Let me start by joining the Planning and Organizing Committee of this great and historic event, the BACAS OLD STUDENTS REUNION CONVENTION, the first ever since 1978, forty six years ago when the first set of students of the Interim Joint Matriculation Board (IJMB) of the Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria graduated from this famous citadel of learning, the Bauchi State College of Arts and Science (BACAS) Bauchi.
We may all recall that BACAS was established, along with six other similar Institutions in Northern Nigeria in the summer of 1976 by the former Head of State General Olusegun Obasanjo ostensibly to bridge the education gap between the Northern and Southern parts of the country. The objective then was to offer fresh opportunities to young and bright secondary school leavers in the Northern States who were unable to immediately proceed to Tertiary Institutions either because of lack of access or because of some minor deficiencies. It was believed that given the ambience of a College environment, away from the very stiff and regimental secondary school settings, students could perform optimally with resounding results.
This was exactly what happened in BACAS. Incidentally, BACAS was established less than six months after the creation of Bauchi State by General Murtala Muhammed of blessed memory, out of the old North Eastern State with Headquarters in Maiduguri. Most of us seated here today are products and indeed beneficiaries of these visionary leaders. Today, is a day we have all come together to meet again after nearly half a century to rejoice and relieve our past experiences with nostalgia and excitement.
We have every reason to thank God and celebrate for even more reasons. In a country where life expectancy for both men and women is very low, it is a wonder, even a miracle that despite of all the odds, despite all the obstacles and daily hazards of life, God in His infinite Mercies and blessings has spared our lives to witness today. We pray, may we all live long in good health to continue our great service to our dear nation and humanity. Of course, we have lost many of our dear friends including our classmates, roommates and even our very close family and social friends. We pray, may God grant their beautiful souls eternal rest in peace.
In a significant turn of events, we are also holding our Reunion here at the Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University, Bauchi, the very place where BACAS was established and located forty eight years ago. We therefore wish to convey our special appreciation to the Vice Chancellor, Prof Muhammad Abdulazeez, Management, Staff and students of this University for welcoming us back home and offering us cosy hospitality to meet again where our educational umbilical cord was buried.
Let me also appreciate the organizers for nominating me to serve as a Guest Speaker in today’s event and share my thoughts on one of the most topical issues in Nigeria today, that is to say on the issue of the direction of the political, economic and social conditions of our great nation. In particular, I will focus my attention on the need to: Rethink The Neo-Liberal Economic Doctrine especially as it affects Nigerians today. I am deeply aware, today is not a day for long talk and certainly, it is not a day for hard talk. Since today is a special day of Reunion and a day of celebrations, I will not go the pedantic way, nor engage in deep theorizing as the time for that is not auspicious.
In this intervention, I will rather approach the subject as a polemic, to try to raise questions on the contending issues, to provoke and generate more debate and discussions to deepen our understanding to the challenges confronting our dear nation as we work towards consolidating democratic governance in the country.
Abstract
In the early hours of the morning of Monday 5th February 2024, reports started filtering through the Internet and the conventional media that there was a massive demonstration in Minna, the Capital city of Niger State over increasing cost of foodstuffs and general conditions of life in the country. Two days later on Wednesday, 7th February 2024, a similar protest was reported in Suleja, another ancient town in Niger State but very close to Abuja, the Federal Capital city. Subsequently, other similar protests were reported in Kano on Thursday 8th February; Osun, State on Friday, 9th February; and in Ibadan, Oyo State on Monday 12th February 2024. And just as was the case with the Minna demonstrations, these were also associated with the rising cost of living in the country. The clarions call in all these protests were that the prices of foodstuff have skyrocketed so much making it difficult, if not impossible, for ordinary Nigerians to feed themselves and their families.
While demonstrations in Nigeria are not new, nor are they peculiar under democratic governance, what was new was for the first time in a long time, people are going to the streets because of the rising prices of food and the biting costs of living. Suddenly, there was fear and anxiety, if these demonstrations were allowed to continue, they could escalate beyond control and become a major security threat in the country. The Federal Government reacted swiftly.
Both the National Assembly and the Office of the President held series of meetings with Ministers and Heads of Security Agencies to address this urgent matter of national importance. The Federal Government immediately started taking some remedial steps including unlocking the national grain reserves to release more food to the people and Government went further to issue a strong warning against hoarding of food in the country.
Despite the initial Federal Government spirited efforts, still more demonstrations took place in Lagos on Monday 27th February followed by the NLC’s nationwide protests held on Tuesday 28th. The second day of protests scheduled for Wednesday 29th February 2024 were suspended with threats by the NLC to continue if their demands were not met. What all these means is that unless something is done urgently, the nation will continue to move on tension, anxiety and uncertainty.
While the Federal Government was working hard to find other lasting solutions to this problem, Nigerians, as usual, have gone to the town with what they perceived as the causes of these problems asking the question, what may have happened and how did we arrive at where we are today? As we shall see later, while there are many ‘explanations’ about the causes of Nigerian economic crises, in this paper, I will argue that, embracing the neo-liberal economic paradigm over the last four decades under the regime of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, with their adverse conditionalities is the root causes of these problems.
I posit that the cumulative effects of over four decades of the involvement and intervention of the Bretton Wood Institutions in the Nigerian economy and society based on the neo-liberal ideology which is insensitive to the feelings and yearnings of Nigerians is the fundamental reason why Nigeria is caught in the web. I argue that unless and until Nigeria takes decisive action, we shall be moving in circles. In other words, it is time to Rethink The Neo-Liberal Economic Doctrine. This is precisely, why I call on President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to take far reaching decisions to give Nigeria and Nigerians a new deal.
Background
The first question we need to ask is, what the origins of the classical economic theory? As an ideological framework, neo-liberalism can be traced to early works of 20th Century classical economists who placed greater emphasis on free market or laissez faire as the determinant of economic policy. This theory is rooted in the classical work of Adam Smith in his book, The Wealth of Nations published way back in 1776, which was more less the Manifesto of capitalism. Adam Smith (1776) argued that in the management of public resources, the State should play only an invisible role, or what he called, the ‘invisible hand’ in supporting the market forces.
The classical economic theorists posit that the market must be allowed to operate through the forces of demand and supply, with little or no government interference, which in their view, is more efficient in the allocation of resources. They were opposed to excessive power of Governments and Governments spending. The classical Doctrine rests squarely on supply side economics insisting that Government’s primary duty and obligation was only to provide the enabling environment for industry and businesses to flourish in order to improve the efficiency of production and productivity which were expected to reduce the costs of goods and services. They were opposed to demand side economics. This, in essence is the ideology of capitalism. However, since Adam Smith postulated his theory, the world has faced various challenges that led to serious re-examination by scholars of the classical theory. The post Second World War consensus led to the decline of the attraction of the so called free market capitalism at the policy level in Europe.
First, after the Second World war, 1939-1945, the European economies were devastated by the war and there was serious crisis and despair. Industries in Europe had collapsed, unemployment and inflation were on the rise and there was general discontent. There was even greater concern and fear that if nothing was done by Governments then, Europe could slip further into anarchy and civil wars. The issues of inequality, poverty, racial discrimination and even starvation had to addressed. Banal capitalism was thus a threat to itself. The British Economist, John Maynard Keynes, the arrowhead of Keynesian economics, who along with Barry Whites the US Treasury Secretary, played decisive role in the creation of the New International Monetary Order came forcefully on the need for Government to take steps to reboot the economy.
John Maynard Keynes (1983-1946), along with other economists in Britain argued for interventionism. Keynes general argument is that Government must create jobs to boost consumer buying power during recession. He held the view that Governments “should increase spending even it means going into debts”. They urged the British Government to create jobs, any jobs to raise the effective demand which would enable citizens to go to markets to look for goods and services. The principle here, which is taught at the University, under Economics 101, states that the increased demand for goods and services by citizens would encourage producers to expand production, look for more raw materials, recruit more workers and the so called ‘multiplier effect’ would propel the engines of the economy to restart full blast.
Thus, after the Second World War, the Labour Party Government in the United Kingdom introduced the welfare State, where it became necessary for the Government to intervene in providing various forms of social support for children, women on maternity, the unemployed, the homeless, the Elderly and the terminally sick. Here, an economist, William Beveridge (1879-1963) often described as the father of the Welfare State played a critical role in the introduction of the Welfare State in the UK. Governments were also involved in investments and businesses especially in critical sectors of the national economy, including the telecommunications, the railways, the power and the banking sectors. This system was sustained by virtually by all the succeeding UK Governments, in various forms, until late 1970s.
The Rise of Neo-liberalism
The neo-liberalism as an economic philosophy emerged among European scholars during the inter-war period in the 1930s, which greatly influenced economists and policy makers both in Europe and United States. This led to the restructuring the Global financial and monetary system leading to the establishment of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) otherwise called the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). The primary objective of the United States which had emerged as a major beneficiary of the Second World War, was to open the world economy for multilateral trade and investment and for the movements of goods and capital to its advantage.
However, in late 1970s and early 1980s, something dramatic took place in both Europe and United States. Very powerful conservative leaders emerged. We may all recall that Margaret Thatcher emerged as the British Prime Minister in 1979; in the United States, President Ronald Reagan was elected in 1981; and in Western Germany, (then as it was), Helmut Kohl was elected in 1982 as the German Chancellor. Under these conservative leaders, the neo-liberal thinking reemerged that once again went back and excavated the orthodox Adam Smith classical economic theory, that the State has no business being in business and the clarion call was to role back the frontiers of the State from business.
The primary considerations of these conservative neo-liberal regimes in United States and Western Europe in the 1980s and 1990s were economic liberalization which included privatization of public enterprises, deregulation of the economy, monetarism, free trade, Globalisation, reversal of welfare policies and the introduction of austerity policies. Under the leadership of the these revisionists, most social services in the US and Europe were either discontinued or greatly scaled down. What followed next was the gradual but systematic divestment of Government businesses in what later came to be called the rolling back of the frontiers of State from direct engagements in businesses. All major public enterprises were either privatized or sold out. The result was massive unemployment, inflation, economic turbulence, Labour Unions unrest and general disillusion among the people. Other critical aspects of the welfare State were also dismantled especially in Britain, in complete reversal of all the gains of the welfare State.
Neo-Liberalism And The Bretton Wood Institutions
It was within this context of revisionism in Europe and United States that Africa, Asia and Latin American countries were caught. The Bretton Woods Institutions, that is to say the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) otherwise known and called as the World Bank which were established after the Second World War, initiated the Structural Adjustment Lending (SAL) Programs. In 1980, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) came up with what they called, Structural Adjustment Lending (SAL) in reaction to what the Bretton Wood Institutions determined as, “markedly deteriorated prospects that were foreseen for developing countries during the 1980s” (Alkali, 1997).
According to the World Bank, “the Structural Adjustment Lending (SAL) was designed to provide maximum support to those governments that had requested such support and that have recognized the need to formulate and introduce as a matter of urgency a set of comprehensive measures designed to adjust the structure and situation” of their economies (Alkali, 1997). The main objectives of SAL were therefore two, namely: (a) to support a program of specific policy changes and institutional reforms; and (b) to act as a catalyst for the inflow of external capital specifically in developing countries.
It is this apparently innocuous focus and objective of “providing support of specific policy changes and institutional reforms” that brought the Bretton Wood Institutions directly into the economic and social affairs of African nations. In a short period of only six years 1980 and 1986, the World Bank extended many Structural Adjustment Loans which rose from only $640.00 million for the SAL sector in 1980, to $2,284.00 million in 1986.
In effect, SAL loans increased from 0.6 per cent of total World Bank and IDA commitments in 1980, to 14 per cent in 1986. As was noted elsewhere, “since then, the Structural Adjustment Programs became central to World Bank and IMF operations globally, but particularly in Africa. By 1994, a total of 29 African countries were at various levels of the implementation of SAP” (Alkali, 1997). Indeed, since 1994, the World Bank and the IMF have entrenched themselves deeply into the African economies.
By now, it should be clear, the World Bank and IMF were the Institutions that served as the arrow heads in imposing neo-liberal policies on the African continent, indeed on Nigeria. Not surprisingly, the two Institutions through all kinds of methods imposed very hash economic policies on Nigeria with adverse consequences. Some of these policies included the abolishing of Commodity Boards; Commercialisation of public services such as hospitals and school feeding; deregulation of the public sector; privatisation of public enterprises; and the introduction of various tax policies, some of them very harsh.
But the long term objective of the IMF was always the removal of all subsidies especially agricultural and fuel subsidies and allowing floating exchange rate for the national currencies – in the case of Nigeria, the total devaluation of the Naira. Today, virtually all these have been achieved by the Bretton Wood institutions. More recently in a final push, in February 2024 the IMF began to call for the removal of subsidy from electricity and already some senior Government officials have started echoing this IMF demand.
Cumulative Effect of the Neo-liberal Economic Doctrine
So, while most of these neo-liberal policies were in principle intended to reduce or remove Government intervention or involvement in businesses ostensibly on the pretext that market forces are more efficient in the allocation of resources, there is no where in the world where Governments abdicate their responsibilities to their citizens without adverse consequences. What we are facing today therefore are existential issues concerning the social, economic and political consequences of swallowing the World Bank and IMF pills. Undoubtedly, these policies have brought about serious economic, security and social consequences.
In the first place, the Nigerian Economy has been going into deep and deeper crisis. This fact is known to everyone both within and outside Nigeria and does not require long explanation. Nonetheless, it is important to mention even in brief the background to some of these problems. It is well known fact that until Nigeria discovered petroleum oil, agriculture was the mainstay of the Nigerian economy characterized by huge production of food and export crops. Nigeria was a leading producer and exporter of groundnuts, cocoa, Palm kennels, hides and skins. The discovery of petroleum oil changed all these. Nigeria’s oil export earnings grew steadily and over the years agriculture began to decline. Even though the contribution of agriculture to GDP in Nigeria remains high, exports of traditional agricultural products began to decline, giving way to petroleum exports.
But instead of Nigeria to use oil to get out of oil, the country went deeper and deeper into the dependence on oil exports earnings whose price was and still is determined by external forces of demand and supply. With huge export earnings accompanied with the decline of agriculture and in the absence of a coherent industrialisation policy, Nigeria became a massive importer of goods and services including food. Indeed Nigeria became a dumping ground of all kinds of foreign manufactured products.
With Nigeria’s growing population and the instability of the oil market, Nigeria began to borrow heavily from the international financial institutions. This is precisely how the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) gradually but systematically penetrated into the Nigerian economy and society. Today, Nigeria is debtor nation and there is no aspect of Nigeria where these two Bretton Woods institutions are not involved. And as in all Africa, Asia and Latin America where the World Bank and the IMF are involved, there are deep and pervasive implications for the governments and the peoples.
Without consistent, coherent and coordinated education system, the number of out of school children, especially in Northern Nigeria kept on rising yearly while the Almajiri system became a breeding ground for criminal activities. Privatisation of public enterprises and the embargo on recruitments by the Federal and State Ministries, Directorates and Agencies also contributed to rising unemployment in the country. The unintended consequence of all these is rising crimes and criminality.
Today, it is a well known fact that many groups have taken up arms against the Nigerian state. Boko Haram, once seen and treated as a fringe religious sect grew and expanded rapidly in the North Eastern sub region declaring total war on the people. In the last ten to fifteen years, the insurgents unleashed mayhem within and outside the cities, villages and communities in the region causing unprecedented deaths and destructions. Unfortunately, despite spirited government efforts over the years and in spite of the huge collateral damage to the Nigerian economy and society, still remnants of the group have been waging sporadic attacks on innocent civilians in the region.
Similarly, the menace of banditry and kidnapping especially in the North Western sub region which also started in the form of cattle rustling grew up very fast constituting a huge security challenge to Nigeria. Today, the issue of banditry and kidnapping has become a franchise with some warlords openly threatening to intensify the killings of innocent citizens and destructions of public property. Similarly, frequent tension, conflicts and even confrontation leading to deaths and destruction over access to land and water between farmers and cattle rearers in the midlands have also been of great concern to every Nigerian and to the Nigerian Government. This too has led to many deaths and destructions and the disruptions of public life.
Furthermore, in the South East, the emergence and growth of the outlawed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) and the threat of secession has destabilized a region known for vast trade and commerce. It is now common for IPOB to declare certain days of the week as closed for public and private commercial activities and anyone who violated the ‘Order’ is dealt with mercilessly by the group. All these and many similar groups are challenging the very existence of Nigeria as an entity, a further evidence on the loss of confidence in the system. Unfortunately, these irredentist groups have also invariably undermined Nigeria’s economic base with dire consequences on agricultural and industrial production and commercial activities and the very essence of peaceful coexistence within and among communities.
Nigerians Are Loosing Hope and Getting Angry
Today, everywhere you go around the country, the cry of food, food and food rants the air with many more people going to bed (if they have any bed at all) and waking up in the morning with empty stomachs, with no hope of getting food anytime soon. In communities devastated by insecurity and in families with many small children whose parents have been killed, the situation is even more dire and distressing. It is obvious, a hungry man is an angry man. One consequence of all these is loss of hope in the land. It is an incontrovertible fact that many Nigerians have lost hope in the country, many others have lost hope on democracy and even many more Nigerians have lost hope in themselves.
Although it might require further in depth research to corroborate, it is a fact that the frequency of suicides in Nigeria in the last few years appear to be on the increase. Unfortunately, a lot of drama has been added to the gory incidences of suicide in Nigeria, with many of those planning to commit suicide do so openly in public spaces in order to attract the media to achieve maximum effect. As in all instances, while it is very difficult to pin down specific cause or causes of these suicides, nonetheless, it is not too difficult to deduce that the harsh economic conditions in the country, accompanied with social pressures are major contributors.
Late last year, in November 2023, a video clip trended on-line showing a young Nigerian man from Edo State called Alvin Ilenre, a graduate of Ajayi Crowther University, Oyo, Oyo State, publicly setting fire on his primary school, diploma, Bachelors Degree and NYSC certificates saying that since his graduation for nearly thirteen years, the certificates did not serve him any purpose. While many social media followers were shocked and surprised that anyone could go this far, the lesson from this was that there was no easier and harsher way of dismissing the education system in the country. It is a fact of life today that the biting economic conditions have deepened hunger, poverty, unemployment and general bitterness and resentments in the country. This has also raised anger and bitterness in the land. After pursuing the neo-liberal doctrine for over forty years, Nigeria has been caught up in a web.
Nigerians are also getting angry because Nigerians image and respectability is being systematically eroded. When a bullish American President calls African countries shit holes, we take it calmly and do not respond; when a British Prime Minister calls Nigeria, fantastically corrupt, we shrug it off, as if he didn’t say anything; when Nigerians are chased away from African countries, we bark but we not bite; and when descent and innocent Nigerian citizens are maltreated at foreign airports, we just look the other way, we do not carry out reprisals to forestall future similar diplomatic embarrassments to our citizens. In short, Nigeria and Nigerians image and respectability are being eroded and undermined on daily basis and certainly, Nigeria does not deserve this.
Popular Consensus Among Nigerians
Despite all the deafening noise, grandstanding and brinkmanship which is common in Nigerian politics, especially during elections season that we have just passed through, there is popular consensus among Nigerians in a number of areas relating to our great nation:
In the first place, virtually every Nigerian, including friends of Nigeria are agreed that our country is not moving fast enough and nor is it moving in the right direction of fulfilling its manifest destiny as the leading and leader on the African continent. Some Nigerians even believe, rightly or wrongly, that we as a nation are either stuck in one place or even moving backwards compared to some of the leading nations in the world;
Secondly, most Nigerians believe, here rightly too, that the country has vast human and natural resources, that if these resources were properly harnessed, these would propel us to accelerated economic development, social advancement and political stability and so far this has not happened.
Thirdly, most Nigerians believe, unless something is done urgently, Nigeria’s economic and socio-political drift will be exacerbated with far reaching consequences not only for Nigeria as a country but for the African Continent as a whole. Already the deepening economic crisis in the country has impacted virtually in every sector of the national economy especially in the areas of agriculture, the manufacturing sector and commerce. As we noted earlier, these have been exacerbated by general insecurity in the country.
Popular Explanations About The Causes Of Crisis In Nigeria
Unfortunately, while there is a general agreement about the existence of these problems, there is no agreement on the causes of these problems and their solution. There are a number of critical issues that are often raised and advanced forward as explanation for causes of Nigerian economic crises. Instead of situating the ongoing crisis at the doorstep of the neo-liberal ideologues, most Nigerians often prefer to look elsewhere for the causes of Nigerian economic crisis.
The most popular among these explanations include among others: issues of lack of elite consensus; unbridled corruption both in low and high places; the dysfunctional State; manipulations from foreign powers; the indiscipline of Nigerians; and the problem of fiscal Federalism. Each of these has attracted interest among Scholars, Political analysts and Civil Society organisations. Even though we do not have sufficient time here to address each and every one them, nonetheless we need to interrogate some of them.
On the issue of corruption, there has been spirited debate in Nigeria on its causes, dimensions and implications for the national economy and society. Some of the manifestations of this corruption include lack of priorities in governance, misuse and abuse of public trust and open theft. Many Nigerians believe that this corruption has been facilitated because of the gradual but systematic concentration of power and resources into fewer and fewer hands while abject poverty is on the increase. A new word, ‘state capture’ is beginning to find its way into the lexicon of political discourse.
Undoubtedly, the issue of corruption has been as old as the history of Nigeria. In fact, way back in 1984, a spirited debate took place among leading scholars, Yusuf Bala Usman of the Department of History and Yusuf Bangura of the Department of Political Science both at the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria on the causes of Nigerian economic crisis. During the debate, while the issue of corruption was raised as one of the causes of the economic crisis in Nigeria, it was also argued that corruption itself was a feature and manifestation of a deeper problem, inevitable in all capitalist systems (ABU, 1984). While in the earlier years of the World Bank and IMF operations in Nigeria, the issue of corruption was not highlighted as major factor of underdevelopment, but since the early 1990s the story has changed. It was now being argued that corruption was one of the major impediments to development in Africa and governments in Africa must fight corruption.
As part of this, governments in Nigeria have over the years established numerous institutions and agencies to curb these excesses, but still in the perceptions of most ordinary Nigerians, there is even more escalations of these excesses and misdemeanors. Regrettably, even those highly respected, talented, fearless and dedicated officers who were given the difficult task of cleaning the system end up being undermined and or compromised by the system.
Beside the issue of corruption, there are many Nigerians who also contend that the structure of the Nigerian federation is the major factor and an impediment to economic growth, political inclusivity and inclusiveness and social harmony. Here, it is felt that the distributive process of national resources between the federal government, the states and local governments has greatly impaired national development. This has led to frequent calls for restructuring of the country in order to address the issues of fiscal imbalances and other sundry matters.
Here, there are many Nigerians, including highly respected citizens who believe that the whole problem in Nigeria is either what they term as faulty fiscal federalism, or that the Federal structure in Nigeria itself, is the foundation of the problem. According to this view, there is an urgent need to restructure the Nigerian Federation. Under this assumption, there have been strident calls for creation of more states, devolution of powers of the Federal Government, review of the Revenue Allocation Formula, resource control, establishment of State Police and even calls for return to regionalism.
There are still others who are also calling for jettisoning of the Presidential system of Government, which they say is too expensive and a return to the Parliamentary system of Government, as was practiced under the First Republic 1960 to 1966. Initially, there was serious resistance against restructuring of the country, but with time, the issue of restructuring is becoming clear, and today there is consensus about among Nigerians on the need for the restructuring of the country, what remains unclear is when, how the modus operandi. Recently in late February 2024, the, National Assembly in Nigeria commenced processes for the amendments of the Nigerian Constitution to revert the country to Parliamentary System of Government and the introduction of State police. Both of these are very contentious and are likely to raise more tensions in the days ahead.
Beside the structuralists debate, there is also the ‘Institutional’ Argument. The Institutional argument also falls within the structural functional paradigm which is rooted way back in the 1960s. Advanced forward and promoted by some conservative American scholars, they argue that one of the causes of backwardness in Africa was lack of effective institutions and structures. They argue that for Africa to grow, Africa must modernize and abandon its primitive ways of doing things.
Modernization theories which were off-shoots of the structural functionalist school, are traceable to the popular writings of sociologists such as Emil Durkheim, Ferdinand Tonnies, and TaIcolt Parsons. These were later reviewed and applied by American political scientists, such as David Easton and Gabriel Almond. According to this view, the essential goal of modernization, is to alter the patterns of what they considered primitive social organization in Africa and to create a society, in which, “man is efficient, adaptable, independent oriented towards long term planning and in which he is amenable to change”(Alkali, 1997). A more recent version of this was advanced forward by the former American President Barack Obama in his address at the Ghanian Parliament on 11 July 2009. Obviously sending a message to all African nations, he said, “Africa does not need strong men. It needs strong Institutions” (Obama, 2009).
Unfortunately, many African writers and commentators, without critically analyzing the statement, were carried away, believing that what Africa needed to achieve development is to build strong Institutions and structures. This fits in very well with the Bretton Woods new direction of ‘institutional reforms’ in Africa. It was stated that, “the neo-liberal project is also focused on designing Institutions and is political in character rather than only economic”(Wikipedia, p30). But it must be stated that while Barack Obama might have a point about building Institutions, it can be argued that while institutions and structures have their role in the development process, certainly, they can not be substitutes for good governance guided by leaderships that are rooted in well conceived social values.
Here again, one of issues that has been attracting attention is the challenges of leadership in Nigeria. I have argued elsewhere in my Convocation Lecture at Taraba State University, Jalingo in 2022 that there is no subject that has continued to elicit so much passion and acrimonious debate than the problem of leadership in Nigeria. Here is what I stated: “In the past three decades, conscious efforts have been made in search of solutions. As part of this, the Arewa House, Center for Historical Research and Documentation in Kaduna, an arm of Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria has hosted a number of Seminars, Workshops and Lecture series addressing this issue” (Alkali, 2022).
“Some of the prominent Nigerian Leaders who spoke on this matter included: Mallam Liman Ciroma’s paper on The Imperative of National Unity and the Responsibility of Leadership” (1994); Alhaji Shehu Usman Aliyu Shagari, on Politics, Governance and Development in Nigeria (1996); General Muhammadu Buhari on Leadership and Accountability in Period of Moral Crisis (1998); Chief Sunday B. Awoniyi on Sir Ahmadu Bello’s Style of Leadership (year 2000); and General Yakubu Gowon on Sir Ahmadu Bello’s Vision and Contemporary Politics in Nigeria (2003), (Alkali, 2022).
In 1994, General Olusegun Obasanjo, (before he was elected as President of Nigeria) presented a Lecture at the Arewa House Conference on the State of the Nation, where he drew attention of the participants on the problem of leadership in Nigeria. According to him, “for as long as our leaders are sponsored for personal, geographical, sectional, religious and purely ethnic interest, for so long will the problem remain with us, no matter the sophistication of our Constitution or the frequency of change”, (Mahdi Abdullahi: 1994). Some people may argue that both General Olusegun Obasanjo and General Muhammadu Buhari who on different occasions presented Key Note Addresses in Arewa House, Kaduna on the same theme of Leadership were subsequently elected to serve as Presidents of Nigeria and the question is what difference did they make in addressing the problem of Leadership in the country?
I am convinced, history has shown that actually it is good and great leaders – men and women of courage, men and women of character and men and women of foresight and revolutionary ideas, who in the first place, brought about fundamental changes to their countries leading up to the building of strong Institutions. If anyone is doubt, let him study the evolution of the old Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), China, Cuba, Iran and even Singapore where visionary leaders with clear ideological direction served as the moving forces for transforming their nations.
Rethinking Democracy in Nigeria
Another issue gaining traction in recent times is on the issue of democracy. Many Nigerians placed a lot of hope on democracy praying that the institutions and structures of democracy will give them protection and dividends. Many more Nigerians thought that democracy and democratic governance would offer the appropriate window and platform through which all contentious issues facing Nigeria, especially issues of good governance, accountability, equity, social justice and inclusivity could be addressed and resolved. Unfortunately, so far, this appears not to be case.
As a result of this, nearly twenty four years since the return to liberal democracy, Nigerians are raising questions and even beginning to loose hope in virtually every facet of national life. Instead of democracy to offer hope to the people, this has not been so. Democracy as a system of government which hitherto was embraced with enthusiasm and with huge public support appears to lose its allure. Poor political representations, lack of empathy, blatant misuse of public resources and vulgar and ostentatious living in the midx of poverty and hunger has created a rejectionist tendency of the very essence of democracy among the populace.
Frequent attacks on political office holders physically and in media platforms have been on the increase and every institution and individuals associated with political matters including political parties, election officials, law enforcement agencies and the judicial officers are treated with suspicion and disdain. This perhaps might explain why one of the leading Presidential Candidates during the 2023 General Elections, Asiwaju BOLA Ahmed Tinubu, who incidentally subsequently won the Presidential election used the mantra of Renewed Hope during his campaigns.
It must however be said, while the resentment is general, often, the political elites who lose elections are the vanguards of the delegitimization and criminalization of the democratic process and the institutions of the Nigerian State. While most of these behaviors and attitudes are not unique to Nigerian democracy nor is it completely a new phenomenon in the history of Nigerian party politics, the intensity has been increasing, leading to either voter apathy or withdrawal from the political process and or avoidable political violence before, during or after elections. The 16th American President Abraham Lincoln has often been quoted defining Democracy as, “the Government of the people of the people by the people and for the people”. But recently, some Nigerians have now redefined democracy as, “Government of a few people for a few people and by a few people” (Mafiana, 2023).
Reading the new mood of the nation, in late November 2023, former President Olusegun Obasanjo organised a conference in Ogun State, Nigeria on the theme: “Rethinking Western Liberal Democracy” stating that Western democracy is not working because it is imposed on Africa. According to Obasanjo, democracy as it is practiced in Africa today, is a “government of a few people over all the people or population and these people are representatives of only some of the people and not fully representatives of all the people. Invariably, the majority of the people are wittingly or unwittingly kept out”(Obasanjo, O; 2023). He argued that democracy has not delivered on good governance and progressive development. He therefore proposed what he called “Afro-democracy” as an alternative model of democracy for African countries (Obasanjo, O; 2023).
Rethinking The Neo-Liberal Economic Doctrine
While all said, we need to return to where we started from. In my view, the more fundamental issue that poses greater challenge to Nigeria and Nigerians goes beyond these ‘popular’ explanations, important as they are in understanding the overall social conditions and political direction in Nigeria. While the issue of leadership is very significant, it has to be stated that the ideological platform under which the leadership emerges and operates constitutes the material base upon which everything rests. In this case, neo-liberalism, the model of development that Nigeria has adopted since political independence, but especially in the last forty two years can easily be treated as the critical foundation. Let it be understood that liberal democracy and the neo-liberal economic doctrine are two sides of the same coin. So, while the pitfalls of liberal democracy has greatly undermined its effectiveness and acceptability, the reality is that liberal democracy cannot be separated, treated nor understood outside the doctrine of neo-liberal economics.
Contradictions in the Application of Neo-liberalism
One of the tragedies facing the African continent is that we often fail or refuse to learn from the experiences of the same countries that have been forcing the continent to adopt harsh economic policies that are injurious to our socio-economic and political conditions. Let us take the case of what happened in the United States in 2008 when the world was hit by one of the greatest economic depressions since the Great Depression that took place during the inter-war period in the 1930s which wiped away huge investments and jobs. President Barack Obama who had just taken over as President of the United States had to quickly and directly intervene in the Stock Exchange; the Banking and Automobile Industries; and generally the social sector such as the Obama Care policies. At that time, the American Government had to come up with a stimulus package to rejig and restart the engine of economic growth in the US.
In February 2009, President Barack Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It was a $831 Billion economic stimulus package under his American Recovery and Reinvestment programme to help the country move out of the Depression (Obama, O; 2009). The primary objective was to save jobs and create even more jobs. Some of the policy measures President Obama adopted included provision of medicaid, unemployment benefits, food stamps, loans and grants to support the education and transport sector. Tax relief for individuals and some companies were also introduced to save Businesses from collapse.
Of course, President Obama faced a lot of resistance and opposition especially from the Republicans against the Economic Stimulus Plan, nonetheless, he pushed on with the support from his Democratic Party Congressmen and women. President Barrack Obama went further to rally other European countries to also step in because it was a global crisis that affected country. The American Stimulus Plan provided for “a minimum tax rebate of $300 ($600 for married taxpayers filing joint returns) for taxpayers with earned income of at least $3,000” (Obama, 2009). The Plan also included social security retirement benefits, compensation and pension benefits for disabled veterans.
In the case of Britain, the 2008 United Kingdom Bank Rescue package revealed that, “the Intervention Plan provided for several sources of funding to be made available to an aggregate total of £137 billion in cash injections and loans at peak and a further £1,029 billions in guarantees at peak” (UK, 2008). The British Government went further to nationalize a number of Banks including major Banks such as the Lloyds Banking Group and Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) to enable Government provide more funds directly to save the financial sector. Government spent over £137 Billions in support of (at least) four major UK Banks. The British Government also lowered its interest rates and introduced tariffs to protect its industry and Businesses and also regulated the Pound Sterling.
For Nigeria and most African countries, this lesson was lost. At the very time United States and Britain were doing everything possible to protect their domestic industries, save jobs and provide essential social services to their peoples, African countries were digging deeper and deeper into the vortex of neo-liberalism with little or no concern about the long term social and political consequences of these policies. As Nigeria’s experience about Privatisation has revealed, apart from the Telecoms Industry, virtually all the other sectors such as the Banking sector, the Electricity and manufacturing sector have not shown marked improvement and efficiency. Today, any Business that is found to be fairing well in Nigeria must have deep connection with Government, so what is the essence of Privatisation? Recent reports indicate that even after the Privatisation, the Federal Government is still providing subsidies to the Energy sector which is raising fresh controversies.
Cumulative Effects of Neo-Liberalism in Nigeria
It is clear that the Cumulative Effect of the Neo-liberal monetarists supply side economics has not brought about the much expected results of stimulating domestic production of goods and services nor have these policies improved the competitiveness of our goods in the International market. In any case, apart from raw crude petroleum that we still export, whose price we do not control, what else does Nigeria produce and export that justifies all these tough and harsh policies that the Country has been implementing over the last forty years under the command of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)?
Instead of attracting and promoting more investments in the country, the harsh IMF Conditionalities have led to more capital flight and divestments by a number of leading companies in the country. In an Editorial of 11th December 2023, Punch Newspapers noted that there have been mass exit of multinationals from Nigeria. The mass exodus include giant companies such as Unilever, producer of Omo, Sunlight soap etc; GlaxoSmithKlime (GSK), a pharmaceutical company; Sanofi, another French pharmaceutical corporation; and Procter and Gamble, producer of household goods. Another company, BOLT described as “a user friendly” in the transport business has also been affected.
The Punch also noted that much earlier since 2006, giant tyre manufacturers in Nigeria including the popular Michelin and Dunlop have also left Nigeria. Beside these, the Punch stated that within this period “no fewer than 25 oil companies and investments pulled out and sold their stakes to domestic investors” ( Punch Editorial of 11th December 2023). Surprisingly, those companies included giant oil companies such as Shell, ExxonMobil and ENI. As the paper puts it, “the high cost of foreign exchange, energy, multiple taxation, rotten criminal justice system are killing both domestic and multinational manufacturers alike (Punch Editorial of 11th December 2023).
Before We Crucify President Bola Ahmed Tinubu
It is easy to heap the blame on President Bola Ahmed Tinubu who took over power last year, in May 2023. But the issue is much more complex than that. As can be noted, the deterioration and the worsening of conditions for investments and businesses in Nigeria has been going on for a very long time in the country, during the same period the IMF and the World Bank were digging their feet deeper and deeper into the Nigerian economy. In my view, what is before us is the cumulative effects of over four decades of the involvement and intervention of the Bretton Wood Institutions in the Nigerian economy and society based on the neo-liberal ideology which is insensitive to the feelings and yearnings of Nigerians.
The good news is that even President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is keenly aware of the dangers of the neo-liberal ideology. According to Professor Farooq Kperogi, way back in 2012, Asiwaju Tinubu raised concerns about “European conservatives” whose economic prescriptions are at variance “with the needs of the Nigerian populace” (Farooq Kperogi, 2024). He quoted Asiwaju Tinubu as saying then that, “There has been no nation on the face of the planet that has developed or achieved long term prosperity by devotion to conservative, ultra-free market economic ideas….if no nation has grown using these ideas, why are we stuck with them?”(Farooq Kperogi, 2024).
Of course times have change and circumstances have changed but the reality has not changed. As usual, the IMF and the World Bank bided their time and took advantage of the very tense, uncertain and volatile period in the 2023/2024 political transition and struck again! Nigerians can continue bickering, as always, over the outcome of the 2023 Presidential elections but the eyes of the IMF and World Bank were fixed on the ball – to achieve their long term and ultimate objectives of ‘liberalizing’ or one can say, capturing the Nigerian economy. The economic, social and political consequences of these harsh policies are not their interest or concern. Here I wish to state with all sense of responsibility that as long as Nigerians do not put their house in order and we do not care to know who our true friends and enemies are, the country will remain open to the machinations of powerful foreign forces who are bent on undermining our potentials and our historic destiny on the African Continent.
I wish to also state that, there is nothing that is being said about President Bola Ahmed Tinubu today that has not been said, even more, about past Nigerian Leaders including Muhammadu Buhari, Dr Goodluck Ebele Jonathan, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, General Sani Abacha, General Ibrahim Babangida and even Alhaji Shehu Usman Aliyu Shagari. The point is that, irrespective of who is in charge in the Government of Nigeria, as long as the country is pursuing neo-liberal economic policies under the influence and direction of the IMF and World Bank, the problem will still persist.
Let us recall the words of General Olusegun Obasanjo in 1977, then as Military of Head of State, in his address at the World Conference for Action Against Apartheid in Lagos, “I am on record as suggesting that most of the nation’s that attained political independence since 1945 are sponsored states. The implication of this is that, their sponsors will continue to dictate directly or indirectly, teleguide openly and subliminally the pace, tone, direction and quality of life of the citizens of the sponsored states”, ( Alkali, 2003).
Early Attempts At Social Engineering
Over the years, Governments in Nigeria have come up with what might appear an attempt to intervene and provide some sort of social support for the people but most of these Programs fell short of what was needed to address fundamental issues in their design, scope, focus and implementation. In the last three decades, various Programmes have been introduced including the Family Economic Advancement Programme, (FEAP); National Directory of Employment, (NDE); Subsidy Reinvestment and Empowerment Programme (SURE-P); N-Power; TraderMoni; etc. Most of these Programmes were not effective nor sustainable. More recently, the concept of Palliatives has entered the lexicon but this too unfortunately has attracted even more negative response and reaction from Nigerians. The sad events of the year 2020 over the Covid 19 Palliatives which were not properly managed led to numerous embarrassing situations around the country. In any case, the essence of Palliatives in itself is just like offering a cancer patient Panadol, a small and brief pain reliever, while the main sickness grows and worsens.
Apart from the monthly regular allocations from the Federation Account, in the last three decades, huge sums of money have been released to the State Governments including Paris Club refunds; Covid 19 Support Funds; Ecological Funds; Federal Highway Constructions Refunds and other special interventions by the Federal Government, still the problems persist. Local Governments have become mere administrative units and all purpose vehicles in the service of vested interests. While on the one hand, this may appear to justify the need for re-visiting the issues of fiscal federalism, on the other hand, the reality is that in so far as the ruling elite does not change its ways, no matter what restructuring is done, only beneficiaries might change, but the crisis of resource management, indeed the whole crisis of development in the country would persist.
In August 2019, the Federal Government created a new Ministry named the Ministry of Humanitarian Affairs, Disaster Management and Social Development. It’s mission was ostensibly to develop policies and provide platform for harmonizing all activities related to humanitarian and social policy intervention. Unfortunately, instead of focusing on its mandates, the Ministry has been enmeshed into scandals and controversies which has greatly undermined its goals, objectives and effectiveness.
Time For A New Deal For Nigerians
The truth is that it takes a lot of courage and great risks for any African Government, especially in Nigeria to do wholesale devaluation of its currency and remove subsidy on a commodity such as petroleum which is more or less the umbilical code of the Nigerian economy without anticipating reaction from diverse forces. But now, with the complete removal of Petroleum Fuel subsidy and the total devaluation of the National currency, Government needs to come up with other bold, courageous and creative steps to preempt pushback from social forces.
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is bound to face resistance – going either way forward. This is because just as in all other countries wherever the Bretton Woods Institutions operate, there are beneficiaries and dogged advocates and defenders of their ideological praxis. Broken down in simple terms, there are intellectuals, bureaucrats, corporate executives, Think-Tank Groups and even politicians who benefit from and ardently believe in the neo-liberal monetarist supply side economics. So today, as Nigerians groan and scream over difficult and challenging conditions of lives, if we look behind us, regrettably, we see the two Trojan Horses that is to say, the two Bretton Wood institutions, in collaboration with domestic elements standing as sentinels dictating the content, direction and substance of public policy in Nigeria.
The IMF and the World Bank do not trust Governments even if they are part of it, nor do they care to remember that Governments around the world have social responsibilities to their people especially the poor, to women, to children and to the weak and the underprivileged. Even in Europe and United States which we often cite as models of development, when necessary, as we have demonstrated during the 2008 Economic Depression, Governments do intervene in the management of public affairs including the economy. Just as was the case after the Second World War, governments intervention became inevitable to save capitalism from collapse.
Stimulus Programme For Economic Revival (SPER)
What President Bola Ahmed Tinubu should do urgently is to come up with a medium term strategy of economic revival. President Tinubu should quickly adopt the Barrack Obama rule book that led to bringing America out of the woods within a short period of time. This is essential in order to urgently restore hope in the country and in the Nigerian democracy. I trust this is the time the Federal Government under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu will take fresh and far reaching decisions to bring Nigeria out of the woods.
Just as Barrack Obama was able to bring America out of the 2008 Depression, President Tinubu can do the same in Nigeria. I therefore recommend the immediate launching of a well thought-out, comprehensive and well coordinated Stimulus Programme For Economic Revival (SPER). This policy may not be popular with the World Bank and the IMF but this is our country and this is our democracy. If the President could remove subsidies and devalue the national currency even when many Nigerians were thinking differently, the President can as well take strategic policy initiatives to save the nation from further drift. And this is the time. To achieve these, it is time for the Federal Government to take a number of steps:
(i). First, as Muhammad Sagagi (2024) noted, rolling back the reforms could be difficult, but he argued that there was need for ‘adjustments’ based on what he called new realities. He said, “policy makers must pause between ‘episodes’ of reforms, reflect and update the situation based on new ideas and information generated from the assessment”. He similarly stated that in the case of the Naira, the national currency, many countries around the World today do operate ‘managed floating’ regime and Nigeria can do the same.
Arguing along the same line, Akpan H. Akpan (2024) noted that part of the problem that pushed Nigeria into the present situation was the monetary policy which suddenly collapsed the I & E multiple exchange rates into a single window. He argues that the current economic crisis requires the Visible Hand of Government to restore recovery because since the economy is sinking, reliance on private sector and market forces would further deepen the crisis. In his view, market forces would not reduce poverty even in the long run. According to him, in fact market forces need poverty to intensify primitive capitalist accumulation. Just as in the case of Sagagi, he argues that there was need for the Government to revert to a managed floating Exchange rate to rescue the Naira from further depreciation. In my view, recent attempts by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) to tinker with interest and exchange rates has so far not brought the much anticipated and desired results.
Nigeria should go further and borrow a leaf from United Kingdom. Throughout the period Britain was a member of the European Union (EU), it never abandoned its national currency, the Pound Sterling. It operated side by side with the EU currency, the Euro. And in 2009, when the Great Depression started biting harder, the UK Government intervened to protect the Pound Sterling from free-fall depreciation. There is danger and limit to allowing the Naira to continue sinking deeper and deeper into oblivion. With the constitution of the National Monetary Committee (NMC), the committee should move fast and rescue the Naira;
(ii). Second, It is essential to have an appropriately targeted tax relief for certain category of individuals and some companies, especially small and medium enterprises such as educational institutions, pharmaceuticals and transport services. Additionally, Government should review the tax policies especially as it affects workers, self employed and artisans. Fortunately, the President has already constituted a Committee on tax reforms. This should not be held down or delayed by technicalities and bureaucracies. The current system of multiple taxations through VAT and other obnoxious charges by the banking and telecommunications companies is too excessive. These huge and multiple charges are putting great pressure on Nigerians;
(iii). Third, the Government should come up with a policy framework whose primary goal is to protect jobs, to create new jobs, to enhance the purchasing power of the ordinary citizen in the country and genuinely encourage the establishment of small and medium scale businesses. The Federal Government should also introduce tariffs to protect the domestic industry and businesses especially those producing essential goods and services. The primary objective here should be to save jobs and create even more job opportunities. Since some of the major companies have divested from Nigeria, this gives Government the opportunity to protect and support emerging domestic businesses;
(iv), Fourth, Government needs to also, in the short term, reduce excise duties on basic pharmaceutical products and medicaments, while it should urgently initiate Programs of encouraging domestic production of pharmaceutical products and basic medical care facilities. This is because today one of the most essential yet most expensive products are pharmaceuticals and hospital equipments. It is time President Tinubu comes up with his Save Life Initiative (SLI). This is urgently needed to assist our women, children and victims of insecurity challenges;
(v). Fifth, with the current state of the economy, long term investment by companies and even small businesses is unattractive and hazardous. The current interest rates are also not attractive for saving. That’s perhaps precisely why most Nigerians with excess liquidity prefer to go for speculation in the Dollar exchange markets or even the purchase and hoarding of grains. Government needs to urgently revisit the interest regime to forestall further flight of capital;
(vi). Six, the current proposed policy of raising school fees especially in the Universities and other Tertiary Institutions in the country which is adding great pressure on the families should be placed on moratorium or scaled down significantly. Already many public servants and middle income earners cannot even drive their cars to their Offices because of high cost of fuel. It is very possible, under this situation even University teachers who know the value of education can not afford to send their children to schools. In my view, whatever the short term gains, this will have longer term implications for social and political stability;
(vii). Seven, Nigeria should resist the pressure from the IMF in tempering with the current energy prices regime, because this again will further escalate the cost for industrial, commercial and domestic users. Governments also needs to come up with a robust policy on domestic energy sources. While government is discouraging tree felling which could lead to deforestation, the prices of both cooking gas and kerosene are on the rise. Certainly only a small fraction of Nigerians can use electricity for domestic or even commercial culinary purposes.
(viii). Eight, it appears politically expedient for both the Government and the Labour Unions to settle for increase of salaries and wages for the workers. For the labour Unions, this will show that they have extracted some ‘reasonable concessions’ from the Federal Government, which in the short term may douce tension among agitated workers. For the Federal Government, this might also show to Nigerians that it is a listening Government and it has compassion for the workers.
However, this strategy is dicey. In the first place, the number of workers in Nigeria constitute a small percentage of Nigerian total population. What about the unemployed youth – men and women who filled the streets? What about pensioners, whose earnings are virtually frozen after retirements? What about students at all levels especially in Tertiary Institutions? What about farmers, artisans and those who are in IDP camps around the country? What about the Almajiris, the beggars and destitutes roaming the streets? All these are also Nigerians and any social policy intended to have nation-wide and long term impact needs to carry them along. And certainly, negotiated wage increase has no place for them.
In any case, the history of salary reviews in Nigeria is that, immediately new salaries and wages are announced, the market responds instantly wiping out any gains. This further escalates the inflation in the country. Already, in anticipation of this salary reviews which has been in the news for a long time, some unscrupulous Nigerians have started massively purchasing food and other essential products and hoarding them, just waiting for the opportune time to strike.
Rather, Governments both at the Federal and State levels need to come up with more creative policy options that would target those in the middle and lower income bracket and provide basic essential social services to the people. What is needed now is a Social Safety Net for the poor. In particular, emphasis should be placed on urban and interstate transportation system; freezing of further increase in school fees in public institutions; provision of essential pre-natal and ante-natal medical services; offer of basic emergency medical support for accident victims; and other life threatening medical conditions such as tuberculosis, hepatitis, cancer and AIDS treatments. To finance these commitments, the Federal Government should offer various forms of grants to support the education and health care sectors at all levels.
(ix). Since one of the major issues that let to the current conundrum was the removal of fuel subsidy, it is very important for the Federal Government to tackle this problem frontally. The confusing and contradictory stories coming out from the oil industry are both unpleasant and worrisome. While there is consensus in the country today that the Federal Government should not and can not even afford to continue to pay subsidies to small group of oil cartel, the story of the subsidy has not been fully understood by Nigerians. As long as Nigeria remains a major petroleum producing and exporting country and ironically a country that is a major importer of refined petroleum products, the story will never go away.
I strongly suggest that the Federal Government should take full charge and control of the oil industry. The oil cartel, with their local and foreign collaborators who are the major beneficiaries of the subsidies through dubious imports billing to the nation will do everything to undermine the Federal Government, but Nigeria should not be deterred. Everything should be done to revive and commission the national oil Refineries which are parts of the commanding heights of the Nigerian economy. The Dangote Refinery is a right step in the right direction but given the quantum of demand of refined petroleum products in Nigeria, one private Refinery will not address Nigeria’s long term demand. Indeed, this country should aim at being a major exporter of refined petroleum products in the West Africa sub region. We have lost too much time procrastinating, this is the time to leap forward.
(x). Ultimately, Nigeria must return to agriculture, the very foundation of the Nigerian economy. There is an urgent need to bring a sustainable solution to the ongoing protracted crisis between arable farmers and Nomadic livestock producers in many parts of the country. Surely, the tension and conflicts between arable farmers and livestock owners revolve around access to and control over land and water resources. Other countries of the world have addressed and resolved similar issues, Nigeria can do the same. Very soon, the rainy season will set in. It is therefore vital for the Federal Government to collaborate with the State Governments to provide essential agricultural inputs to farmers in good time and at affordable prices.
(xi). Beyond all these the Federal Government in collaboration with the State Governments should urgently tackle the security challenges in the country. It has been repeatedly stated that, using force alone, no matter how convenient or justified, will hardly bring lasting peace and stability in the country. What is sure is that every problem has a solution unless we do not deal with the problems holistically. Many people and communities in the country who feel neglected and or alienated should be reintegrated into the system and a negotiated framework for deescalating tensions and violence should be adopted. The way forward should be a win-win situation for every Nigerian.
Conclusion
In conclusion, let me restate the fact that however fanciful and even appealing the various ‘explanations’ on the causes of Nigerian crises, the bottomline and the bigger challenge facing Nigeria is the cumulative effect of the neo-liberal monetarists supply side economics which over the last forty years look only at one side of the equation. They refuse to recognise the impact of the global economic forces such as the Great Depression of 2008 and the Covid 19 of 2020 on the Nigerian economy and society. Even the ill fated currency redesign imbroglio initiated by the Central Bank of Nigeria in 2022 that had devastating effects on Nigeria was treated as non-events. Nigeria has also been dealing with serious security issues which have undermined agricultural and commercial activities in many parts of the country. We are yet to recover from the effect of all these challenges.
This is the time for the Federal Government to step back, reassess the impact of the removal of the fuel subsidy and the wholesale devaluation of the Naira and come up with a Stimulus Programme For Economic Revival (SPER) to achieve the Renew Hope Agenda of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. This will serve as a Social Safety Net which implies fiscal inclusion of all Nigerians which would prevent further collapse of businesses and descent into more unemployment, hunger and poverty. It can be done, it should be done.
References
Adam Smith (1776); The Wealth of Nations, W. Strahan and T. Cadell, London.
Akpan H. Akpan, (2024); “The Nigerian Economic Crisis: Before it is Too Late”, Premium Times, January 19, 2024.
Barrack Obama, (2009); American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Objectives and FAQs
Barrack Obama, (2029); “Remarks By The President (Of the United States of America), To The Ghanaian Parliament”, Accra, Ghana on 11th July 2009.
Farooq Kperogi, (2024); “Notes From Atlanta, Tinubu’s Accurate 12 Year Old Prediction on Subsidy Removal Effects” February 17, 2024.
Glen Biglaiser & Ronald J. McGauvran (2022); “The Effects of IMF Loan Conditions on Poverty in Developing World”, In Journal of International Relations and Development.
John Maynard Keynes, (1936); The General Theory of Employment, Interests and Money, Palgrave Macmillan.
Mafiana Chinedu, (2023); Audacity of Parasites And The Imprudence of Man, 23rd Inaugural Lecture of the National Open University of Nigeria (NOUN) Abuja.
Mahadi, Abdullahi et al, (1994); Nigeria: State of the Nation and the Way Forward, Arewa House, Kaduna.
Muhammad Sagagi, 2024; “What Should We Tell The President?”,February, 19 2024.
[email protected]
Obasanjo, O., (2023); “Western Liberal Democracy Has Failed Africa”. Keynote Address by Chief Olusegun Obasanjo presented at an event held in Abeokuta, Ogun State on the Theme: Rethinking Western Liberal Democracy, Punch Newspaper November 21, 2023.
Punch Newspapers, Editorial of 11th December 2023, Nigeria.
Rufa’i Ahmed Alkali, (1997); The World Bank And Nigeria: Cornucopia Or Pandora’s Box, Baraka Press, Kaduna.
Rufa’i Ahmed Alkali, (2003); Issues in International Relations and Nigeria’s Foreign Policy, Northpoint Publishers, Abuja.
Rufa’i Ahmed Alkali, (2022); “Democracy, Good Governance And Leadership Challenges In Nigeria: Lessons For Africa”, Convocation Lecture presented at the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Combined Convocation Ceremonies of the Taraba State University, Jalingo, Taraba State, NIGERIA, held on Friday, 28th January, 2022.
Yusuf Bala Usman and Yusuf Bangura, (1984); Debate On The Causes of Nigerian Economic Crisis (1984), Department of Political Science, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria.
Wikipedia, “The 2008 United Kingdom Bank Rescue Package” (2008), Wikipedia Foundation, US.
Wikipedia, What is Neoliberalism? Wikipedia Foundation, US.
