President Muhammadu Buhari is not for reforms
In 2015, I did not support President Muhammadu Buhari for the presidential elections. He was Head of State of Nigeria between 1983 and 1985. In this period, the government was characterized by the war against indiscipline (WAI) and supposedly against corruption. What cannot be denied, but little known then, was that the government, led by the current President, showed enormous disdain for private enterprise, controlled the Naira’s exchange rate to the dollar, and expanded the control of the state and the military.
In other words, and what many of the President’s supporters will not admit today, is that there is never a power vacuum. So, what the President took away from the “market” in the allocation of resources and goods and services, it aggregated those same powers to the military.Indeed, I will never forget that my mum and few of her business colleagues had to go and beg military personnel in order for us to get milk and other provisions. So, when people argue about taking powers away from some others, please ask where would the powers be transferred to – the state, often concentrated in the hands of those ruling and their cronies, or the market, concentrated in skills, investments, risks, and innovations etc. No one should be under any illusion thinking that the Nigerian state is some sort of invisible and indiscriminate hand. It is not.
Let me now drag my piece to our current circumstances. As Nigeria prepares for another round of elections, there is no doubt that the relevance of the Presidential elections remain strong because we still lack the strong institutions and agreed principle and value drivers that bind us all in a broad direction. Given this, one thing that is so sure is that President Buhari will not embark on any kind of reforms that reduces the powers of the state, reduces the powers of the President, and reduces the power of the federal government that will mean a reduction in the powers of the federal state. So, in the 21st century in a multi religious and multi ethnic group, we all have to wait for what happens in Abuja before we make progress.
Therefore, for the benefit of those that are truly open minded about reforms or restructuring, it is not about the taking of resources from one region to another. Would there be some elements of that? I suppose so and may be it is, depending on what the country agrees. However, it is broadly the changes in legal foundations of the country and the power to change incentives. Our country is growing at the rate it is, developing at the rate it is, and confronted with widespread poverty because of the outcomes of all economic decisions made, allowed by the incentives provided in our economic structure. To change the outcomes, we need to change the incentives. Many areas of our economy including solid minerals, infrastructure, education, and heath will not change until we change the incentives. So, reforms to me is the possibility of multiple centres of economic incentives, the redrawing of our map of economic incentives, and the power to make changes to the laws that changes the economic incentives within the country. At the moment, this is too concentrated in the federal government.
Matt Levine, one of Bloomberg’s popular opinion columnist wrote recently about the challenges of mergers and acquisitions and the roles that CEOs play. He argued that there exists conflict of interests if one is the CEO of a company that is about to be acquired, even if it is in the best interest of the shareholders for the company to be acquired. The conflict of interest arises because the CEO is either going to be a less important person in a new and bigger company or the CEO will no longer have a job.
Now, we may think this theory only applies in the private sector in the kind of scenario described by Levine. However, this is the story of our inability to do serious, sustained, and aggressive economic and political reforms in Nigeria. Those responsible for the reforms are also those that have the most to loose, even though the country as a whole stand to benefit. For instance, the Petroleum Industry Governance Bill (PGIB), the part law of the previously humongous Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB), will reduce the power of the President considerably, and we wonder why no President, including President Buhari, has put their mind to it and get it passed, despite Nigeria loosing billions of investment until now.
Take education, especially higher education, then add the structural reforms that will change the responsibilities and therefore power equations between the federal and the states, it is all about reducing the influence and powers of the president. The President knows this is not working, but the fact that President Buhari will not even contemplate any measure of reform, no matter how genuine and the likely benefits, means that another four years will be another extension of the already extensive and concentrated state powers.
Permit me to now conclude with the observation made by Levine. He wrote that “And if the CEO doesn’t want the company to be acquired, he generally has lots of ways to prevent it. He can refuse to meet with the CEO of a potential acquirer, or tell her “no we’re not interested” or “my board would never go for it.” After getting an acquisition proposal, he can tell his board that it undervalues the company, or that the acquirer doesn’t seem serious about moving quickly, or that there are antitrust problems, or just not tell the board about it at all. As the acquirer does its due diligence, the CEO can tell his employees to move slowly, to create lots of issues, or even to make the company look bad”. This is the same thing that President Buhari and his people are telling us about needed restructuring and reforms.Its all excuses for retaining power and control.
I thank you.
Ogho Okiti