Subsidising
goods and services is one of the many ways to redistribute wealth –
without which many segments of the population would suffer. In western
nations for instance, one of the ways government redistributes wealth is
through social programmes, i.e. supplemental security income; food
stamp programme; vocational rehabilitation; medical assistance; aid to
families with dependent children, and unemployment compensation.
Unfortunately, many of these programmes are non-existent in most
developing countries like Nigeria.
Even though the Nigerian
government has the financial resources to do so, it seems to lack the
capacity and the structure. And the very little it can provide is
riddled with corruption, waste, and inefficiency. And ever since oil
became the driving force of the Nigerian and global economy, oil subsidy
has been one of the few mechanisms government has used to redistribute
wealth. Even so, the amount of waste and theft that characterises the
system is almost unimaginable.
Subsidy – monetary
assistance made by government – to shore up, encourage or stabilise some
sectors of the economy and the populace – is, therefore, a good thing.
Or, it can be a good thing if properly and efficiently managed. What
many people may not know is that the politics of subsidy – especially
oil subsidy – is not a new thing in contemporary Nigeria. Since the
1980s at least, the International Monetary Fund and other external
organisations and groups of individuals have been nudging the Nigerian
government to scrap oil subsidy.
While the pressure to
remove oil subsidy eased for a while, it gained momentum in recent
years. This has led many people to believe that President Goodluck
Jonathan caved in to external demands. Otherwise, how else could one
explain Jeffrey Sachs describing the removal of oil subsidy as a “bold
and correct policy” even as the intended beneficiaries were complaining
about the policy? No doubt a very brilliant and distinguished economist
and intellectual, Sachs failed to take the political conditioning, along
with the poverty-ridden climate, into consideration.
The consensus abroad is
that the removal of subsidy is a good thing; while domestic actors and
interests think it is a bad thing. To whom should Jonathan pay the
greatest attention? To whom is he responsible and accountable to? If
this President thinks he is better off with foreign concerns, then, he
is jeopardising his reputation and Presidency.
Now, let’s look at the
big picture: whether one agrees with the President’s overall policy or
not is actually not the question. His biggest failing was to force it on
the people (without adequate consultation and collective approval).
Removing the subsidy may actually make good economic sense, but it is a
bad political move. Its timing was terrible. Subsidy is not an abstract
idea. It is a real life issue that affects the vast majority of
Nigerians – majority of whom live on less than three dollars a day.
This time, as with other
times, government has failed to make the case for removing fuel subsidy
in a manner that makes sense to the people. And so, fuel subsidy must
be restored until the people are adequately consulted and fully briefed
on the pluses and minuses of its removal. And so, the President should
come before the people to own up to his mistakes. He will have nothing
to lose in public or in private. In fact, he will grow in stature should
he admit to his failing. Leaders make mistakes. Statesmen make
mistakes. There is absolutely nothing to be ashamed of! Should he fail
to do so, then, he is likely to diminish his Presidency.
Long before this time,
what the President should have done – and what his advisers and cabinet
members should have counselled – was to invite the National Assembly
leaders to Aso Rock for a consultation; talk with members of the civil
society; and directly address the people in town hall settings and
through the media. If he had done the aforementioned in good faith, the
ongoing brouhaha could easily have been avoided. He should also have
given the people enough time to digest the new policy. Why was he in a
haste on this matter?
In all of these, what
pained the people the most was the timing of the announcement. You don’t
make such an announcement when millions are away from their homes and
sources of livelihood (for Christmas and New Year celebrations). It
showed a President who didn’t give a hoot about the people’s feelings
and sensibilities. And so, even if the policy made good economic sense,
the timing – and the President’s subsequent pronouncements – made very
lousy politics. This is another in a series of miscalculations.
It bears stating that
unless the President is ready to go to war with the people, he’d be wise
to reverse himself on this issue – even if temporarily. July or August
would be a good time to revisit it. In the intervening period, he
should: (a) address the nation on what’s going on; (b) reverse himself
and also offer an apology to the people; and (c) be frank with the
people: let them know that the reversal may be a temporary move. (The
break will help cool down the heat that is threatening the nation’s
political space.) What I am suggesting is that the President should
“reset the consultation button.” Stubbornness comes with a price.
As I said earlier, the
President will gain more, and will also increase his prestige by
acknowledging his mistakes, and by reversing himself. If not, how many
flames can one man or one President handle simultaneously? As it is, he
is lost in the Boko Haram labyrinth. Is he ready and able to take on
additional flame?
Whether in private or in public
dealings, communication is very important. Jonathan could get a whole
lot done by communicating effectively in person and through the media.
Nigerians may be an impatient group of people. And, why not? They have
the right to be considering the political and economic hell successive
governments have taken them through. But Nigerians are not
inconsiderate. They would have gone along with him had he made his case
before them, and had he given them the time to think it through. And so
Mr. President, please reverse yourself! Doing this does not, in any way,
make you a weak president. Instead, it makes you a listening and
compassionate leader.
