of federalism: the Institutional or Legal Approach, the Sociological Approach, the ‘Federalism as a Process’ Approach, and the ‘Federalism as a Bargain’ Approach. In a broad definitional category, Jinadu (1979) identified two approaches, namely: the Legalistic Institutional Approach and the Process View. The former epitomized by Wheare stresses a formal division of powers between levels of government and the later sensitizes the student of federalism to the phenomenon of intergovernmental cooperation that cuts across any legal, constitutional division of powers. The first is classical, the other sociological. The two are not mutually exclusive. What that means is that, apart from the legalistic institutional approach as expounded by Wheare, Jinadu regards other approaches as sociological.
This chapter sets out to examine the connection between the theories of federalism as expounded in the literature and the practice of federalism as experienced in the Nigerian context; it critically interrogates the different theoretical postulations on federalism. What follows in this chapter is a detailed critique of Wheare’s thesis, limitations, and therefore need for a theory with higher explanatory power and in line with current demands of true federalism in Nigeria. Although even granted that Wheare places too much emphasis on the legal dimension of federalism, there can be little doubt that federalism involves a legal-constitutional arrangement which delimits the legal and political competence of the levels of government. It is within the legal framework provided by the federal arrangement that sociopolitical factors take on meaning and significance. What the process view adds is that it sensitizes the student of federalism to the changing and evolving nature of the federal balance of power and to the fact that intergovernmental cooperation cut across the formal constitutional division of powers, which may model a particular federation. The chapter utilized Birch’s (1966) four approaches to the subject of federalism since K. C. Wheare: (1) Institutional Approach, (2) Federalism as a Process, (3) Sociological Approach, and (4) Federalism as a Bargain.
Institutional Approach
This approach, led by Wheare (1963), emphasizes constitutional and legal aspects and associated political relationships. K.C Wheare focused on the ‘federal government’ as the established system or institutional structure. Those who see federalism from the institutional point of view always quote K. C. Wheare that federal system of government involves the division of functions between a central government and the units, without any part encroaching into the domain of the other. The component units have unfettered control of their financial resources sufficient for the performance of the functions assigned to it under the constitution. Therefore, financial subordination makes an end of federalism (Dike 2006: 107). From Wheare’s definition, it subsists that the distinguishing characteristic of a federal system is that neither the central nor the regional government are subordinate to each other, but rather, the two levels of government are coordinate and independent:
By federal principle, I mean the method of dividing powers, so that general and regional governments are each within a sphere, co-ordinate and independent K.C Wheare. (in Jinadu 1979: 15)
Wheare categorically declared:
I hereby put forward uncompromisingly a criterion of federal government – the delineated and coordinate divisions of governments functions, and I have implied that to the extent to which any system of government does not conform to this criterion, it has no claim to call itself federal. (in Dare 1979: 27)
Wheare’s definition has been criticized as being legalistic, inflexible, unrealistic, and unworkable as well as neglecting certain economic, sociopolitical, and cultural factors that affect the dynamics of the federal arrangement (Dare 1979; Jinadu 1979; Akindele 1996). ‘Legalistic in the sense that it emphasized the formal institutional and constitutional dimension of federal arrangement while giving relatively little attention to important sociological and political dynamics of federations’ (Jinadu 1979). An attempt to develop a flexible model of federalism has been made by some scholars who refer to federalism as a process rather than as a static pattern of government; one of the variances of this thought is federalism as a process view broadly classified into sociological approach by Janadu (1979).
Federalism as a Process
This approach argues that ‘federalism implies a process of federalizing, as well as a pattern or structure.’ Friedrich (in Drummond 1999: 27) defines the process of federalizing as:
Either the process by which a number of separate political units… enter into and develop arrangements for working out solutions together… or the reverse process through which a hitherto unitary political community, as it becomes differentiated into a number of separate and distinct political subcommunities, achieves a new order in which the differentiated communities become capable of working out separately and on their own decisions and policies on problems they no longer have in common. Federalism refers to this process, as it does to the structures and patterns this process creates; it also encompasses the belief (ideas and ideologies) which it presupposes and generates. Federal behavior and federalist beliefs are part and parcel of federalism.
According to Carl Friedrich (in Jinadu 1979), ‘federalism is a process rather than a design…any particular design or pattern of competence or jurisdiction is merely a phase, a short-run view of a continually evolving political reality.’ Jinadu (1979) observed that federalism need not be rigid and based only on legality and institutions as Wheare has maintained. He argued that federalism must be seen as a dynamic and progressive development constantly adjusting in line with the demands of the society. Thereby stresses the importance of constitutional and extra-constitutional factors in the making of any federal system. Riker (in Drummond 1999) argues that no matter the degree of centralization or decentralization a federation may have, it remains a federal system if ‘the activities of government are divided between regional governments and a central government in such a way that each kind of government has some activities on which it makes final decisions.’ In some federations, the division of powers is weighted toward the federal government instead of the states/regional governments. The justification for such a strong federal government is that when the regions are more powerful than the federal government, divisive forces could take advantage of the situation. Another reason is there are broad economic particularities and disparities among the states; therefore, a stronger federal government has the means to support weak jurisdictions. Lastly, a stronger federal government is believed to be necessary to meet external and internal threats. This makes it possible to encompass a great variety of federal, quasi-federal, and decentralized systems. If thus understood as the process of federalizing, it will become apparent that federalism may be operating in both the direction of integration and differentiation. Thus, the values of society do affect the integrative or disintegrative process. What is worthy of note about Friedrich’s reformulation, according to Jinadu, is that it asserts that federalism is a general principle of social organization and that the degree of federalism in a particular system is a function of sociological and not legal criteria.
Federalism is said to be the process of federalizing, that is, the process of achieving a union of groups that retain their identity. In that regards, Sawer in Osaghae (1990: 90) notes:
As long as the amending procedure (of the constitution), the operation of the judicial review, and the pattern of politics or a combin...