It is necessary to give a historical and sociological perspective to the evolution of free tertiary education and the emergence of academic unionists globally. The wake of Marxist revolutions in the early 20th century commencing from the defunct USSR and to other parts of the world inspired the biggest rise of Unionists on the premise of “workers of the world uniting”. Though, preceding Socialist thinkers before Karl Marx advocated for free education.
The wave of radical labor unionism coupled with radical Intellectualism spread to Africa, especially with the support of Soviet-backed Marxist literature and Marxist movements, Nigeria unavoidably caught the Unionist flu/Marxist influences long before the 1970s but it is my opinion that the 1970s ushered in Nigeria’s most vibrant unionism involving Labour Unions, Trade Unions(TUC created as a rival to NLC), University Unions, Student Unions, etc. Hence, this introduction is necessary to allow readers to understand the Marxist/Socialist foundational orientations of Academic Unions in Nigeria.
Moreover, there are economic debates on whether education should be for-profits or non-profits leading to different economic perspectives on why education at all levels must be totally free while the Capitalists/neoliberals disagreed with such perspective, the leftist/socialist leaning thinkers do support the notion that education is a public good and should be totally free. However, we have a resolved dilemma considering how different countries have addressed the demands of education.
For example, the USA has an educational system that provides free basic education(totally subsidized) and “tuition-based” tertiary education coupled with a “loan aided” tertiary educational system. Countries in The Americas, Europe, Asia, and Africa have borrowed a similar USA model while some have chosen the socialist model of running a subsidized educational system on all levels of education and Nigeria is one of those countries.
Nigeria’s choice of adopting a socialist inclined educational funding model is not as naive as we might be tempted to think. Prior 1950s, basic education was not affordable and only accessible to the privileged class and tertiary education was largely accessible to those that can afford to travel to study outside the country.
Chief Obafemi Awolowo, the first Premier of the Western region was a victim of such a system and pioneered the free education model to right the wrong the model was nationally adopted to encourage an impressive literacy rate inclusive of enviable tertiary education, he actually ran the free education model based on creative fiscal policy which included taxes. Subsequently, the free education system has been overgrown and overfed with a large population of students leading to overburdened public finance which is now offering lean funding and attention to public primary/secondary education leading to a very discouraging condition of basic education which is being fairly rescued by private schools. The lean funding approach is currently threatening our tertiary educational system which academic unions are agitating to save but with “member-oriented bargains” and dogmatic approaches.
Furthermore, it is important to resolve the dilemma and frequent altercations between academic unions and the Nigerian government by examining the economic perspectives of educational funding especially tertiary education. ASUU which represents the University academic union is freshly requesting over N1trillion from the Federal Government of Nigeria, other academic unions do have their own demands too. The Federal Government of Nigeria has fulfilled and failed in its bargain with these academic unions but not without a cry of “a helpless father with many demands”.
Academic Unions seem not to care about such cries by citing instances of fat allowances and emoluments that political office holders enjoy in Nigeria. It is true that Nigeria’s public education is underfunded and most especially tertiary education but the need for Nigeria’s public finance and fiscal policy regarding tertiary education must be critically reviewed and separated from “populist biases”. In fact, socialism is not the same as populism. The goal of socialism is to create an egalitarian society through strategic public investments/public finance like taxes, revenues, etc while populism is just satisfying public appeal without a sustainable plan. Academic Unions must see the need for this renewed perspective beyond the outdated dogma.
Examining the economic dimension of funding public education especially tertiary education will reveal to us that educational funding is an investment whether as a socialist or capitalist goal. The proponents of free tertiary education citing Germany, Norway, etc as examples should understand how such systems work. Countries such as Norway, Italy, Spain, Germany, Sweden, Lithuania, etc have free or affordable tertiary education because they have a fiscal system that ensures fat taxes.
For example, see the personal income tax to GDP of the following countries; Personal Income tax to GDP of European countries; UK 45%, Sweden 52%, Netherlands 49.5%, Norway 30.9%, Germany 47.5%, Denmark 55.9%, France 55.4 % and Austria 55% (according to PWC world tax summaries for 2022). Many of these countries are known for a tax to GDP above 20% compared to Nigeria whose tax to GDP is not up to 15%.
It is also important to note that the best universities in Africa are largely found in South Africa and Egypt such as the University of West Cape, Ain Shams University, University of Johannesburg, American University of Egypt, etc according to the statistics of web ranking but it is important to consider the following, the tuition fees of universities in South Africa which is $10,000 (average), Government funding of universities in South Africa, public funding of universities in Egypt whose government has earmarked 4 percent of its gross domestic product about $11 billion on education which is not up to public fundings of education by OECD countries which spend $10,000 (average) on each student, USA who is one of the OECD countries spends over $500billion on education. Interestingly, the average tuition fee (annually) for private universities in Nigeria is $3,000. This analysis is pertinent so as to establish that education is not cheap, education is not just free without a payment plan and education is a public investment.
Importantly, considering the bogus financial demands of public tertiary education in Nigeria and its urgency. How should we resolve the dilemma which symbolizes a mosquito landing on a scrotal sac?. I am offering this perspective as an alternative solution. Personally, I will not support the USA loan model or commercialized university model which some Nigerian elites who are fixated only on USA/UK realities have advocated, people sharing such opinions have failed to realize that global university administration and funding model surpass USA/UK models only.
Also, USA’s loan funding model might have worked for the system but a loan trap of $1.7trillion according to US federal reserve bank is not a model I will encourage for any developing economy. Albeit, Nigeria cannot afford to run a market-led tertiary education model where an average student will be forced to pay the market price of $3,000 annually when the GDP per Capita is $2200 making it one of the poorest countries in the World. Hence, I will suggest these solutions as bargaining tools for the disputing parties and as a sustainable economic model for funding public tertiary education in Nigeria. (a) Introduce a 2% education tax on personal income tax if State Government will allow shared funding of all tertiary institutions in Nigeria or a 2% education tax on company income taxes to fund federal government-owned tertiary institutions only. (b) create a special scheme/bilateral agreements that will tax the income of graduates of Nigerian institutions working in the diaspora.
The case of Nigerian doctors and professionals is the most peculiar considering the economic migrations of these professionals who will always see a need to migrate to developed countries. Alternatively, introduce a policy that will mandate professionals trained in Nigeria’s tertiary institutions work for some certain years before migrating (least preferred alternative). (C) introduce 70% tertiary education subsidy on all federal government-owned tertiary institutions against the current subsidy scheme which is almost 100% but with a condition of “Government aid” which will allow students from less privileged backgrounds through financial records of parents/guardians to pay existing or adjusted tuition fees and those from privileged backgrounds will be mandated to pay the “market price” of tertiary education. This model of government aid/exclusion is being practiced in South Africa called National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS). This policy will grant automatic free education to extraordinary students from any the social background.
In conclusion, the alternative solutions mentioned above will enable the government to renew its fiscal policy regarding tertiary education funding through a sustainable model against the current “populist model” which has overburdened the government without maximum economic gains. This new model must ensure that the Federal Government of Nigeria boosts its the funding of tertiary education by 50% for the next 10 years above the current funding subject to renewed consensus with the State Government where applicable to avoid state chapters of academic unions joining in strike actions against Federal Government coupled with the introduction of Tertiary Education Funding Appraisal Tribunal (TEFAT) which will see to annual auditing of disbursed funds for tertiary institutions, investigate/punish university administrators culpable for financial malpractices and appraise/supervise project executions independent of Ministry of Education. This body should either be subjected to the authority of the Presidency or the Ministry of Justice.
Mujib Dada-Qadri is a Lawyer and Policy Analyst. He writes from Abuja.
Barristerng Report.
