Adorning his imposing Lagos abode areworks
of African arts that range from the magnificent to the obscure. His love,
especially, for Ben Enwonwu’s pieces is unwavering. Pricey sculptures and
paintings of the notable artist occupy vintage positions in his home. But the
meet wasn’t about arts. Receiving Daily Independent’s team of Reporters, Chief Phillip Chiedu Asiodu
asserts that all is not well with the Nigerian state.In an extensive, no-holds-barred interview, the Asaba-born
technocrat bares his thoughts about what he termed the “deterioration of
the nation” over the years, asserting that it need not take decades to
grow an economy. He berated President Olusegun Obasanjo’s on-going
economic reform agenda and took on pressing issues like the Niger Delta
question, disbursement of oil windfall, profligate governments at all levels,
reinventing of the civil service, and his relationship with the ruling Peoples
Democratic Party (PDP). A renowned administrator, industrialist and politician,
the erstwhile economic adviser to the President gave reasons why he left the
coveted position after few months in office. Asiodu, 70, who once aspired for
the highest office in the land, divulged what he would have done differently
had he been elected President. An avid golfer, Asiodu fielded questions from Ntai
Bagshaw, Bamidele Osha and Bola Omilabu. Excerpts:
Despite the
pursuance of several development agendas, the economy has continued to totter.
How long does it take to develop an economy?
With the resources
Nigeria possesses, and if the nation is focussed for 25 years, we would be at
least a $15,000 per capita economy. Our undoing has been instability. Changes
of government followed by changes of policies are signs of instability, both to
local and foreign investors. And we have not changed. If we don’t change,
we will continue to be poor.
Now, go back and look
at the colonial plan, which we had pushed by labour ideology and all that. Even
before independence we had two five-year plans under colonialism, culminating
in 1960 when we achieved independence. It took us two years - we produced in
1962. It was supposed to be a five-year plan but because of the Civil War, it
became the 1962-1968 plan and then we didn’t produce another plan
until 1970. But if you look at the 1970-1974 plan, it had identified
where we should concentrate - agriculture, agro-allied industry and
manufacturing industry. Oil had not become so important. By the 1975-1980
plan, oil had become important in terms of giving us investible resources. In
that plan, we said it was a wasting of asset and we must convert it to
renewable sources of wealth. And in that plan, you will see we talked about
value added industries. Cassava was in the 1970-1974 plan; cassava chips
exports, and I can show you the papers.
We were making good
progress. And even when the Civil War came, which was very sad and has distorted
the subsequent economic history of Nigeria, the country was already growing at
eight per cent per annum. Even with the Civil War, outside the Civil War zone,
we sustained that growth rate. And when the Civil War ended and we came to
rehabilitation, reconstruction and all that, we resumed the growth rate of 15
per cent per annum in manufacturing, of course starting from practically
nowhere, and 10 per cent overall until the coup of 1975.
After that coup,
most tragically, the value added intermediate and capital goods industry plans
were not pursued; the plans were set aside. Not only that, we now engaged in
massive purge of the civil service. Ten thousand people in six weeks of those
who helped in formulating the plan and who could help to implement it. And mark
you, these plans, like in the models of labour government, socialist and so on,
were government-led plans. How many indigenous capitalists were there to say
they were going to develop Nigeria? So it was predicated on a public service
that was patriotic, committed to the public good, and committed to moving
Nigeria from one plateau of welfare to a higher one. Now, when you demoralise
the stride, all is lost, which was what practically happened. And it is to the
credit of the resilience of Nigerians that we still have vestiges of what we
have.
Power was handed
back in 1979. (Alhaji Shehu) Shagari’s first administration stumbled on
and did one or two things. But the unfortunate thing is that when the army are
going, they go in such a precipitate manner that they don’t give you
enough time to create real political parties without which you can’t have
a functioning democracy. We don’t have parties today. And without parties
you cannot have democracy. A party means you have a group of people with a vision,
but if that vision is personal and selfish, you can’t sell it. So, it
must be a vision that holds out to you and me; it then recruits people on the
basis of that vision, proselytizes, and then on that basis it appeals for
votes. So, from day one, a party must have a clear vision about where it wants
to take the country. Two, it has to have a structure of leadership; you know
who recruited you. Three, it has to have discipline. Four, when it comes to
power, what they would do in the legislature is not different from what they
would do in the executive. But we’ve never had that.
So, all these lead
to basic questions: Is what we have still in place? Is it going to change
tomorrow? When it changes, will it repeat itself? Even when the same
administration changes ministers you hear no stories. This has been the bane of
our development, compared with Singapore which was smaller and dirtier than
Lagos but which Li Kuan Yew transformed in 25 years. Now, it (Singapore) is
better than any European city you can think of, and it is described just as
beautifully in his book From Third World to First. And you see there the
continuity of policy; the conscious selection of people who would buy into what
is being done and sustain it. This is what is missing in our economy and it is
at its bane.
Even the latest
illustration; there’s a lot to say about the banking sector, so many
criticisms. But things must be done in such a way as to enhance stability and
not be counter-productive. I’m talking about the impact of what you see
on investments. Here we are, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) sets out the
rules. As late as two years ago, it was giving licences to banks on the basis
of N2 billion capitalisation; it started much smaller. Those banks
couldn’t even have declared the first profit. They came in legitimately,
the ground rules were clear and then suddenly, within two years, they had the
rug pulled from under their feet.
Now, leave banking
alone. We are now trying to tell people to come into solid minerals,
petrochemicals, agriculture and agro-allied industries. And these require
gestation periods of at least seven years. Are we going to change the rules
within two years?You must have a
holistic approach to managing the economy. And if you don’t and you go
off on tangents doing things in separate sectors, the impact comes to nought.
You were
economic adviser to the President in 1999. Why did you jettison that position
abruptly?
Why are people
talking to people like us when they want to discuss the Nigerian economy? It is
because we are people they know. It’s because of the military
intervention for 40 years that there is this hiatus. Before they intervened, we
had proved ourselves internationally as technocrats in the civil service; such
that British cabinet ministers used to write to us, seeking appointments when
we would meet.
I’m just over
70, Blair and others are just 50, 51. But because of this military
intervention, Nigerians younger than us who would have proved themselves all
this time were not allowed to because the military dictatorship wasn’t
prepared for things to be done differently. If there wasn’t that
interruption in the normal exchanges, there would be Nigerians who were 50, 60
and 65 who would have been known properly on the international stage.
So coming in 1999,
I thought we could, within two years, introduce the new Nigerian leadership to
those whom we know. Just like you had successive American governments after the
Second World War. Hughes Harriman, who was the ambassador, knew all the heads
of state in Europe. Even to the age of 85, he would lead a delegation, open
doors, introduce people and then once you’ve met somebody once or twice,
introduced by somebody you have confidence in, it carries on.
So, I wasn’t
thinking myself, by going (into government) in 1999, that I was going to stay
this long. Of course I’d been a presidential aspirant and if I were
president would have served the full term. But my primary purpose would have
been to bring back this exposure of as many competent Nigerians as possible to
international limelight, because people talk to people they know. And that is
the human resource you must always use.
Now, the other
thing was, of course, the nature of advice in a heterogeneous setting is very
frustrating. In those days, if you were selecting administrative service
people, there was a clear understanding of the criteria for recruitment; there
was a clear path for career development; there were courses and exams you had
to take and assessments you had to follow. So by the time you have a crop of
permanent secretaries, their background is homogeneous. They can speak the same
language; they are like minds. Similarly, if you had proper political
development as I said, without all these interruptions, and parties are being
maintained continuously, for 10, 20 years, the parties themselves are a
selection process of leadership. There are party meetings and people
contributing. Only suddenly within 10, 11 months, all kinds of people from all
parts, who have never had any experience in service - because democracy is
indeed about service - and the military says ‘come and form party,’
and they do. Now, the kind of discussion you are going to have among these
people is going to be very different because they come from diverse
backgrounds, diverse experiences, and they’ve not subscribed to the same
vision about where Nigeria is going. So, you may now come, give advice and you
turn away. Somebody who probably doesn’t even know the subject, but is
good at obsequious deference to leadership - there’s always some
flatterers and cheerleaders everywhere - comes and tells one story and assigns
a motif, which does not exist. I have seen in the past very beautiful
programmes killed by the African approach. For example, you discuss, there is a
clear programme and policy for bringing it to touch; you thought you’d
persuaded your minister and head of government; it was going to be tabled next
cabinet meeting. Now, one or two interested persons don’t like it at all
and then to your village they go, fetch your oldest uncle and persuade him that
there is something dangerous about to happen, and that they are going to make
his nephew approve it. This old man, out of love for his nephew, travels all
the way to your place, sees you and says, ‘My son, there are certain
things people want you to do tomorrow. But be careful.’ So, he has
planted fear in him ‘Be Careful.’ So the next morning, you think
the policy is going to be used but they say, ‘No, no, no, I think we have
to defend it.’ That kills it. These are things we contend with. I
remember saying, when I was trying to be an aspirant (presidential), that I was
tired of giving advice or being a minister. I would like to be in a position
where the buck stops on my table, and I know what I would do. But I was not
privileged.
And so I went in
(as economic adviser). But before going in, luckily there were three months
before the election and the President taking over office, and there were many
seminars. Things were worked out, ministry by ministry. Even the profile on who
the minister should be, the critical balance between technocrats and political
proselytizing, was explicit. Unfortunately, in this kind of heterogeneous
political setting, not the best plans need be followed consistently. And one
found himself not achieving what was achievable. And I don’t believe in
pretending to influence what I don’t influence. We are 40 years behind
where we should be in Nigeria. We have to see how we might get back en route.
The Federal
Government is pursuing its new ambitious economic policy - National
Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS) - which it says
will get us nearer the ‘promise land’. How do you see the
aspirations of this policy? Are there alternative means to bringing about the
rapid and sustained growth of the Nigerian economy?
And it (NEEDS)
contains how to get there? How huge is this document? Does it spell out how we
are going to achieve development? How? We run away with acronyms. How big is
this document? How does it compare with Volume One and Volume Two of, say, the
1975-1980 Plan in terms of their specification of growth targets?How does it compare with the things in
the Vision (2010) document? Why did we throw away the Vision document? We can
retune it. And I’m privy to what the (Theophilus) Danjuma Committee
produced for this administration; you know the President took over and set up
this committee.
If we insist, every
three or four years, on digging new foundations instead of building on what
exists, we’ll never reach the roof. And this has been the problem of
Nigeria. You remember around December 1999, we produced Obasanjo’s
economic policy targets for 1999-2003; putting percentages which were
realisable if they were pursued wholeheartedly. So, all I would say about NEEDS
is, we must now try - maybe in the past we didn’t do enough - to create a
constituency indepth for economic reforms. What they now want to do must be
canvassed and proselytized so that whoever succeeds them would keep on that
track. For once, Nigeria should stay focussed and not keep on throwing away
policies that don’t succeed after one or two years.
Now, how do you get
out of the woods? It’s better to take three or four priority areas, get
the best materials you can, and empower human resource. You cannot micro-manage
to success; empower them, challenge them, let them do it. Seven out of 10
times, they’ll succeed. But you must - as (Chinua) Achebe says,
‘You don’t go to a game taking your second eleven, go with your
best eleven’ - give them the necessary encouragement and support. And
don’t be easily deflected. We have tended in the past, soon as we do
something and the result doesn’t come immediately but criticism comes, to
leave it.
This country can
easily grow at 10 to 15 per cent per annum. If 1.4 billion people in China have
been able to achieve that over the last few decades, it is much easier for us.
We have more resources per capita, it’s very compact. Even in America, to
go from oil in California and Texas to iron and steel in Pittsburgh will cross
6,000 kilometres. Here from oil in Ugborode and Warri to Ajaokuta, you’re
talking about just 800 kilometres. Things are complex but we could move. In
fact, when you talk to some of the Asian Tigers, they will tell you they
borrowed some of the plans we had in the 1970’s and implemented them. We
came, rejected them and started inventing new things.
Which specific
sectors should attract attention in the nation’s bid to progress rapidly?
Personally, this
should be in the social sector. We must put a lot of money into education. Not
just money but the political will to see it succeed. The quality of education
must be improved, because it is only educated people who will move the economy
forward and who will improve on welfare. I’d put more resources into
primary and preventive health and also supply of potable water. This is an
absolute first charge on government resources.
Then in the
productive sector, I would get implemented immediately the concept of
‘buyer of last resort’ for the major Nigerian products in which we
want to increase production and quality: Food products such as cassava, maize,
millet, rice and so on. We should do all the analysis. What would it cost an
average farmer buying all his input, getting some labour to help him produce
one tonne of maize, and allowing for profit of 20 to 25 per cent? We should
guarantee that figure. And government should guarantee to buy maize at that
price. If the farmer can’t realise this in the market, we should buy it,
even if it is above world price. By the time you do it like they’ve done
in America and Korea for some time, the efficiencies would come and we would
become very competitive. But in the meantime, you allow inputs to come in; not
necessarily by government, because it leads to abuses, but let those who can
import fertiliser import and sell competitively. But they must take the price
that the farmer has to pay into account in fixing the producer price, then you
(government) intervene and buy. To do that properly, you (government) must have
adequate arrangements for cleaning what you buy, drying it, storing it. This
now enables you to encourage processing, because you can now say to people, ‘Come
and process.’ That increases the shelf life and gives you a value added
product, which can enter international trade. This is critical because I was
chairman of Bendel Feed and Flour Mills when wheat was banned and we tried to
buy wheat locally (but) you’ll get 50 bags here, travel another 10
kilometres and get another 10 bags, then 20 bags with a lot of gravel and all
that. Your competitor in Chicago presses an indent on a computer and they
deliver 1000 tonnes everyday. How can you compete? But if we set up this buyer
of last resort organisation, we can guarantee to deliver to you an agreed
quantity, which would allow you, in the process, some profit. So, it is the key
to improving agriculture and achieving food sufficiency. What would it take? If
even it takes voting $1 billion or $2 billion, thank God we’ve had these
little windfalls. Yes, let’s do that, never minding whether world price
is higher or lower. We will reach there.
So, you do that for
all the critical crops; you set up the buyer of last resort mechanism, adequate
storage and then you encourage farmers and processors by making credit
available at reasonable rate. It’s a pity that with the Land Use Decree
and the fragility of Certificate-of-Ownership, we destroyed land as a
collateral for farmers in borrowing. But be that as it may, there is now a new
agricultural bank. Give them money; give them this target interest rate of not
more than seven per cent, because you’re giving them money which they are
not paying for. Even if the bank has $50 billion each, nobody contributes his
money to lend from equity at a rate which is unprofitable. Unfortunately in
Nigeria - because we did not run the Provident Fund and the Social Insurance
Fund as well and as properly as Li Kuan Yew did it, for instance, in Singapore
- we don’t have, today, any source of long-term cheap funds. If there are
no long-term cheap funds, nobody can fund any development objective. But with
the new Pension Reforms, may be 10 years hence, we would have that sort of
thing. In the meantime, we should take money from budget, create these funds to
support agriculture and agro-allied industry, then petrochemicals, which is a
natural comparative advantage. Our gas is abundant and cheap. We are on the
edge of the Atlantic Ocean, we can deliver plastics and intermediate goods to
American market under AGOA (African Growth and Opportunity Act) only 3,500
miles across, compared with the 10,000 kilometres to our competitors in Asia.
And we are entering a duty-free arrangement. So, this is an area we can pursue.
With the right policies and simple politeness in bureaucracy and promptness in
answering questions and in administering the laws we’ve already produced,
there would be investment in that sector. The economics is clear; there is a
comparative advantage in that market and we would be using the latest
technology that everybody uses. But we must stoop to conquer. We must be polite
and welcoming. And we must not change the rules midstream. You can’t tell
me come on this basis, and within two or three years before you made the
profit, you’re changing plans. That is against the rule of investment,
whether Nigerian or foreign. So, we must pursue these.
Then on the
political front, we must strive now to find ways to appear more stable. We
should not spend time on continuous questions about whether the constitution is
right, impeachment today, impeachment tomorrow, and all that sort of thing. All
these are impacting badly on the nation. The Nigerian image outside is being
daily worsened by all these cacophonous politicking. And as far as I’m
concerned, the constitution we have is a contradiction in many places; we
should sit down and review it. What are the minimum powers required to keep as
a functioning federation? What should be the boundary of the exercise of
political power? Intolerance and totalitarianism are antithetical to democracy.
And as I said, we must reinvent the parties; allow the next two or three years
for proper parties founded on vision and principle, with clear guidelines on
discipline. And I must say on parties too - because I don’t believe in
this registration and no registration - we must not have religious parties. We
mustn’t have tribal parties, anti-democratic parties, and parties which
say, ‘When I win, I will destroy democracy.’ Apart from these, let
anybody form a party. I can form a party because I want to dig a canal from
Lagos to Maiduguri or I would introduce a French-type electoral system. So
what? After the first round of voting, if you don’t have 50 per cent you
don’t win. Then six weeks or eight weeks later, there would be a run-off
between the two leading candidates in each constituency. During that time,
there are deals done. And I would then put my little votes to a bigger party
that agrees that we need to have this canal. So, you don’t suppress the
people, and democracy is served. Yet, you still end up with an arrangement
which is workable because by the time two leading contenders remain, bargains
will be struck and you end up in venturing. And this would have been negotiated
and not imposed.
Copyright�
2004. All Rights Reserved.
Independent
Newspapers Limited
Block5,
Plot 7D, Wempco Road, Ogba, P.M.B.
21777, Ikeja, Lagos State, Nigeria. www.independentng.com
e-mail:
[email protected]
