By Jideofor Adibe
In my last week’s column (Beyond the PEPT’s Judgement), I argued, among other things, that the Western brand of liberal democracy we currently practise does not, and cannot work in our type of society where the basis of even statehood remains contested.
This is because the adversarial nature of our electoral competition aggravates the structures of conflicts in the society, deepening the fault lines necessarily mobilised as part of our identity politics and consequently undermining the nation-building process. I equally argued that largely because of these factors, many Nigerians feel alienated from the political process and consequently from the nation-state itself.
This reflection shifts emphasis from our political
system discussed last week to our political economy. It challenges the notion
that there was a ‘consensus’ that fuel subsidy would be removed in its
entirety. In fact, both President Tinubu and former President Buhari, as
leaders of the then opposition APC, had argued that there was no subsidy at all
on Premium Motor Spirit (aka fuel) and, therefore, that the whole argument used
by the then Jonathan government to justify its quest to remove or reduce the
level of fuel subsidy was a scam.
The wrong notion that there was a “consensus” that
the subsidy on fuel price should be removed seems to have been amplified by a
number of factors: one, is the media orchestration of the fact that the three
leading candidates in the last presidential election – Tinubu of the APC, Atiku
of the PDP and Peter Obi of the Labour Party are all free marketers, who in the
course of their campaigns, had said they would remove subsidies on fuel if
elected. Even at this, the manifesto of the APC talked of phased removal of
subsidies not removing it in one fell swoop as Tinubu did.
Two, is that the constant media
repetition of this lie that there was a ‘consensus’ tended to make it acquire
the toga of truth – in line with the dictum of Joseph Goebbels, Minister
of Propaganda for the Nazi government of the Third Reich who infamously was
quoted as saying: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it people
will eventually come to believe it.” Three, many Nigerians were disenchanted by
the obvious corruption in the subsidy regime.
For instance, a report by the
Businessday of May 22, 2023 revealed that Buhari, who had called fuel subsidy a
scam as an opposition politician, ended up spending more on fuel subsidy than
his three predecessors in the current democratic dispensation combined.
According to the paper, Buhari spent a whopping N11trn on fuel subsidy from
2015 to 2023, compared to Obasanjo, Umar Yar’Adua and Goodluck Jonathan who
spent N812bn (1999-2006), N94bn (2007-2009) and N3.9trn (2010-2014)
respectively.
Doubts over claims by the
Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority that the
country’s daily average petrol consumption stood at 66 million litres in 2022
did not help matters. Four, critical voices, essentially from the Lagos axis,
who used to be the guiding spirits or quiet funders of anti-government
protests, including the protest over the removal of fuel subsidy in January
2012 (aka‘Shutdown Nigerian’ protest) became quiet or muffled when the APC came
to power in 2015 as they became either emotionally aligned to the party or
became weakened by that alliance.
This enabled the Buhari
government to get away with hiking the fuel price from N87 per litre to N145 on
May 11, 2016. Similar factors made it difficult for Tinubu’s ‘fuel
subsidy is gone’ declaration on May 29, 2023 to be challenged. Five, the
several commentaries on how dire the Nigerian economy was under the Buhari
government (with many citing World Bank data) and how the ‘unsustainable’
subsidy regime was responsible for this, gave a wrong impression that the only
option left for Nigerians was to remove fuel subsidy in its entirety and in one
fell swoop.
What people wrongly call
‘consensus’ on fuel subsidy removal is actually playing the Washington
Consensus card – which most research found has never really worked in any of
the developing countries. Washington Consensus was originally a set of ten
economic policy prescriptions considered to be the “standard” reform package
promoted for the developing economies of Africa and Latin America.
The term was first used in 1989
by John Williamson, an English economist from a Washington-based think-tank,
the Institute for International Economics. His prescriptions included such
market promoting policies as trade liberalisation, de-regulation and
privatisation of state enterprises. Washington Consensus as a terminology is
however these days used in a broader sense to refer to a general orientation
towards a strong market-based approach (sometimes described as market
fundamentalism or neoliberalism).
Williamson, who invented the
terminology, himself seemed to have been influenced by the World Bank’s 1991
publication, Accelerated Development in Sub-Saharan Africa: An Agenda for
Action (also known as the Berg Report), which provided the theoretical
foundation for the IMF-World bank supported structural adjustment programmes,
SAPs, of the 1980s and 1990s. The central emphasis of the SAPs of that time was
on ‘rolling back the state’ (for market forces and the private sector to
allocate societal values).
My PhD in the early 1990s at Roskilde University
Denmark was on the IMF/World Bank-Supported Structural Adjustment programmes in
Africa. There was hardly any African or Latin American country where the SAP
achieved a resounding success. In fact, the 1980s – when most African countries
were forced to embrace the IMF/World Bank-supported SAPs – became known as
Africa’s lost decade. In Nigeria, it was a period in which the middle class was
completely emasculated, the general population impoverished, several businesses
closed down and foreign multinationals took flight.
Many Nigerians who could,
including my humble self, voted with their feet (or “did an Andrew” as it was
called in those days). After the programme helped to further impoverish the
continent, the two Bretton Woods Institutions (World Bank and the IMF) blamed
the failure of the programme on factors such as poor implementation and began
to promote a new mantra -”bringing back the state”, in which it now argued that
what was needed for Africa’s development were ‘good governance’ and ‘strong
institutions rather than strong men”. It seems these institutions have gone
back to the failed ‘rolling back the state’ mantra.
Tinubu’s removal of fuel subsidy
and flotation of the Naira in one fell swoop, (wrongly promoted as bold
economic policies), re-echoes the key measures in Babangida’s structural
adjustment programme. I remain sceptical that the policy will succeed because
it never succeeded anywhere in Africa. A wrong narrative was promoted that fuel
subsidy benefits primarily (if not exclusively) the rich, forgetting that in
our generator dependent economy, those likely to be most adversely affected by
the removal of fuel subsidies are not the very poor but business owners (who
run their businesses mostly on generators and create most of the jobs in the
economy) and the Middle Class. It can be argued that frustrations with the
Washington Consensus and the current Western system of international economic
development is one of the attractions of BRICS to many non-Western
countries.
BRICS has promised to help
engineer a multipolar world order which would serve as a counter weight to the
current Washington Consensus that has hardly worked in any developing country.
It is unfortunate that an uncritical consensus seems to have been built around
the very fallacious notion that subsidies are bad and distorts everything in
the economy. The truth is that virtually all successful economies in the world
today, even the most capitalistic and free market-oriented, employ various
forms of subsidies to support segments of their society and businesses.
I agree that the subsidies on
PMS have become unsustainable. But the solution, in my view, is not removing
the subsidy on fuel in one fell swoop or floating our currency. I believe that
effectively checkmating the fraud in the subsidy regime and gradually reducing
the level of the subsidy would have been more productive. For instance,
maintaining a level of subsidy on PMS and fertiliser will also mean subsidizing
food and manufacturing (because most depend on generators) as well as the
middle class (who are the most productive segment of the population).
Maintaining a level of subsidy on PMS will cascade
throughout the entire value chain of the country and therefore better than
trying to narrowly target a particular demographic with handouts (otherwise
called palliatives). Besides, I do not see the logic in the government removing
subsidy on fuel (where it is most needed) just to be able to create subsidies
in other sectors – in a rather very inefficient and unconvincing manner.
*Adibe
is a publisher and professor of political science, Nasarawa State University,
Nigeria.
No comments:
Post a Comment