The Nation Newspaper

Category: Ropo Sekoni

  • ‘Cows without milk’: the urgency of Knowledge over Cultural economy

    ‘Cows without milk’: the urgency of Knowledge over Cultural economy

    Having herdsmen in the 21st century should be discouraged; potential herdsmen should be in school like the children of the cattle they are hired to herd.

    This article is being republished in response to the federal government’s recent decision to establish a committee to examine the problem of herdsmen and farmers arising from cattle grazing. Since the committee is likely to call for ideas from the public, today’s article should be taken as a citizen’s view on a problem that has been around for a long time and may not go away until solutions are found to this nationally sensitive issue.

    Today’s title is borrowed partly from the current minister of agriculture who said last week that most of the cows in the country cannot produce milk because they do not have enough water to drink, thus becoming as malnourished as their male counterparts. This observation by Chief Audu Ogbeh captures the contradictions in the country’s agricultural system, just as it does for every aspect of the country’s way of doing things. Now that the wind of change is about to blow is an appropriate time to juxtapose development on the steam of tradition with development on the battery of innovation.

    When people try to have milk without the cow, goat, or sheep, such people attempt to achieve the impossible. But when people have cows but cannot get milk, then the problem is one of relying on wrong ways of doing things. Nigeria could as well have been the epicentre of dairy production in West Africa, in addition to producing enough beef for its huge population. But the country has increasingly been constrained by the fast pace of desertification that has robbed cattle, goats and sheep access to adequate feed and water. This challenge is not unchangeable if the political will is there. But the kind of will needed does not include being beholden to outmoded methods. It requires a sincere commitment to modernization and belief in new technology and techniques as a way of overcoming constraints imposed by tradition and nature.

    The material in italics overleaf is to show how desertification is a remote cause of the problem between herdsmen and farmers in states below the Sahel belt in the North Sahel and in many states in the South. Of course, desertification is not peculiar to Nigeria. About 900 million people in the five continents live in zones that are threatened by desertification.  But there are new techniques to arrest desertification in other parts of the world, and Nigeria must find ways to acquire such knowledge to save itself from many problems that make the country expend energy in creating easy solutions to old problems and in the process creating new, and perhaps, bigger problems. Indiscriminate animal grazing has not always been a problem in the country. Those who were born before independence would know that up to the 1970s when the Sahel had not moved down as radically as it has in the last twenty years, it was unheard of that herdsmen harassed farmers in the South, a point made recently by General Obasanjo when he said “cattle grazing was a rare sight except when a big person died in the community.” In those years, cows were brought to the south to sell, not to graze. But with raging desertification in the picture, all states are becoming cattle producing or feeding stations. The problem of desertification is not going to go away by itself; it requires sincere intervention that includes borrowing ideas and techniques of reducing desertification from other countries. In other words, policymakers need to think less about traditional ways of cattle farming and more about new knowledge that could allow cattle farmers to do so with relative ease than having to walk cattle through cities and villages.

    By cultural economy, I am referring to the role played by various forms of material and non-material cultural practice in the organisation of the economy or to cultural dimensions of economic activity—the design or marketing of any product or service. The fact that herdsmen in the past had moved from one area of the north to another before the spread of the Sahel to over 10 most northern states does not mean that herdsmen should continue to be encouraged to keep moving all over the country in search of pasture and water for their cattle. When some people argued that many of the herdsmen that caused trouble in many parts of the country came from outside Nigeria, many pundits dismissed this idea. It is conceivable that some of the herdsmen could have been foreigners from countries north of Nigeria with worse experience of desertification. Regardless of the nationality of herdsmen, it is the menace they cause to farming communities that need to be addressed rationally.

    At the rate herdsmen are searching for food and water for their flock, the tendency is high that most cattle farmers may end up moving to the south, should the Sahel continue to inch further south and no serious intervention comes from those holding levers of power to respond to a serious environmental problem. Anti-grazing statements may not have been put in a politically correct manner in some areas, but grazing is a serious economic problem that must not be allowed to transform into a political one. Solution to the problem of grazing must not be borrowed from the model of creating NECO when policymakers thought that WAEC was not working well for Nigerian students. Transferring problems created by desertification to other states is not a solution. The challenge for the ministries of agriculture and the environment is how to fight desertification frontally and how to adopt new ways to do animal production.

    To put this differently, moving away from the limitation imposed by traditional animal farming at a time that over 10 states in the north are experiencing shortage of water requires embracing what is referred to as Knowledge Economy in this piece. By knowledge economy, I do not mean just the digitisation of experience made possible by artificial intelligence in what is considered by sociologists as the third Industrial Revolution. Knowledge economy in the series under this title refers to the culture of relying on advances in science, technology, new ideas and techniques for increasing production, improving quality of products and services, and reducing the use of human or animal muscles to create value or add value.

    With respect to call for a new look at the way of raising cattle, it is the view of this writer that the time has come to find out how other countries that once used the model of moving cows and goats to wherever they can find food and water shifted to a new way of animal farming that takes whatever the animals need to them in ranches. If herdsmen were children of upper or middle-class men and women in our country, they would have cried foul for being hired to nurse cattle for the rich at great risk to their being. If the country had created an educational system akin to what exists in Kaduna today—free and compulsory basic education for all—it would have been impossible for current owners of cattle to find herdsmen to follow cattle to the length and breadth of the country.  Such difficulty must come to cattle owners if part of the goals of national development and integration include ensuring equality and equity. Having herdsmen in the 21st century should be discouraged; potential herdsmen should be in school like the children of the cattle they are hired to herd.

    The most reliable way to stop reproducing herdsmen is for the governments to commit to replacing imperatives of tradition with principles of knowledge economy in planning, designing, and organising animal and other forms of farming. It must be part of the remit of a government of change to prepare all citizens for competitiveness in a global village that is already experiencing third industrial revolution.

    To be continued

  • America’s presidential election: lessons for Africa

    The primaries of both major political parties, though not without moments of tension, ended on the note that it is citizens’ choice that is supreme.

    “Hillary has worked very long and very hard over a long period of time, and we owe her a major debt of gratitude for her service to our country.—President-elect Donald Trump.
    “I have been very encouraged by the interest by the President-elect Trump’s wanting to work with my team around many of the issues that this great country faces. I believe that it is important for all regardless of party and regardless of political preferences to now come together, work together to deal with the many challenges we face.”—President Barrack Obama
    “Last night, I congratulated Donald Trump and offered to work with him on behalf of our country….Our constitutional democracy enshrines the peaceful transfer of power and we don’t just respect that, we cherish it. It also enshrines other things: the rule of law, the principle that we are equal in rights and dignity, freedom of worship and expression. Secretary Hillary Clinton
    “We discussed a lot of different situations, some wonderful and some difficult. I very much look forward to dealing with the president in the future, including counsel…. Mr. President, it was a great honor being with you, and I look forward to being with you many more times in the future.”— Donald Trump.

    The snippets in italics from three major stakeholders (to use Nigerians’ favourite word) in the recent election capture the theme of today’s piece: the joy of democracy as a culture and the belief that democracy cannot thrive in any space in which electoral culture and management are determined solely by leaders who prefer to remain in power perpetually or to construct and sustain an electoral system and constitution that enable selected politicians to award privileges to members of their ethnic or religious group, or to stay in power  in perpetuity, as it often happens in many African countries. Leaders in Africa need to pay special attention to the blustering campaign before the recent presidential election in the United States as well as the soothing words that follow the election results, to know what they are missing and how their intolerance of democratic choice as the hallmark of people’s sovereign powers can turn their citizens into clones of themselves: intolerant of opposition parties and ideologies.There are lessons for African politicians, especially those already in power to learn from the just concluded elections in the United States.

    The claim that Africa has lessons to learn from the election by no means suggests that American electoral politics is perfect. What is enviable about it is the maturity and readiness of those seeking power to govern the countryto respect memorandum of association that makes the enviable political space different candidates love to govern possible: readiness to abide by the rules of the game, instead of changing the rules before, during, or at the end of the game. For example, pundits in Nigeria who called Ayo Fayose a third-world politician for his lack of civility during the presidential election of 2015 must be wondering why civility disappeared during the campaign of Donald Trump in the country that has presented itself as the poster-child of democracy and sophisticated governance. Another aspect of American constitution that may be unsettling about presidential election is the two levels of election results: popular vote and electoral college vote, which young people protesting outcome of the elections in major U.S. cities seem to be worried about. But this piece is not about the logic or illogic of the electoral college system; it is about pre- and post-election behaviour of candidates, political parties, and election administrators.

    African leaders are likely to miss the benefits of watching other countries’ democratic practice if they give credence to Fayose’s superstitious theory that the outcome of the election is a punishment of Obama for what he did to Jonathan. The first lesson pertains to pre-election phase, particularly the laws that guide primaries in each state in the country’s federal system. The primaries of both major political parties, though not without moments of tension, ended on the note that it is citizens’ choice that is supreme. Each of the two major parties accepted the choice of Trump and Clinton as presidential candidates for Republican and Democratic parties. In contrast, primaries in Nigeria have been largely controversial and divisive. In the era of Obasanjo, PDP gubernatorial primary in Rivers State chose a gubernatorial candidate whose victory at the primary was given to another candidate preferred by the party’s overlords, only for that person to later become at the instance of the Supreme Court the governor of the state without going through election. The presidential primary of the PDP in 2014 bypassed its own due process for picking candidates; the ticket was awarded to President Jonathan. More recently, the gubernatorial primary in Ondo State has been a bone of contention between candidates and within the parties. Charges and countercharges of manipulation have been in the air since the end of the primary. Even less than two weeks before the election, there is uncertainty about who the candidates of the state’s two major parties: PDP and APC are, thus pushing citizens to characterize PDP and APC as two sides of the same coin.

    Administration of elections from primaries to election in the last one year has been noticeably credible. During the primaries, the security and law enforcement agencies that are designed to sustain electoral democracy responded effectively to their responsibilities. It was not conceivable for any strong politician to hire thugs to prevent party members from voting or to support imposition of fake party delegates to replace duly approved ones by the party. No politician was given any reason to cry foul about partiality of police of any of the states, regardless of which party was dominant in such states. This cannot be said about most African countries. During the election, nobody complained about vote selling and buying.  No police had to worry about thugs or of people in police or military uniforms stealing ballot boxes. No candidate canvassed for new constitutions to extend the tenure of incumbents or contemplated detention of opposition candidates, the way such actions affected recent elections in Uganda, Zambia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, to name a few.

    Even though some states attempted to frustrate some voters by creating state laws that made it difficult for African Americans to obtain photo identification cards to facilitate voting, on the average, registering to vote and being able to obtain voter’s card were relatively easy. This was not even so in Nigeria in 2015 when thousands of voters in Southwestern Nigeria were disenfranchised by the ruling party which frustrated voters in the region from obtaining their voter’s cards before the election. Even despite the accolades INEC received after the election, the election commission appeared clueless about how to get permanent voter’s cards to those who duly registered to vote in the Southwest. I was the only person in my household lucky enough to get permanent voter’s card even though four of us had registered in the same place and at the same time.

    African politicians would benefit significantly if they accept that the joy of democracy is that citizens can shift power from one political party to another as and when they deem it fit to do so. Many ‘do-or-die politicians’ must be surprised why all the persons involved in the election have within 24 hours of release of election results come around to pledge support for the new government,despite the many insults traded during the campaign. The Mugabes and Musevenis of Africa must be amazed that there are human beings who would allow power to pass to other people without killing and maiming some of those who attempted to wrest power from them.

    Nigerians in diaspora who participated in mobilising for votes for the party that they believe shares their vision of the world in the 21st century must be disappointed at the result of the election. And many of them have been expressing fears about their future. It is, however, reassuring that Nigerians (being what they are) are already coming around to renew their confidence that the rule of law must take its course. Those without proper documentation do not need to exaggerate their problems, as every rational president in the United States since its inception knows the benefit of keeping the country as a nation of immigrants that it has been since the arrival of the Pilgrims on the Mayflower. What African leaders need to worry about in this respect is how to stop the politics or governance that pushes their own citizens into risking their lives by choosing to be trafficked to Europe or the United States without proper documents. Once Africa’s political leaders accept the responsibility that it is their duty to make their countries user-friendly to their own citizens, they do not need to worry about whether President Trump would end globalisation; they need to get their acts together and move the continent into a respectable one.

  • ‘Cows without milk’: the urgency of knowledge over cultural economy (2)

    Even when infrastructures for creation of a knowledge economy were built, emphasis was usually on political distribution of such infrastructure, rather than on its capacity to produce desired results.

    In the first part of this article last week, we borrowed the phrase ‘Cows without milk’ from the Minister of Agriculture, to capture the contradictions in a national system that is underachieving, principally because it underperforms in areas crucial to the country’s existence or wellbeing. We argued that the insistence by policymakers at different levels to justify cattle grazing as a model for production of meat and milk for more than 170 million citizens is driven by a blind trust in the power of tradition, in contrast to successful models of animal production across the globe. We concluded the piece by calling for a national mindset that is ready to privilege elements of knowledge economy over preference for an economy driven by pre-colonial agricultural practice, thus asking for discontinuance with grazing of cattle and adoption of the ranch model. The concept of nourishing cows that cannot produce milk because of undernourishment is also being used in this piece to examine the consequences of resistance to change in respect of the most important foundation for creation of a knowledge economy.

    More specifically, today’s column focuses on the need by those charged with governance of Africa’s largest country to make adequate efforts to provide the right conditions for development of a knowledge economy.  For a very long time, the country’s polity and economy have been driven by cultural preference(s). If it was not the need for one cultural group to dominate the rest, it was the need for elite members of various cultural groups to compete over amassing wealth at the expense of the country. Even when infrastructures for creation of a knowledge economy were built, emphasis was usually on political distribution of such infrastructure, rather than on its capacity to produce desired results. In most cases, such foundations are incapable of producing desired outcomes. Explanations for such failure usually provided by policymakers and minders have been that the governments are doing their best, given limited funds available to them. But  one year of consistent exposure of cases of corruption by people in government just in the last few years has demonstrated that it was desire for self-enrichment at the expense of the people, rather than inadequate revenue, that has prevented rulers from making the right investment in building proper infrastructure for national development through the power of knowledge.

    The consequence of this approach to governance is that countries with which Nigeria obtained independence around the same time: Korea, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, and United Arab Emirate, just name a few, are today countries Nigeria looks up to as superiors and to which it runs to seek investors. Now that oil, the commodity that made development efforts irrelevant to the country’s political leaders and corruption, the consequence of a polity driven by rent collection is experiencing loss of revenue, there is need for governments to think outside the box in a consistent manner in order to move the country towards becoming a knowledge economy.

    By knowledge economy, we mean more than the popular usage of the concept to represent advances in communication technology, especially the capacity of the internet to transmit information at a phenomenal speed. We mean production and services based on knowledge-intensive activities that contribute to a speedy pace of scientific and technological advance and the capacity of such advancement to eclipse older and less efficient productive methods. The most important component of a knowledge economy is a greater reliance on intellectual capacities and outputs than on physical exertion and inputs including depending on sheer existence of natural resources. In other words, knowledge economy refers to creating structures and conditions for increasing productivity and facilitating production of goods and services needed for human beings to thrive.

    The basic infrastructure for creating scientific, technological, and entrepreneurial or managerial expertise to achieve such increase in productivity is education. Although the policy-related rhetoric of the current government repeats some of the rhetoric of previous governments on the way forward for the country, the attitude of the federal government to corruption and freeing state resources in the pockets of looters suggests more desire for real change than in the past. Although universities are the key drivers of the knowledge economy in other parts of the world, bringing into being creative individuals that can produce a knowledge economy is much larger than creation and proliferation of universities. In fact, such possibility starts with pre-school or early childhood education, which is largely ignored in the country’s practice of public education.

    One right step has already been made by the current government in respect of public education: commitment to provide free meals for primary school children. But a similar commitment needs to be given to funding of pre-school education for children between three and five years of age. Research is already indicating that investment in three years of early childhood education may bring more benefits than three years of free tuition in universities for such children. All the countries that dominate the globe’s knowledge economy today invest not less than average of 18% of their annual budget on education that includes provision of pre-school education. In addition, current primary/secondary curriculum that replaces the one inherited from colonial times has been poorly implemented to the extent that very little visible progress has been gained from the 6-3-3-4 system. The emphasis on comprehensive education that was to define the new curriculum disappeared without being noticed or mourned by anybody. Our country was rolled back to the examination-driven system that emphasises credentialing more than creative learning. Consequently, under-performance of the education sector has been reduced to the number of children who obtain five credits in WAEC or NECO. Instructively, some educational psychologists have been drawing attention to the difference between cause and effect of any problem.

    For Nigeria to move beyond just living off oil rents, it certainly needs to diversify its economy, as President Buhari has said repeatedly. Such diversification requires a new focus on education at all levels. High quality teaching, provision of right conditions for learning, and substantial investment in research are crucial to a country that sets out to diversify its economy. Adopting a system that emphasises research should be an abiding aspect of all forms of policymaking. For too long, our civil service has lost enthusiasm about its function as an institution to deliver public service, largely because it had been for decades in the grips of political administrations that gave more value to self-enrichment from the public purse than to delivery of public good. Similarly, the country’s university system has been underfunded by administrations that pleaded lack of funds and yet produced billionaires who looted the nation’s treasury, as we have been made to see in the number of people seeking injunctions in court on charges of corruption.

    The Buhari government must move away from the model of governing the country from reports of hurriedly organised summits, seminars, workshops, etc. Reviewing the country’s education and other areas of the country’s life needs more than three-day summit of so-called stakeholders. Such effort requires research by experts in our higher institutions and from other countries, to determine what needs to be done to change the culture of learning in the country. Compared to other countries at similar level of development, Nigeria is the least prepared to create a knowledge economy and yet the one with the greatest potential to do so.

    At present, Nigeria has fewer bookshops and libraries per population than any other country that I know. The kind of literacy that can lead to production of creative individuals cannot come from the few existing libraries and from the attitude to reading by young people in the country. Most of what is read in the 12 years of schooling are textbooks. Curriculum review must not be driven by political agenda but by the desire to create an autonomous education system that can enhance creative learning at all levels. In other words, this is the right time for the governments to provide leadership for a new society and polity. But such leadership should not derive legitimacy from tradition but from full knowledge of issues at stake. We have to feed our cows well so that they can give us the milk we need to grow.

    – Concluded

  • ‘Cows without milk’: the urgency of Knowledge over Cultural economy (1)

    ‘Cows without milk’: the urgency of Knowledge over Cultural economy (1)

    Having herdsmen in the 21st century should be discouraged; potential herdsmen should be in school like the children of the cattle they are hired to herd.

    Nigeria is a country faced with desertification problem with 15 states accounting for about 68.38% of the country’s total land area, challenged with varying degrees of desertification. Impacts of drought and desertification are felt in all aspects of the environment and human livelihood. Remedies to these problems involve awareness, protection of marginal lands, planting of indigenous tree and shrub species, sustainable agricultural practices and use of alternative energy source. There is need to bridge the gap between the formation of policy and strategies of combating drought and desertification so that government efforts to combating desertification can be productive—Temidayo Olagunju, Journal of Ecology & the Natural Environment

    Today’s title is borrowed partly from the current minister of agriculture who said last week that most of the cows in the country cannot produce milk because they do not have enough water to drink, thus becoming as malnourished as their male counterparts. This observation by Chief Audu Ogbeh captures the contradictions in the country’s agricultural system, just as it does for every aspect of the country’s way of doing things. Now that the wind of change is about to blow is an appropriate time to juxtapose development on the steam of tradition with development on the battery of innovation.

    When people try to have milk without the cow, goat, or sheep, such people attempt to achieve the impossible. But when people have cows but cannot get milk, then the problem is one of relying on wrong ways of doing things. Nigeria could as well have been the epicenter of dairy production in West Africa, in addition to producing enough beef for its huge population. But the country has increasingly been constrained by the fast pace of desertification that has robbed cattle, goats and sheep access to adequate feed and water. This challenge is not unchangeable if the political will is there. But the kind of will needed does not include being beholden to outmoded methods. It requires a sincere commitment to modernisation and belief in new technology and techniques as a way of overcoming constraints imposed by tradition and nature.

    The material in italics overleaf is to show how desertification is a remote cause of the problem between herdsmen and farmers in states below the Sahel belt in the North Sahel and in many states in the South. Of course, desertification is not peculiar to Nigeria. About 900 million people in the five continents live in zones that are threatened by desertification.  But there are new techniques to arrest desertification in other parts of the world, and Nigeria must find ways to acquire such knowledge to save itself from many problems that make the country expend energy in creating easy solutions to old problems and in the process creating new, and perhaps, bigger problems. Indiscriminate animal grazing has not always been a problem in the country. Those who were born before independence would know that up to the 1970s when the Sahel had not moved down as radically as it has in the last twenty years, it was unheard of that herdsmen harassed farmers in the South, a point made recently by General Obasanjo when he said “cattle grazing was a rare sight except when a big person died in the community.”In those years, cows were brought to the south to sell, not to graze. But with raging desertification in the picture, all states are becoming cattle producing or feeding stations.The problem of desertification is not going to go away by itself; it requires sincere intervention that includes borrowing ideas and techniques of reducing desertification from other countries. In other words, policymakers need to think less about traditional ways of cattle farming and more about new knowledge that could allow cattle farmers to do so with relative ease than having to walk cattle through cities and villages.

    By cultural economy, I am referring to the role played by various forms of material and non-material cultural practice in the organisation of the economy or to cultural dimensions of economic activity—the design or marketing of any product or service. The fact that herdsmen in the past had moved from one area of the north to another before the spread of the Sahel to over 10 most northern states does not mean that herdsmen should continue to be encouraged to keep moving all over the country in search of pasture and water for their cattle. When some people argued that many of the herdsmen that caused trouble in many parts of the country came from outside Nigeria, many pundits dismissed this idea. It is conceivable that some of the herdsmen could have been foreigners from countries north of Nigeria with worse experience of desertification. Regardless of the nationality of herdsmen, it is the menace they cause to farming communities that need to be addressed rationally.

    At the rate herdsmen are searching for food and water for their flock, the tendency is high that most cattle farmers may end up moving to the south, should the Sahel continue to inch further south and no serious intervention comes from those holding levers of power to respond to a serious environmental problem. Anti-grazing statements may not have been put in a politically correct manner in some areas, but grazing is a serious economic problem that must not be allowed to transform into a political one. Solution to the problem of grazing must not be borrowed from the model of creating NECO when policymakers thought that WAEC was not working well for Nigerian students. Transferring problems created by desertification to other states is not a solution. The challenge for the ministries of agriculture and the environment is how to fight desertification frontally and how to adopt new ways to do animal production.

    To put this differently, moving away from the limitation imposed by traditional animal farming at a time that over 10 states in the north are experiencing shortage of water requires embracing what is referred to as Knowledge Economy in this piece. By knowledge economy, I do not mean just the digitisation of experience made possible by artificial intelligence in what is considered by sociologists as the third Industrial Revolution. Knowledge economy in the series under this title refers to the culture of relying on advances in science, technology, new ideas and techniques for increasing production, improving quality of products and services, and reducing the use of human or animal muscles to create value or add value.

    With respect to call for a new look at the way of raising cattle, it is the view of this writer that the time has come to find out how other countries that once used the model of moving cows and goats to wherever they can find food and water shifted to a new way of animal farming that takes whatever the animals need to them in ranches. If herdsmen were children of upper or middle-class men and women in our country, they would have cried foul for being hired to nurse cattle for the rich at great risk to their being. If the country had created an educational system akinto what exists in Kaduna today—free and compulsory basic education for all—it would have been impossible for current owners of cattle to find herdsmen to follow cattle to the length and breadth of the country.  Such difficulty must come to cattle owners if part of the goals of national development and integration include ensuring equality and equity. Having herdsmen in the 21st century should be discouraged; potential herdsmen should be in school like the children of the cattle they are hired to herd.

    The most reliable way to stop reproducing herdsmen is for the governments to commit to replacing imperatives of tradition with principles of knowledge economy in planning, designing, and organising animal and other forms of farming. It must be part of the remit of a government of change to prepare all citizens for competitiveness in a global village that is already experiencing third industrial revolution.

    – To be continued

  • Many hearty cheers to grandstanding!

    Many hearty cheers to grandstanding!

    Is this law to divert attention from Jibrin’s accusations or impress citizens that NASS is sincere in its commitment to support Buhari’s war on corruption?

    In the 1970s one of the illustrations of the power of mass media in a democracy was theorised as Agenda Setting. Politicians were supposed to worry about persuading voters to buy their manifesto while governments were expected to implement agenda captured in their manifesto. But the media was believed by communication theorists to have the power to create and propagate issues that get citizens engaged. This theory still holds. But today, post-election governments in Nigeria at all levels spend more time setting agenda through conferences than implementing them.

    Last month, a conference was held on corruption at which members of the National Assembly and governors spoke effusively on how to improve the culture of budgeting. Again, just a few days ago, another conference was convened to discuss how to fight corruption. Apart from Kenya’s former anti-corruption tsar, other major speakers were the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Both lawmakers revelled in pontificating about the importance of fighting corruption while assuring the nation that the two legislative houses they head are committed to supporting President Buhari’s fight against corruption.

    Why would these two top lawmakers need to tell the nation that they are ready to support the anti-corruption fight? If they were members of the opposition party, PDP, this would have been understandable, but what is the sense in top APC leaders who hold top legislative posts at the instance or in the name of APC, a party whose major campaign plank was (and remains) killing corruption before corruption kills the country need to assure conference audience of their loyalty to anti-corruption cause? Why would principal officers of the National Assembly need a conference to call for an independent anti-corruption agency?

    Lawmakers are being ‘cheered’ in this piece for pontificating about how to fight corruption while one of their members is on suspension for 180 days for acting as a whistle blower to alert the executive and citizens about the depth or height of corruption in the House of Representatives. Would it not be less hypocritical for the top lawmakers to stay away from such conference and use the time to address complaints of the suspended chairman of Appropriation Committee? In other climes, the herd instinct that made it easy to prevent Jibrin from representing his constituency in the House would have been avoided for several reasons.

    One, fellow lawmakers would have investigated Jibrin’s claims to save the institution from embarrassment before suspending Jibrin if found to have chosen to parade fiction as fact. Similarly, law enforcement agencies in such countries would have insisted upon investigating the claims of Jibrin to confirm or disprove his sensational claims, if only to sustain the trust of citizens in governance institutions. No country interested in justice would have looked away from such serious claims about principal lawmakers looting the country’s treasury, especially under a regime whose raison d’etre is fight against corruption. Secondly, security-conscious countries would have sensed the security risk in ignoring Jibrin’s allegations. If such allegations are found to be false, Jibrin would have been punished for attempting to bring an important branch of government to ridicule.

    In addition, the electors of Jibrin from Kano would have gone to court to fight disenfranchisement. How can House Rules of any parliament have the power to derogate from the sovereignty of millions of Kano voters? Counterparts of Kano electorate in other democracies would have petitioned the judiciary about attempts to nullify their citizenship rights. In fact, lawmakers in truly democratic countries would have investigated Jibrin’s claims and if they are found to be groundless, he would have been handed to law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute for libel, slander, and deliberate effort to cause disaffection in the legislature with a view to destabilising the polity.

    In another development, the same legislature that Jibrin accused of corruption has announced its readiness to create laws to protect whistle blowers. This new move by the National Assembly deserves special hearty cheers. Is this law to divert attention from Jibrin’s accusations or impress citizens that NASS is sincere in its commitment to support Buhari’s war on corruption? Jibrin has acted as an unduly energetic whistle blower whose complaints should have been protected by all well-meaning believers in the cause of fighting corruption. Is the National Assembly planning to make the law to protect whistle blowers retroactive to cover Jibrin?

    As if to bring the matter of Jibrin back to media attention, the conference organised by the Presidential Advisory Committee against Corruption and the National Assembly was assured by the committee’s chairman, Prof. Sagay, that there is need to investigate Jibrin’s claims. Should the EFCC be too busy from investigating bigger suspects than Jibrin who has in fact confessed to committing the crime that he has accused his colleagues of, shouldn’t the matter of Jibrin’s self-confession be passed to the investigative division of the police, to save time and cost?

    The recent conversion of the Nigerian Bar Association to the school of thought that arresting individual judges suspected of crime is not synonymous with attacking the judiciary as an institution certainly deserves some hearty cheers. Without finding out why DSS broke into the house of some judges, the NBA was the first organisation to threaten fire and brimstone by announcing that it would withdraw from attending courts because of DSS’s arrest of judges. What has the NBA now uncovered to make its initial threat untenable? In other climes, the cream of a country’s Bar would first seek information on any matter before rushing to take sides as the NBA rushed to do when the news of arrest of judges broke. It belittles our learned colleagues that they have had within two weeks to change from sympathisers of judges arrested to supporters of their arrestors.

    It is amazing that EFCC chose the conference on anti-corruption to ask for permission to keep a percentage of money recovered from loot. Although governance in our country is being done increasingly through conferences, a serious organisation like EFCC should have refrained from turning what should have been an intra-governmental memo to a conference announcement. However, it is risky to tie funding of EFCC to percentage of loot, regardless of what the United Kingdom does. Adequate resources should be given to EFCC, ICPC, and other similar organisations to do their job. There is no reason why the federal government cannot provide funds to these organisations, knowing that whatever is recovered would come back to the federal purse. An organisation that has brought in N100 billion from the Northwest alone should not be left scrounging for funds to provide conducive space to work. It will enhance transparency to separate the source of expenditures of EFCC from funds it recovers from thieves of state. Allowing EFCC to start collecting commission from proceeds of graft will set a bad precedent for the police, customs, and other agencies.

    Clearly, our country is at a critical time in its history. There was recession when General Buhari tried to fight corruption as a military dictator. But this is the first time that a government has been mandated by citizens through election to fight corruption. Since everybody’s experience (including Buhari’s) is low in terms of fighting corruption through the mechanism of an elected government, people are willing to excuse a few lapses in the fight against corruption. But what is likely to send wrong signals to citizens is any attempt— direct or indirect— to look away from any petition or complaint about any person (in the executive, legislative, or judicial branches of government) acting in ways that suggest corruption.

    More importantly, it may be counterproductive for lawmakers or even executive branch leaders to take citizens for granted. Spending manpower hours and funds on conferences on corruption or on how to fight corruption does not automatically amount to efficiency in the fight against corruption. Nothing is likely to gladden the hearts of citizens than for all the branches of government to respond to allegations of corruption about serving officers. Conferences have their role in modern governance, but they also have the potential to turn important government agenda from action to verbiage.

  • In the court of public opinion: Anti corruption versus rule of law?

     In some cases, some media pundits are even asking President Buhari to refrain from fighting corruption, if doing so might jeopardise the non-negotiability of the rule of law

    The following piece first appeared on this page shortly after the emergence of Dasukigate, when legal and media pundits cried foul at the manner of entering Dasuki’s home to arrest himand his subsequent detention.The deafening argument then, like now, when attention is on arrested judges, is that Buhari’s government threatened the principle of separation of powers by opting for the most extreme of options prescribed by law for arresting persons suspected of serious crime.
    One of the most insidious of mythological civic narratives is that our leaders are selfless public servants serving a higher call and order. In a lesser quoted part of Lord Acton’s power/corruption axiom, he offers the chilling statement: “There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it.” Generally, people employed in the public sector are not selfless public servants. They are simple people whose job it is to serve the public. They work for the public, but does that really ennoble them? By the evidence of corruption and venality arrayed about us, the answer must be emphatically, “No.” Yet we still fall prey to the mythology— Joseph Ferguson in a foreword to Transparent Government: What it means and how you can make it happen by Donald Gordon.

    One word that is ubiquitous today in print, broadcast, and social media, more than ever before, is Rule of Law. Not since the death of UmaruYar’Adua, a president who included running a government in compliance with the rule of law in his presidential mission has the lofty phrase been so popular. When a word is repeated as frequently as rule of law has been since the new government’s efforts to fight corruption by investigating and prosecuting individuals who are suspected to have abused the country’s financial management principles and values, ordinary citizens who are not members of the bar or the bench should be wary. Like some of those who requested me to comment on ‘media-hyping’ of this phrase, I am tempted to look at George Orwell’s 1946 essay, “Politics and the English Language.”

    In Orwell’s essay, he raised many issues about the relationship between words and the meanings they are intended to convey. He said among other things: “Our civilisation is decadent and our language — so the argument runs — must inevitably share in the general collapse…. Political language — and with this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists — is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” Orwell’s assertion that political speech is more often used to conceal than to inform and often used to justify the unjustifiable may apply to today’s obsession by pundits in both traditional and social media with the rule of law as if it is an ideology-free concept.

    Are these two words: anti-corruption and the rule of law mutually exclusive or should they be bandied about as if each refers to something that is oppositional to the other? Partisan politicians are enthusiastic in emphasising the importance of rule of law at the expense of fighting corruption. In some cases, some media pundits are even asking President Buhari to refrain from fighting corruption, if doing so might jeopardise the non-negotiability of the rule of law. Understandably, ordinary citizens seem to be confused by calls for privileging of rule of law principle over rejection of corruption, even though the two camps are presumably shooting for the same thing, good governance.

    One of two issues that have been raised by those who see themselves as whistleblowers against acts that show lack of respect for the rule of law since the beginning of the ongoing fight against corruption is the method of arresting suspects. The other is keeping suspects in detention after judges have recommended them for release. Undoubtedly, it is not encouraging for any government to do anything to suggest that it does not respect the independence of the judiciary. But one area that is often ignored is that the judiciary, like other sectors of the polity and society, also has its own bad eggs as it is in all professions and occupations in the land.

    Borrowing Joseph Ferguson’s concept of mythological civic narrative and Lord Acton’s assertion: “There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it,” it is logical to say that many of the politicians and media pundits who make efforts to privilege the principle of rule of law over the imperative of identifying, investigating, and prosecuting individuals caught with corrupt acts assume that the judiciary is right all the time. If time is taken to do forthright judicial criticism, it will be demonstrated that many judges use the space of discretion at their disposal to favour those accused of criminal behaviour capable of sabotaging the state. For example, if it was not for the Administration of Criminal Act 2015, cases that have been put in the cooler in the name of rule of law since 2006 would not have seen the light of day, as they are now doing at the instance of the EFCC. The rule of law promotes first and foremost equality of all citizens before the law, regardless of status, age, race, and religion.

    It is citizens at the bottom or civil groups on their behalf those who have not enjoyed the principle of equality before the law that are now interrogating or protesting pundits that are pooh-poohing the manner of arrest of persons suspected of crime. The masses seem to be wondering if the word rule of law is to conceal rather than to reveal, whether the repetition of the phrase is not an attempt to take attention away from efforts to fight corruption. Citizens who are enraged by the absurdity of appropriation of funds meant for improvement of the life of all or to fight Boko Haram’s war against the nation are worried that the elite are doing what they have always done best: create confusion or distraction in order to prevent any meaningful intervention by those committed to deter corruption through a crime and punishment initiative. President Buhari may not have provided a grand narrative of how he plans to govern the country, he has, undoubtedly, clearly stated that no change can come to the economy until looters of the economy and the polity in the past are made to return their loot.

    Historically, the ritualistic conceptualisation of rule of law had been challenged in the past in many societies. Thomas Paine once said in “Common Sense” that unjust laws threaten the religiosity of the rule of law, just as Henry David Thoreau said in “Civil Disobedience”: “Thus, under the name of Order and Civil Government, we are all made at last to pay homage to and support our own meanness.” At a time that corruption has almost brought the country to bankruptcy and international receivership, it is necessary for pundits to be guided by Lord Acton’s axiom that the office may not sanctify the holder.

    Undoubtedly, members of the Bar and the Bench, like beneficiaries from verdicts by arrested judges, should be worried about what looks like deconstructing the long-held civic myth that the judiciary represents the peak of public morality in our country. After the recent allegation of criminal acts of senior lawyers by the EFCC, to now arrest judges like hardened criminals must be worrisome to those sustained by pro-elite ideology and privileges. It must be scary to note that the change in respect of corruption that Buhari’s presidency can bring can remind principal stakeholders in post-colonial political system about the saying: “You must break egg before you can make omelette.” It must be unsettling to many that DSS’s recent arrest of judges underlines a common folk knowledge in the country that in all the branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial, the office does not necessarily sanctify the holders.

  • Nigeria: still ‘Grazing’ half a century after independence

    Mandating cattle farmers to adopt the model of ranching and supporting them with loans from the Agriculture loan facilities is a more rational policy needed.

    The last part of my answer to the avalanche of questions has provided me with the title of today’s column.My use of Grazing will include the literal meaning of driving animals to find food where ever such food is available, the equivalent of hunting and gathering cultural practice. The other sense of the usage will be metaphorical, referring to policies and actions of those in power for the past four decades to produce a political and economic culture that privileges free loading on a nationwide level. This part will play with the idea that since 1975 Nigeria’s governments have been constructed to act like grazing cattle: eating whatever herbage is available at the instance of nature without making adequate sacrifice to add value to nature through properly coordinated productive activities that can reduce reliance on just nature’s blessings to sustain West Africa’s largest market. In other words, in the language of stylistics, we will use Grazing in this column in relation to its denotation as well as its connotation.

    Only last week, the media reported that the federal government had affirmed that there would be no going back on its decision to establish ranches and grazing zones across the country for Fulani herdsmen or nomadic cattle breeders. Breeding cattle for meat or milk in Nigeria, like in any other pre-modern society in the past, had been through moving cattle and goats to anywhere with pasture. What is surprising about the recent news on the decision of the federal government to curtail or end violence between cattle farmers and plant/vegetable farmers is the shallowness in the policy to acquire land as grazing zones for cattle farmers across the federal state of Nigeria. More worrying is the fact that such policy ignores complaints and suggestions by all governments and citizens of several states: Kwara, Kogi, Benue, Plateau, and all the states in the south of the country on how to end destruction of life and property perpetrated by nomadic cattle breeders.

    To make the policy appear palatable to states that had suffered from intrusion of nomadic cattle rearers, a problem that should not be ignored is not about the nationality of the culprits but about the acts of violence and more importantly about the obsession with the culture of nomadic cattle rearing this late in the history of modernity across the world. Mandating cattle farmers to adopt the model of ranching and supporting them with loans from the Agriculture loan facilities is a more rational policy needed. This will give the country an opportunity to once and for all move its animal farming from primitive to modern systems.

    In addition, policymakers in the ministry of agriculture and elsewhere in governments across the country need not be obsessed with continuing with an antiquated model of animal breeding. Any policy outside supporting ranches through low-interest loan is capable of being misconstrued, especially by states that rely on plant and vegetable farming for their sustenance. One possible reading of policy insistence on acquiring land across the country for Fulani herdsmen is that the federal government is trying to subsidize cattle farmers by acquiring land to give to private businessmen who own cattle and pass them to nomads to raise. The Constitution or the Land Use Act does not permit any government to acquire land from other people to give to those engaged in profit making for themselves, be they cattle or cocoa farmers. Another reading may be that the federal government is looking for land to re-settle herdsmen and in the process change the demographic and cultural character of communities from which has been taken. A third possible reading is that the federal government is unwilling to accept the imperative of modernisation that would allow Nigeria to be competitive in a fast-growing global village. A fourth reading may be that the federal government is spoiling for a fight with states that have cried foul about any policy that encourages cattle grazing across the country at the expense of the lifestyle of non-cattle farmers.

    Anyone visiting Nigeria for the first time and reading about the policy to acquire land from various sections of the country for animal farmers for the purpose of grazing cannot but wonder if Nigeria is being ruled by cattle-owning political elite. But those who live in Nigeria are likely to smile, knowing how similar the insistence on establishing grazing zones (instead of opting for a more productive and less intrusive ranch model) is to the way Nigeria has been governed for decades. Perceptive readers of political, economic, and social behaviour are not likely to be surprised that the federal government feels comfortable about saying that the final solution to the perennial problem of violence and tension between cattle breeders and other farmers is to further make normal a system of animal breeding that is out of place in the modern world.

    Past governments could have enjoyed limiting the country’s development in all sectors by choosing to remain myopic and unconcerned about changes that have made other countries more competitive. But a government of change cannot afford to be beholden to the past and traditions that are more likely to under-develop the country and at the same time cause disharmony among its constituent parts. Myopia and disregard for innovation in many areas have hobbled Nigeria economically and politically for decades. For example, past governments relied generally on an ‘economic policy of grazing’: living off oil rent to the disadvantage of present and future generations.

    For example, had past leaders opted sincerely for the Norwegian model of investing revenue from oil at home and abroad to enable the country respond to the challenge of modern productive economy, Nigeria would not be writhing in pain because of drop in oil price. Similarly, if past leaders had invested oil revenue in energy production like South Africa, the country would have become a major manufacturer of goods that would have given the country a diversified economy before now. Had past leaders modernized and mechanised farming, we would not be calling for agricultural revolution more than 50 years after departure of British colonial masters. Ivory Coast got independence around the same time with Nigeria and does not need to be reading books on modern agriculture today. If past leaders had not been believers in the ‘philosophy of grazing’ by both humans and animals as the easiest way to run a country, Nigeria would have used its huge oil revenue in the past to create a modern infrastructure and would not have needed to run to other countries as a 56-year old country to build roads and rail for moving people and goods. If past governments had not found joy or pleasure in eating up whatever was available, the country’s wealth would have been used for sustainable development, instead of becoming loot in foreign vaults in Switzerland, the United States, United Kingdom, Panama, United Arab Emirate, etc.

    A mindset that is hooked to living in pre-modern mode cannot be competitive in the contemporary world. At a time that South Africa had even started ranching wild animals, Nigeria’s competitiveness in beef and milk production cannot be enhanced by a policy that adopts ranching half-heartedly and sticks to grazing religiously. If we are sincere about agricultural revolution, there is no better time to do away with the culture of animal grazing. Even for peace and stability in the society, it is better to ranch our cattle than to let them loose to graze all over the country at the expense of motorists, and growers of cash crop, fruits and vegetables.

  • Economy: time to avoid short-termism 2

    Economy: time to avoid short-termism 2

    Countries, like individuals, that fail to save in the years of plenty are bound to suffer in the years of scarcity 

    Although the joining of various groups of Nigeria’s elite in the debate about selling national assets to weather the storm of current recession has almost pre-empted most of the points delayed for today, it is still important to put a few issues about alternatives to sale of assets in the accessible language of the average mass reader.

    With various texts and counter-texts from government circles and other elite groups in the country on the logicality of selling what is already bringing you revenue to deal with a challenge that requires a new vision of governance, fiscal innovativeness, and re-inventing the polity to fight recession, it is not clear whether citizens will still be ignored at the end by those elected to govern the country. How nice would it have been for our country to have a people’s constitution which allows for referendum on issues with such divided positions on a matter of common interest to the nation at large. With the kind of constitution by which we are governed, what happens to Nigeria’s assets at the end of the current debate should not be what those in power prefer, but what majority of citizens can tolerate.

    Back to the core of today’s column, what should the government do to reduce the pain of recession without auctioning assets that are still largely geese that lay golden eggs? If those in government approach this matter with the subtext of a narrative to win 2019 election for the same group, it may not be able to stimulate the change and sacrifice that are required to take decisions that may not be palatable at the beginning but that is likely to taste like bitter leaf or bitter kola at the end. If the government of change is to have traction, it has to let Nigerians—elite and masses—know that a desperate problem requires a desperate solution. We cannot continue to do things the way(s) they have been done since 1975 without having to resort to selling whatever we have to feed ourselves. The fundamental question is what kind of parent will sell his farm or business in order to feed his/her children? This may be a right time for the elite in particular to cut down on their consumption patterns, especially the percentage of national wealth they consume in the name of governance and to in the process provide the power of example for the average citizen to accept austerity measures in the interest of economic recovery.

    Many countries all over the world have embarked in the last few years on austerity measures to meet their budgets. Such countries include Greece, Italy, Ireland, India, Portugal, Spain. Many of the measures to cut spending in these countries focused on reduction in recurrent spending. This has been characterised by reduction of salaries for top salary earners, cutting public servants’ pay; reduction in number of government seminars; increase in tax on big corporations; freezing of public sector workers’ salary; income tax hike for heavy earners; cut in child benefits or allowances; reduction of minimum wage; cut to regional subsidies; suspension of civil servants and putting many on partial pay, rise on VAT, etc.

    In an economy so quickly knocked down by recession and a polity in which all benefits are reserved for top individuals on political and bureaucratic appointments, Nigeria cannot afford to take many of the anti-people austerity measures of Greece and Spain in particular as most of them are likely to dampen our economy further. However, there are more socially equitable ways for our governments to cut recurrent expenditures more radically than what obtains at present, 15 months after the birth of a government of change. Nigeria cannot afford to reduce minimum wage that is already too low. But we can reduce the number of government seminars and retreats, especially those taken away from the secretariat provided for such events. We can further cut foreign travels for political appointees and civil servants, just as we can reduce the number of planes in the presidential fleet to one or two. There is no reason to have up to 11 planes for presidential trips. If we want to be prudent, there is no basis for a presidential plane at this point in our economic development. Even the British Prime Minister, the world’s fourth largest economy, travels on commercial flights most of the time.

    In addition, we can do away with outlandish perks for executive, legislative, and public service officers. For example, too many top officers are still receiving ridiculous allowances for ward-robes, domestic servants, generator and diesel, special cars, drivers, housing allowances that exceed annual salaries of recipients of such benefits, many police orderlies for elected and public servants and spouses, entertainment, etc. There are moments that call for celebration in the life of countries just as there are some that call for sacrifices on the part of those in leadership positions. Most potential investors, international donors, and loan agencies are likely to find it absurd to give loans to the country to be used for pampering a select class of political and public officers. We had engaged in such profligacy for long on the excuse that money from oil was not our problem but just how to spend it. Citizens are also likely to feel outraged if we sell state assets to service expensive habits of lawmakers, ministers, commissioners, and local government chairmen. This is the time to review the culture of security votes. Citizens view this as unnecessary pork in the budget for special citizens.

    If there is need for emergency powers in respect of the economy, such power should include declaration of a state of emergency in respect of federal transfers to subnational governments. For example, instead of pushing for autonomy to local governments in the guise of a third tier of government that does not exist in most countries, this may be a good time to use economic emergency measures to limit allocations from the federation account to just the 36 or 37 state structures. State governments should be charged under the emergency measure (pending amendment of the constitution to re-join states and local governments as subnational levels of government) to be responsible for local governments as it used to be before emergence of a government model driven by oil boom.

    Moreover, the over 100 Unity Schools should be privatised and money saved from allocations to these schools pumped to improving regular public education. Similarly, after over 40 years of NYSC programme, the country is not likely to lose anything if it chooses to phase out this money- guzzling programme. If Nigeria has not been able to achieve national unity after 40 years of NYSC, it may be that there are forces (other than ignorance of the culture of the other) for such failure. At present, there are too many police-related agencies that do or attempt to do virtually the same thing: Nigeria Police Force, Federal Road Safety Commission, Vehicle Inspection Office and Civil Defence. Having many such organisations doing more or less the same thing in an economy that is cash strapped is not logical.

    The moment calls for a return to Orosanye Report on MDAs. Cutting the number of agencies that perform similar services and re-deploying their workers may help to reduce waste. Just reading names of several agencies in the country suggests an unduly bloated public service sector that gulp funds that should have gone into development: Economic & Financial Crimes Commission versus Independent Corrupt Practices & Miscellaneous Crimes Commission; Nigeria Export Promotion Council versus Nigeria Export Processing Zones Authority; Federal Environmental Protection Agency versus National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency; Broadcasting Organisation of Nigeria versus Nigerian Television Authority; National Agency for Science & Engineering Infrastructure versus Office for Technology Acquisition & Promotion, etc.

    There is no better time to call for sacrifice on the part of those that have been over pampered during the decades of high rents from oil. Countries, like individuals, that fail to save in the years of plenty are bound to suffer in the years of scarcity. But innocent citizens need to be protected from sharing in the blame of decades of irresponsible governance.

    Concluded

  • Economy: time to avoid short-termism (1)

    Economy: time to avoid short-termism (1)

    But selling part of remaining public assets, especially those that bring revenue to the government does not seem logical

    Whether one belongs to the school of thought that problems arising from economic recession are exaggerated by political enemies of President Buhari or to the group that believes Nigeria has never had it so bad, since the era of Essential Commodities, it is hard for the average citizen to ignore or dismiss negative impact of collapse of the value of the naira or of failure of many states to pay salaries to workers on physical or social health of citizens.

    It is therefore not surprising that various interest groups have become enthusiastic in proffering solutions to the country’s post-election economic problems. But if there is any caution that must be taken by those holding the levers of power, it is to avoid any decision that replays the country’s political game of short-termism or lack of capacity to endure delayed gratification as they re-invent the country’s laggard economy.

    Any decision making that reacts solely to effect(s) and ignores cause(s) of the country’s current situation is also likely to opt for palliatives when what is needed is total cure of whatever has been ailing the country’s political and economic planners for several decades. It should not be hard for rational observers to realise that Nigeria is in the present economic mess, not only because of decline in oil price and the reckless corruption of the past sixteen years but also because those who ruled Nigeria since 1975 have been pre-occupied with creating a polity and economy that collect rents to spend on bottle-feeding various levels of governments and their managers, rather than investing in stimulation of productive domestic economy. How else does any rational person explain creation of 37 money-guzzling state and 774 local government bureaucracies in addition to a federal bureaucracy that is the largest in Africa?

    If development was part of the vision of past rulers, how does one explain the inability of governments since 1975 to produce more than 5,000 megawatts of electricity to meet energy-  needs of a country of almost 200 million people? If past leaders were interested in making necessary sacrifice for a better future for citizens, why was there no commitment to providing rail transportation to move goods and services for 200 millions of people? Why would any sane person be surprised or alarmed in 2016 that millions of youths are not employed when the infrastructure that could lead to creation of jobs in the formal and informal sectors was ignored and money that could have been used to provide such infrastructure stolen and carted to Switzerland, London, Luxembourg, New York, and even Panama? Having invoked Epicureanism as the guiding philosophy of governance for decades, it is now imperative that suggestions from various political and economic stakeholders be viewed very critically.

    After discountenancing those who make a career of demonising the fight against corruption while making a religion of urging the Buhari administration to take the economy back to what it was in the days of Goodluck Jonathan without worrying about failure of past governments to prevent this mess, suggestions on how to end or reduce the pain of the current recession can be broken into two categories: calls for foreign loans and for sale of the country’s assets. Each of the two suggestions believes that the situation cannot be left as it is without endangering the lives of millions of citizens and causing collapse of many of the few manufacturing companies that are still active. Both groups are aware of the imperative of diversification which had been a mere slogan for years. Those proffering solutions also know that the incubation period for turning agricultural produce and solid minerals into foreign exchange earners cannot be less than 24 months. Also, they know that producing enough electricity to power agricultural production will require 24 months. In addition, both schools of thought regarding how to finance economic recovery have no doubt that building railway and roads to facilitate economic diversification will require about 24 months.

    In President Buhari’s assurances to world leaders recently in New York, he made it clear that his government is interested in taking foreign loans to use for driving diversification, assuring the international community that such loans would not be available to looters, an assurance that must have recalled the misuse of past loans for which Nigeria sought debt relief during Obasanjo’s presidency. President Buhari in particular said in New York that loans would be used for capital projects that can bring revenue to pay back such loans.

    But at home, members of his government—legislative and executive, including state governors are echoing calls by the business community for sale of government assets, especially in the oil and gas sector. This call is reminiscent of the culture of doing anything or everything to avoid delayed gratification in the process of change, a political system that quickly brought the country to its knees, once a substantial drop in revenue from petroleum occurred. Sale of government property is not new in the country. Just a few years ago, NITEL was sold and substantial parts of the country’s energy company, PHCN, were also sold to Nigerians with deep pockets. It is on record that these public assets were not doing well in the hands of government.

    But selling part of remaining public assets, especially those that bring revenue to the government does not seem logical. Selling such assets to local and foreign money bags is more likely to add to loss of direly needed revenue in the long run. Even with the argument that government can buy such assets back when its situation improves, the call for assets sale does not make sense, especially as buying back such assets from speculators would be with huge interest. The government might as well take loans with interest to fund projects that can generate revenue with which to pay back such loan, while it continues to earn revenue from existing assets.

    Without doubt, neoliberalism is the reigning ideology of the 21st century in most countries. It is therefore understandable that people with diverse backgrounds including business and lawmaking are calling for sale of Nigeria’s assets. Such call is in character with neoliberal ideology. But it is not in the interest of the country to allow private sector leaders to convert the interest of the state to their own, on the excuse of the government’s desperate need for more funds to repair a troubled economy. Sale of state assets, disguised as protecting economic development, may not be about Nigeria’s progress as much as it may be about vested interests of owners of capital. With commitment by the newish government to diversify the economy through modernisation of agriculture and mining, the sky seems to be the limit for the private sector with respect to acquiring pieces of the new pie to grow from economic diversification. Existing revenue generating assets of the country should continue to be used by government to generate revenue to meet some of the country’s needs, while looking for more creative ways to access funds toward economic recovery.

    The debate about how to respond to the current recession must not be left solely in the hands of businessmen, partisan lawmakers, and governors besotted to easy funds from the federation account, most of whom failed to read the handwriting on the wall in respect of gyrations in the oil market. This column, though not written by an economist, had been warning about the oil and the future of Nigeria since 2012. As successful as many of private sector leaders and politicians calling for sale of assets may be, the role of professional economists in this debate is crucial at this time. It is regrettable that there is no Obafemi Awolowo to bring reasoned and well researched argument to this debate. But the cerebral economists left in the university and other places need to throw light on right choices for the country, before the politics of short-term gains or benefits is made to lead the country into taking another decision that may not serve the interest of citizens in the long run.

    • To be continued

     

  • Governance: odds and ends

    Restructuring is not synonymous with destruction of national unity

    It is not easy to avoid temptation to characterize what would have been considered serious problems in other climes as odds and ends in contemporary Nigeria. With President Buhari’s emphasis on wrestling corruption, perhaps the country’s most corrosive problem, other problems that can water down democratic governance cannot but sound secondary. The subjects for discussion today are called odds and ends in order to draw a line between the justifiable preoccupation of the newish administration with corruption and other practices that may worry watchers of democracy in the land.

    The launching last week of “Change Begins with Me” has drawn comments from far and wide, particularly in the social media, the site of citizen journalism. There is nothing wrong with attempts by the Ministry of Information and Culture to attempt to create slogans that can mobilise citizens in the direction of ethicality in public service and accountability for one’s actions. Such efforts have been made before. We had Ethical Revolution under Shehu Shagari, Heart of Africa under Olusegun Obasanjo, Re-branding Nigeria during the administration of UmaruYar’Adua and Goodluck Jonathan. All of these were designed to raise the moral standards of the average Nigerian by people under whose watch or at whose instance moral standards fell precipitously. Unfortunately, none of these heavy soundbites left any mark on the polity and citizens’ behaviour.

    But that previous attempts to make psycho-social slogans to drive the message of change in the past had not made any impact does not suggest that “Change Begins with Me” should be written off even before it takes off. But if the new slogan is to have noticeable traction, efforts need to be made to convince citizens that the government is not passing the buck. Nothing changes people’s attitude faster than the power of example. In other words, the ball is in the court of the government at every level to right the wrongs of the past and in the process raise the level of morality through examples from those in power and with access to the nation’s resources. All of the persons standing or awaiting trials for corruption, lack of integrity, transparency and accountability so far have been members of the country’s elite: top politicians, top military men, top bureaucrats.

    Of course, there is corruption in every sector of the Nigerian society. Drivers cheat their employers, housemaids steal from their employers; mechanics rip off their customers; nurses even demand inducement from patients; messengers in the civil service readily release files to those that do the needful by offering them kola while hiding files of those who don’t; college admission officers or teachers also demand special incentives from those requiring their service; etc. So, the Buhari government cannot be accused of misdiagnosis of the Nigerian malaise. But those driving the ethic of change need to think critically about what should be the primary target of re-education for change. “Change Begins with Me” is a good campaign that should form part of civics education. But we must not ignore that precepts can be easily neutralised by practice. A dishonest teacher teaching young ones about good moral behaviour makes nonsense of his teaching, once the kids have an inkling of his or her own deviance.

    One way to miss the point about absence of ethics in public life is to limit understanding of corruption in the country to Jonathan’s era or the last sixteen years of PDP rule, as bad they were for the country. Each change of government—military and civilian—since 1966 had been justified by the need to fight corruption, except the change of the military dictatorship of Mohammed Buhari, justified by his removers on account of fostering intolerable tyranny. It is, therefore, not illogical to claim that it is not the average citizen that has brought Nigeria to this low ebb; it is those in positions of leadership and the system and style of governance they have pursued, as well as rulers’ myopic vision about the eternal power of oil to mask all political, economic, and social problems. Emphasis has been for too long on celebration of power at the hands of those who have it and without regard to the feelings of the average citizen far removed from the corridors of power.

    One growing example of power celebration is the current insistence by the Federal Road Safety Commission that there must be special suppliers of speed limiters. After the court had ruled that FRSC has no legal authority to direct vehicle owners to buy speed limiting device from particular suppliers or companies favoured by FRSC, there should have been no new directive from FRSC on this matter. Unexpectedly, just a few days ago, the Commission re-affirmed its decision to determine who to sell speed limiters. It is a troubling irony that the FRSC feels confident to act with such impunity in a democratic setting. It is not the job of FRSC to determine standards of speed limit device and other gadgets; that is the role of Standards Organisation of Nigeria.

    The announcement by FRSC that desire to monitor effectiveness of speed limiters requires the agency to determine who supplies and sells speed limiters smacks of economic illiteracy. Nigeria is currently a free market economy. All that is needed to ensure that vehicle owners install effective speed limiters is to allow SON to check brands that entrepreneurs import to the country. FRSC does not need to endorse creation of monopolies or oligopolies for supply of speed limiters. With this kind of vision, FRSC may be one agency that can benefit immediately from the “Change Begins with Me” campaign. If the commission does not trust the judgement of SON, it should be advised to delay launching use of speed limiters, until it is able to manufacture its own speed limiter, which will still have to be approved by SON as the agency with knowledge to determine standards. Many of our institutions and agencies need to be reviewed, especially the powers delegated to them in a democratic setting.

    The last on Odds and Ends is the lowering of political debate in respect of calls for addressing roots of the country’s economic problems, outside of fall in oil price and looting of government treasuries. A few days ago, Governor of Sokoto State, Aminu Tambuwal, who almost became a dark horse presidential candidate in 2015 until he announced lack of interest in running, used his gubernatorial bully pulpit to pontificate about how to grow the country’s democracy and economy. In the style of Fatwa or Papal decree, Tambuwal announced that Nigeria does not need restructuring: “We reject geographic restructuring but we believe in the unity of the country and the unity of Nigeria is non-negotiable.”

    More importantly, the ease with which Tambuwal, one-time speaker of the House of Representatives, created straw men or argument to smash in order to pooh-pooh calls for restructuring must surprise many of Tambuwal’s admirers while he was Speaker of the House, and this writer was one of such admirers. It is mischievous for a governor to confuse those asking for separate republics with those calling for restructuring as one of the most effective ways to make Nigeria work politically and economically. Tambuwal’s reduction of restructuring to‘Geographical Restructuring’ suggests deliberate over simplification or even distortion of intentions of those calling for restructuring, as ‘geographical restructuring’ is more akin to secession or disintegration than sharing of power and sovereignty between national and subnational governments. It is also fallacious to conflate Nigeria’s unity with unitary governance system. Restructuring is not synonymous with destruction of national unity.

    Undoubtedly, democracy grows when citizens can question existing institutions and practices   inherited from previous generations, but democracy recedes when elected rulers make attempts to drown out such questioning. Admittedly, Tambuwal has a right like any other citizen to promote his own idea or vision of Nigeria. And he did this very well when he called for a Nigeria that gives states and local governments more allocations. He should, however, be open to hear out those who call for dialogue on a new polity and economy that may benefit more from creating subnational levels that have unfettered freedom to create wealth than a system of allocation from the central purse to subnational governments, especially 774 local governments. It is not in the interest of the country for any of its elected political leaders to use the bogey of national unity to drown out a dialogue that may at the end lead to sustainable national unity.