There is so much going on in our country that it is difficult to know where to start. Our country is in dire straits and it seems like the reckoning has come. I am hopeful that though loosely tethered this may not be our last gasp as a nation with our apparently compromised diversity. Unfortunately, it appears that the same conditions are applicable within many states of our federation including my own dear state Akwa Ibom. There are very few states that are protected from the upheaval, witness what is happening in the Northern States, South West and the problematic Niger Delta. In our zone only Cross Rivers State appears have relative peace. Such is the nature of our world today and my sense is that it is probably here to stay—at the very least for a while.
The common factor in all the unrest is rudderless governance and a restive electorate tired of being misled, lied to and whose resources have been so mismanaged by political elites that they remain impoverished amidst reports of plenty. Needless to say our country is so endowed with both material and human resources that it has become difficult to fathom the pervasive poverty, decline of the infrastructure and deteriorating security situation. It is interesting that a confluence of hardships has created a marriage of convenience, bringing together the indigent, middle class and some elites. Is this the beginning of much needed change or is it business as usual? Whatever the case, there is a nervousness and anxiety within and outside the country that suggest that something major may happen that is going to shake the very foundation of our union and change the country as we know it. Political pundits prognosticate that for Nigeria there are several possibilities, none which appears to be good—ranging from anarchy to a total disintegration of the country. Much of this is based on recent upheaval that has exposed the soft underbelly of our loose amalgamation. Unity would be a poor choice of words and in my opinion Nigeria has never really been united and has been held together with what appears to be soft glue. There are cracks in the armor of our union, like that of fatigued metal which has uncovered the failures and utter neglect perpetrated by our leaders. A friend recently wrote that the greatest myth is that government is the problem of Nigerians. This is mostly true but assumes that people are able to separate the reality of governance from the characters that lead us. I would agree that there is a problem with leadership which has accentuated the problems of government. It is true that the governmental structures have failed to keep up with or adapt to changing times. This is mostly due to the fact that no one has really attempted to look critically at our bureaucracy or attempted to reform it. Such an exercise is filled with angst and fear, and is accompanied by uncertainty and resistance from those who stand to lose the most. This is however a discussion for another day.
There are two issues that have dominated the headlines recently—the fight against the removal of subsidies and that of national security symbolized by “Boko Haram”. Recently the entire nation was shut down in protest of the removal of fuel subsidies. Interestingly, depending on the source, the meaning of subsidy is almost as varied as the number of tribes that comprise Nigeria. No one appears to be able to articulate clearly what it means to remove fuel subsidies. The financial impact on the economy is unclear and Nigerians being resourceful have toyed with it incessantly obscuring the issue. It is even more confounding to know who is for or against the idea. Those who benefit from it are embedded with those who the government reports are adversely affected by its existence. Protest and resistance are predicated on the immediate impact of this governmental action. Subsidy itself is not a new phenomenon as governments all over the world have utilized it for various reasons. In communist and socialist governments it is a way of life and is part of core belief. In capitalist governments it is utilized minimally in non-competitive areas of the economy and specialized critical areas where government cannot afford inconsistencies or failure and to allow for a level playing field. Agricultural subsidies for instance exist within the European Union and United States of America (USA) as well as many other countries in Africa. Although sometimes controversial, it is a tool utilized by many nations to enhance and/ or protect sectors of their economies. In the USA it predates the great depression and still exists today. They are “direct subsidies” paid to famers for “farm income stabilization”. Beneficiaries range from small farmers to corporate owned farms. It was designed as an income offset and meant to not only keep farmers in business but to also protect them from going out of business due to competition from conglomerates that could monopolize the sector. The small farmer is such an important part of the American agro economy that it must be protected and sustained.
Fuel subsidy in Nigeria is not as well defined as the above. The President never addressed the nation directly to explain the program, educate citizens on its benefit and prepare the nation for his decision. He allowed the issue to be muddied by his handlers without a careful articulation of its merits on substance. The average Nigerian keyed ultimately on the increase in fuel prices however temporary and the subsequent rise in the cost of living. This shaped the debate and fueled their view and negative response. As a result a vacuum was created and his opposition, detractors and opportunist capitalized on it. He failed to set the tone for the discussions and was not proactive in facilitating a response in any manner when there appeared to be problems with the perception that the program is froth with corruption or simply a myth. Much of this can be attributed to the fact that our leaders are still in a cocoon, failing to read the “tea leaves”. The populace has become better informed and almost totally distrusting of their leaders. In part because of our experience with previous military governments when decrees were simply promulgated and became law without healthy debate our leaders continue to believe that they can force decisions on the electorate. The result is that very few people can really articulate three basic things about subsidy; what, why, and how. It should not be that complicated. Consequently, government has resorted to attempting to suppress discourse and crush the opposition and dissenters as all totalitarian governments would. They fail to grasp important concepts in democracy such as freedom of speech, stimulation and persuasion. This would quite naturally engender public support while ensuring public participation and involvement.
The Nigerian electorate has become more informed, wiser and is beginning to realize that they have been bamboozled by many politicians masquerading as leaders. The goals of government may not necessarily coincide with theirs and consequently may not be mutually beneficial. There is an urgent need to separate the mystique of a leader from his or her accomplishments. They have to be held accountable for what they do with the people’s resources. The ending of the call to action—strike was predictable. It was led by the usual suspects and they were going to cave-in to familiar circumstances—money and/or intimidation. This is so in part due to the insatiable appetite for corruption of some of our leaders and the fact that as religious as most Nigerians are we are squeamish about death. Not many are interested in risking their life for a greater good. At the end of the day, there will be settlements and we all will return to life as usual and as we know it. My instincts however tell me that it is a little different this time. I am encouraged that Nigerians are slowly becoming aware of this breach of trust—engaged by not only government but our so-called leaders who are self serving and most certainly myopic. As much as this is a national issue it cannot but permeate to the local levels. It is said that all “politics is local”. All those who aspire to be leaders should understand that times are changing and that they will be treated far differently from their predecessors. As someone once said, “be careful what you wish for, you just might get it”.
No comments:
Post a Comment