|
Beyond Promises: Sovereignty Should Have Economic Content By Salihu Moh. Lukman
Hausa people have a saying that ‘a good Friday will show its sign on Wednesday’. There may not be any scientific or logical evidence to prove it, but could be a hypothesis for social, political and economic enquiry. Probably a periscopic tool to gaze into the future with specific reference to events, actions or experiences that might have been responsive to commitments, expectations and promises of organisations or governments and their leaders. May be just a therapeutic strategy to assuage possible dashed hopes and therefore prepare the grounds for resignation or withdrawals by citizens.
Events of the last few weeks, at least since May 29 when the new government took over, reminisce the anxieties of a nation in search of direction, future and its soul. It is certainly not a new experience; it is a typical occurrence every time there is a new government – military or civilian. To some extent, many governments in the past, especially military governments, have taken advantage of this reality for legitimacy. Of course, legitimacy in a democracy should be automatic. But what makes it automatic is the guarantee for free and fair elections. Since in the context of Nigeria, democracy was subverted by the sham conduct of the 2007 elections, legitimacy is a critical challenge for the Yar’Adua administration.
For the ordinary Nigerian, the issue is basically prayerful; i. e. may the administration be able to deliver the basics of life. Whatever speeches, policies pronouncements, programmes, projects or, in the understanding of this category of Nigerians, grammar, let it translate to jobs, income and eventually food, shelter and clothing. The perception is that some policies and programmes of the departing administration should be halted if this is to happen.
Industrialists or, broadly speaking, organised private sector, on their part, looked forward to the emergence of at least an administration that would be aggressive in dealing with problems that have made Nigerian business climate highly unprofitable, except speculative and to some marginal degree mercantile activities. Production and services are at best skeletal and the risks are just too high and unbearable for any rational consideration. Unfortunately, government policies, programmes, projects, or, if you like, grammar, have failed, or perceived to have failed, over the years to address this reality.
Proposals to solve these problems would have made politics exciting and electioneering campaigns electrifying. In which case, citizens would have had options and politicians, candidates and parties made commitments accordingly. Dynamics of electoral contests would have facilitated agreements and election results translated into contract with emerging governments around strategies towards resolving our socio-economic and political problems.
While it could be conceded that there were some attempts in this direction by the parties and their candidates during the campaigns leading to the 2007 elections, the unfortunate mass-scale rigging and in many instances disenfranchisement of citizens, aborted any potential for the kind of contract that comes with democratic elections. Governments, at all levels in the country, have consequently emerged without any commitment on how they will address the problems of the people.
Although, it needs to be conceded too that, at federal level, President Yar’Adua made some promises, including declaration of national emergency on power. There was the commitment to take measures to move the economy out of the current rentier status by developing the productive potentials of the nation and expanding the revenue base of government beyond the export of crude oil.
There was the seven point agenda that was the pillar of the PDP presidential campaigns. Also, in his inaugural speech on May 29, President Yar’Adua was to argue that his administration represent generational shift and to that extent raised expectations of Nigerians regarding what might be the guiding criteria for appointments. Related to this is the expressed commitment to 30% women employment in his administration shortly after his swearing in. Of course, there was the pledge for electoral reform and constitutional amendment.
The extent to which these have addressed specific problems of Nigerians and to that magnitude endears the administration to the people is another matter. Beyond anything, a major expectation of Nigerians was located around the need to have a government that would be capable of listening and possibly taking decisions based on the demands of Nigerians. To some considerable degree, whether the promised electoral reform and constitutional amendment would produce nationally acceptable frameworks depends on the depth and magnitude the new electoral act and amended constitution reflect the wishes and desires of Nigerians. That would be the major test of whether President Yar’Adua is a ‘servant leader’ or another ‘philosopher king’.
At the end, what would be the practical impacts of these commitments to the lives of the people? Specifically, given the high incidence of poverty in the land that is estimated at 54.4% of the population living in absolute poverty or 75.5% measured in terms of household consumption according to the July 12, 2007 edition of Financial Times, how would these commitments and their outcomes change this reality? Or put differently, using the recent report of National Bureau of Statistics, which estimates that 63 million Nigerians go to bed hungry everyday, how are these commitments to change this ugly picture?
Somehow, objective assessment suggests some gaps in terms of promises made to Nigerians. First, looking at the 34 ministerial nominees, the government would appear to have waived the issue of generational shift and 30% women employment. May be it is just a short run strategic political compromise and eventually in the life of the administration they will be revisited. Happily, such waivers may not have direct adverse economic consequences, at least glaringly so, but certainly some direct social and political consequences, especially in terms of how much public trust can be invested.
Secondly, given some of the concessions won by the administration so far from citizens, it would appear that Nigerians are already investing so much political capital in the administration. Take the case of the NLC/TUC and the ASUU strikes. In both cases, the strikes were called off on account of the personal intervention of President Yar’Adua. Ordinarily, this are very good signals that the administration is demonstrating capacity and competence to engage the public through combination of listening and making the right offers. The particular offers made to these organisations were however based on prospective actions and to that scale suggesting higher trusts and perhaps higher expectations.
Looking specifically at the NLC/TUC strike for instance, which was as a result of increased prices of petroleum products, privatisation of the nation’s refineries, increased VAT rates and withdrawal of 15% salary increases to workers in the public sector, it would appear that Nigerians interpreted the personal intervention of President Yar’Adua to mean there is going to be a fundamental shift away from the vicious cycle of higher international prices for crude – higher import cost of refined products – higher domestic prices – strikes – higher prices. This is because domestic prices of refined petroleum products is at the centre of the national agitation and was what made the strike popular.
To therefore break the vicious cycle may require the development of domestic capacity for the production and refining of petroleum products and ensuring the emergence of a framework that made it possible for domestic price mechanism to be determined by cost of domestic production. The popularity of the suspension of the strike could on that account be interpreted to mean that Nigerians nurse the hope that the new administration will come up with a new strategy of dealing with the crisis in the petroleum sector such that after one year, there will not be recourse to price increases and domestic supply through perhaps local production of refined products will be guaranteed. Is this a possibility and under what condition?
For these expectations to be realised would be contingent on whether there will be any structural change in the downstream oil sector or not. First, a Deutsche bank research report, released 8 June 2007 quoted the World Bank projection that ‘99% of oil revenue accrues to 1% of the population’. The July 12 Financial Times further talked of the emergence of new oligarchs and cited some Nigerians amongst the world richest people. The best way to present the picture would be to illustrate it using facts that are known.
It will be recalled that, towards the end of May 2007, preparatory to the departure of the Obasanjo administration, through the Deputy Director, Foreign Operations Department, Mr. Jide Aluko, the Central Bank of Nigeria reported that the country has earned N8.875 trillion or $71.12 billion between 2002 and 2006 from the sale of oil. With a population of 140 million, this means that just 1.4 million have earned N8.786 trillion and the remaining 138.6 million Nigerians were just left with N88.75 billion.
Taking equity for granted, this would represent per head earning of about N6.28 million for the 1% population and just N63,391 over the five year period. This translate to annual earnings of about N1 million for the 1% and N12,000 for the 99%. When contrasted against the absolute poverty level of 54.4% or 63 million Nigerians going to bed hungry, one can then appreciate the significance of the figures in terms of the living conditions of Nigerians.
This, to some extent, would estimate the expectations of Nigerians. In other words, there is the need to change the distribution structure and accessibility to resources. The price mechanism and above all structure of the oil industry seems to strengthen this wide income distribution gap. Certainly, on account of that only the Gbadamosis, Kupolokuns, Dangotes, Otedolas, etc. can understand, appreciate and therefore support the logic and framework that governs the downstream oil sector. For the rest of Nigerians, it will continue to be a burden so long as 1% of the population continue earn 99% of the proceed.
The conclusion would be that let the government speak all the grammar, but let it translate to higher equity, accessibility to resources and improved living conditions. Nigerians have, in the short period of the life of this administration, widened the margin of public confidence on the administration. The administration is yet to take any measure that could validate this confidence.
All the mathematical permutations and proposals coming from the administration should address this if the government is interested in meeting the growing expectations of Nigerians. It is not simply about financial or resource management but about guaranteeing equitable access, distribution and fair play. All the arguments for price increases and privatisation by whatever guise need to address this reality for the clause in our constitution that argue that sovereignty lies with the people to make any meaning. Otherwise sovereignty will only be for the 1% that earns 99% of the proceeds.
|