Still on ASUU vs Government.. One of the major problems with planning and critical assessment of events in Nigeria is the dearth of relevant data, due to lack of institutional memory, that is, the storage of information for future recall and reuse. This shortcoming has led to the incomplete assessment of the ongoing ASUU strike. In order to fill this void, I provided in this column, two weeks ago, a brief historical background to the uneasy relationship between ASUU and the Federal Government since 1978. Although the main target of ASUU’s strikes has been the Federal Government, state governments are implicated because the academic staff of state universities are also members of ASUU. That’s why states are under pressure to implement whatever agreement is reached between ASUU and the Federal Government, especially on wages and allowances. There have been two broad categories of reactions to the ongoing ASUU strike, both of which could benefit from historical knowledge. Category 1 consists largely of those who blame ASUU for the strike and, therefore, urge the union to call it off. Their argument is threefold: (a) that students and their parents bear the brunt of ASUU’s suspension of classes; (b) that there are “other” ways of getting the government to act, without going on strike; and (c) that the Federal Government has responded well in the past by increasing lecturers’ wages and allowances, as if ASUU’s struggles all over the years have been devoted to increased wages and allowances alone. True, the administration of former President Olusegun Obasanjo (1999-2007) increased university subvention, salaries, and allowances. However, the extent of the rot in public universities and the high rate of inflation dwarfed the value of those increases. Even more importantly, the increase in subvention has not been sustained, while the allowances remain largely unpaid, even after renegotiation with subsequent administrations. Some have also cited the Needs Assessment Committee set up to look into the problems facing the universities as evidence of good faith by the government. However, ASUU’s central role in getting the committee established seems to have been forgotten. Besides, two questions need to be asked: What did the government do with the Needs Assessment Report, submitted in November 2012, besides setting up another committee to review it? And would the government have taken further action had ASUU not engaged in a full-blown strike? As I write, the original report itself has not even been made available to the university authorities (Council members and vice-chancellors) so they may begin to brace themselves for change. To be sure, the Jonathan administration has not totally neglected education. The problem is that its actions have often been sporadic and misdirected. How else could one interpret the recent establishment of 12 additional Federal Universities or the very idea of Mega Universities, each of which is expected to admit up to 200,000 students, when existing universities are in a state of decay? Who will teach the students, when existing universities are grossly understaffed? Conceptual fluctuations are particularly rampant in the overall educational system. Within the last four years alone, the educational system has fluctuated from 6-3-3-4 to 9-3-4, and back to 6-3-3-4, with one modification. Five-year olds will now have a year of Early Childhood Education, and the new structure will be 1-6-3-3-4. It was as if the change in structure and the inclusion of five-year olds would suddenly mend the decay and improve standards across the educational system. Category 2 critics consists mainly of those who support the strike and, therefore, urge the government to implement its agreement with the union in order to end its industrial action as soon as possible. Their central argument is twofold: (a) that the Federal Government has been largely unresponsive to ASUU’s demands and has even reneged on previous agreements and Memoranda of Understanding with the union and (b) that it has neglected education for far too long, while spending billions on nonproductive ventures and condoning widespread corruption. It is not far-fetched to argue that the total amount of money (about N1 trillion) that the Federal Government has agreed since 2009 to make available for the revitalisation of public universities is less than the amount (a) that the Federal Government has lost in oil revenue to theft and misappropriation within the past one year; (b) that the Jonathan administration paid out, in some cases to non-existent companies, in misappropriated subsidy funds in one year alone; and (c) that about 500 Federal lawmakers have shared among themselves in jumbo pay since 2005.
Posted on: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 08:07:05 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015