IBB’S Regime: Another view
“If everyone is thinking alike then somebody isn’t thinking” - George S. Patton
Generals George S. Patton
and Ibrahim B. Babangida
have a lot in common. The late Patton like IBB was also a military officer of the armoured school. IBB was the founder and pioneer instructor of the Nigeria Armoured Corps. Patton was not only the father of the U.S. armoured corps he was the tank warfare maverick who halted the German offensive through the Ardennes forest in the desperate attempt to reverse the course of World War II. IBB’s own war memoirs are yet to be published, but we know that at best, he served with distinction during the Nigerian civil war. But that is where the similarities end. Patton was never renowned as a brilliant thinker. He was also more of a romantic soldier more than a statesman. On the other hand, even IBB’s worst critics often testify to his obvious intelligence if not his sincerity. With the passing of time it has become obvious that the nation was for long denied a thorough analysis of his presidency because of the unnecessary fixation on the single act of the annulment of the June 12 presidential election. To appreciate the man and his message, it appears a fresh look at the tenure as military president is necessary.
It is obvious that the events lined up to celebrate IBB’s 63rd birthday last week were remarkably different from the past in their content and drama. I have no way of knowing if the General like Julius Caesar, has a knack for fine details, but it seems politically astute to me that as if by design, a sizeable number of members of the federal House of Assembly happened to be on retreat nearby and in the same city. That they attended the celebrations and cued to shake the hands of the former president is no longer news, the birthday ceremonies were parked full to the rafters with important dignitaries from all walks of life. It seems easy to recall the presence of the usual courtiers and clowns, but for all the antics of the likes of General Adisa, in my opinion, the presence of the members of the Lower house as superficial as it may seem, suggests that the General’s campaign may have finally commenced as he aims to broaden his support base ahead of 2007. We know of course that a great majority of Senators are with the General, but the Reps are both energetic and eager and will be useful to ‘project 007’ as he extends his campaign to the grass roots where I insist he has a lot of work to do.
But my interest today is not necessarily the guest list at the birthday ceremonies but the IBB mystique which is all so obvious especially now that it seems to all except perhaps the blind, that only God can stop him from emerging as president in 2007! No Nigerian, I repeat no Nigerian living or dead had so perplexed and mystified Nigerians the way IBB has done over the past three decades. His transformation is even more baffling when we recall that immediately after he ‘stepped aside’, he retreated into a cocoon. His boys and known associates in the military were hounded into retirement. Throughout the Abacha years he remained huddled in his hilltop country home. He maintained a dignified silence throughout the bloody and atrocious battles between the dark goggled General and the hordes of NADECO activists. And yet here we are in 2004 with IBB on our lips and very much in the limelight. His every speech or move provokes intense media scrutiny and attention. We know of the Teflon Don, but if ever there was a Teflon General, IBB must be it! I once read an interview granted by Professor Omo Omoruiyi on the General soon after the former fled into exile and cannot believe that the same man is at the forefront of the General’s campaign for 2007. So why have his associates and friends remained loyal to the man so long after he quit office?
First, we must accept the obvious fact of his charisma because it is God given. Second, we must look beyond June 12 because it was nothing but a fallacy. Third, we need a second look at how he ran his government particularly the content and intention of the policies he introduced. As for the first, even Tam David West will testify that the General has enough charm to awaken the dead. On June 12, we know that a great majority of those who railed against the annulment were the same people who openly derided the transition programme when it was in progress, only to shamelessly join the campaign for reversal of the annulment like drummers trailing a masquerade. In the process the issue was effectively sectionalized and trivialized. IBB is yet to publish his memoirs, but when he does, I have the uncanny feeling that several prominent people in the Southwest will be severely embarrassed.
IBB’s transition programme was unnecessarily prolonged and chaotic no doubt. It was also in the end fruitless and costly to the tax payers. But for a balanced view of his tenure we must extend our scrutiny to his economic reforms. When he took over in 1985, socialism was already on the retreat but was not fully routed. Its ultimate demise was to come after Gorbachev introduced glasnost and perestroika which trailed the eventual disintegration of the Soviet Union. The idea soon spread to most of Eastern Europe. The recent enlargement of NATO and the European Union as well as the reforms in China complete with its new system pseudo capitalism, effectively dealt the death blow to socialism as a viable economic system. Yet IBB introduced the Structural Adjustment Programme [SAP] in 1985 with the intention of creating a market-driven economy! But it soon transpired that his bold initiative was ahead of its time. It was an extremely bitter pill for Nigerians to swallow first on account of its novelty, and second due to the sordid implementation of ancillary projects designed to cushion the effects of the reforms. If SAP was tailored towards deregulating the economy, other projects such as the one handled by the Directorate of Food Roads and Rural Infrastructure [DFRRI] and the Peoples Bank, were tailored towards poverty alleviation. Similar economic reforms introduced by the Chinese and elsewhere in Eastern Europe years after the introduction of SAP were hugely successful. The Chinese in particular are now experiencing unprecedented prosperity and economic growth largely due to the pragmatic reforms initiated by Deng Xiaoping after the demise of Chairman Mao and the Cultural Revolution and despite his brutal suppression of the pro-democracy movement at Tiananmen Square.
With the benefit of hindsight, IBB deserves credit for his tremendous vision in terms of the economic reforms he initiated. However, the poor implementation of the same policies only resulted in the massive devaluation of the Naira without the intended tangible economic benefits. With the passing of time, it has become evident that even the economic reforms embarked upon by the Obasanjo administration, are nothing but a revival of SAP in another guise. But SAP did have a positive impact which most analysts of the IBB era failed to recognize or appreciate. It led to the full deregulation of the banking sector and the emergence of the so-called new generation banks setting the pace in the industry today!
Similarly, I refuse to accept the view that IBB alone institutionalized corruption in the country because if at all he succeeded in doing so, we must all accept partial if not collective responsibility for obvious reasons. As for the N12 billion Gulf war oil windfall, the report of the Okigbo panel was explicit in its conclusion that the money was not expended on ‘regenerative expenditure’ pure and simple. The General was never directly accused for diverting the funds as most have claimed. But I agree with many that he is accountable for the obvious flaws and consequences of his leadership style. It seems to me that his soft stance occasioned by the desire to ensure the absolute loyalty of his staff and cronies, wittingly or unwittingly contributed to their excess while in government often at the expense of the national interest. Most obviously benefited from his generous disposition and must be nostalgic about the good old days.
But poor implementation of otherwise laudable economic reforms was only a part of his problem. To start with, such reforms could only have succeeded within a stable polity. The General however unwittingly ensured that the desired stability was never achieved. He frequently tinkered with his transition programme. He ceaselessly reshuffled and reconstituted the SMC and the AFRC. While most saw the practice as a source of strength, others felt it was a sign of weakness and insecurity. On that score, we must wait to see how he relates with the National Assembly in the event that he becomes president in 2007. Time will tell!
NEXT... |
|
|
