|
BNW |
|
B N W: Biafra Nigeria World News |
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is human beings who matter
Text of a public lecture delivered by Prof. A. Bolaji Akinyemi at the launching of a book Nigeria, set aside by God for greatness: the untold story of June 12 annulment by Adesina Adedipe, on September 2, 2004`
PICKING a topic for this lecture has not been easy. First, it is most unusual to have a lecture as part of a book launching. The pride of place is usually allocated to the book review and book reviewer. However, the author, Mr. Sina Adedipe, has insisted that having a public lecture as part of the programme was by divine instruction. Secondly, picking a topic that will be most appropriate for a book that is both religious and political, written by a former journalist, now a religious figure, is at best problematic for me, since I am basically a political scientist.
The title, which I have chosen, is inelegant. My first choice was It is man who matters or even preferably It is man, stupid. But I knew that those who will not recognise the latter title as an adaptation of a phrase by Bill Clinton would quickly accuse me of being crude and rude which is not my intention. The phraseology would have been elegant but the use of the word "man" would have been politically incorrect even though I could have issued a caveat that I was using the term "man" in a generic sense, to include "woman."
In December 1963, I visited Cambridge, Massachusetts for the first time. One of the places which I visited, was Harvard University. Right on the front lawn was a plaque with the following inscription: What is man, that thou art mindful of him? And the son of man, that thou visitest him? Of course, I immediately recognised it as coming from Job 8 v 4. I sat there on the lawn looking very puzzled. What puzzled me was what the sign was doing there. What was the relevance of this quotation to what went on inside this famous university? I won't claim that I worked it out immediately. But it dawned on me that the import of the message was that whatever might be the activities inside that citadel of knowledge, man was supposed to be the beneficiary. Knowledge in the service of man. Scholarship in the service of man.
From that moment on, I have had plenty of time to ponder on the relationship of man with public policy. From the beginning of creation, man has granted leadership to the one capable of playing the role of a provider. Initially, the leadership role might have gone to the warrior as a security is the first priority of any society. But once the issue of security had been settled, in the primordial society, leadership gravitated towards the man or men who were capable of finding abundant food, fertile land for crops, grazing land for cattle and water. In animal world, as any watcher of the discovery channel would attest, it is the lion or the elephant which is capable of finding abundant food which leads the pack. In plant life, it is the plant with the root capable of finding abundant water that becomes the iroko tree, the giant of the forest. These are not observations, which are original to me. In fact these observations formed the basis on which Charles Darwin, as far back as 1859, based his book, The Origin of Species. It is what led him to propound the theory of the survival of the fittest.
The finding is so fundamental and simple that one may then be forgiven for wondering how such simplicity could have led to the complexities of economic theories that have complicated the lives of decision-makers and the lives of all of us. Could either Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, or Karl Marx, the father of socialism, have got it so wrong? Not really. Certainly, both were concerned with the creation and distribution of wealth. While Adam Smith saw individualism as the engine for wealth creation with the state performing a minimum regulatory function, Karl Marx saw the state, in a post-workers revolution as the engine of wealth creation and the engine of the equitable distribution of wealth already created.
But the bottom line is that wealth needs to be created. But it is not wealth restricted to individuals but societal wealth that creates a wealthy society. Lee Kuan Yew, the former Prime Minister of Singapore put it this way, "because people are unequal in their abilities, if performance and rewards are determined by the marketplace, there will be a few big winners, many medium winners, and a considerable number of losers. That would make for social tensions because a society's sense of fairness is offended. A winner-take-all society... would not be acceptable... To even out the extreme results of free-market competition, we had to redistribute the national income through subsidies on things that improved the earning power of citizens, such as education, housing and public health were also desirable."
In those very direct and unambiguous words, Lee Kuan Yew has set the parameters in which I intend to launch my debate. For the avoidance of doubt, let me restate the parameters. Wealth must be created but it must not be wealth for a few. Enough of the population must have a feeling that it is part of prosperity of that it has even chances of being part of the prosperity, and this could only be guaranteed through policies of government.
Historical perspective
As a form of shorthand, I can safely affirm that in Europe, the World War II marked the end of undiluted and unrestrained capitalism even though the phrase "the unacceptable phase of capitalism" was still to come about three decades later, courtesy of Prime Minister Edward Health of Great Britain. In the United States, it had come much earlier with the advance of the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration. The United States had gone into depression with massive unemployment on the eve of the World War II. Roosevelt had learnt the right lesson from Germany, where severe economic depression led to the rise of Nazism and Fascism. Observers had watched with apprehension as severe unemployment in the United States had led to Americans questioning their form of democracy and governmental institutions. Therefore, Roosevelt, on becoming the United States president, embarked on massive government intervention in the economy, with government financing of public projects in order to stimulate the economy and employment.
Therefore, by the beginning of the World War II, capitalism was in the process of being diluted. But the frontal challenge to capitalism had in fact being launched at the end of the World War I by the communist revolution in Russia which embarked on an attempt to build a society on the principles of Marxism.
The rest of Europe at the end of the World War II, leaned towards Marxism without adopting or acknowledging it when several post-war governments including the conservative ones nationalised key industries and adopted subsidies and deficit financing of the economy in order to stimulate the economy and employment. Equally significant, was the fact that governments both in Europe and the United States adopted extensive government-funded social welfare programmes in such key areas as education, health, housing and social security.
Nigeria, being part of the British empire at that time, adopted a limited and adapted form of the European socialism by embarking on government control of all the key sectors of the economy, building of hospitals and schools and providing subsidies to privately owned schools. There were government-owned housing and industrial schemes. After the introduction of the party-system of government in the fifties, Nigeria both at the federal and state levels adopted full social welfare programmes.
The important thing to stress is that apart from the Soviet Union which adopted populist programmes driven by ideology, Europe, the United States and Africa were driven by the lesson learnt from the French revolution where a simple demand for bread by the people led to a revolution and execution of the royalty.
Governments in Nigeria pursued social welfare programmes until the programmes of privatisation came on board. It must be pointed out that by the mid-70s it had become evident that government ownership of the commanding heights of the economy was not yielding the desired results. Government had become bloated and inefficient. Decisions in industrial and banking circles which needed urgent attention were victims to the slow and ponderous processes of the civil service. Voices were being heard demanding that the private sector should be allowed free reign.
I served on the Aminu Saleh Committee to draw up a defence policy for Nigeria. Alhaji Aminu Saleh was then the permanent secretary of the Ministry of Defence. The committee sat from 1980-1983. It was made up of very senior military officers, one of whom later ended up becoming a military Head of State, while the others became service chiefs. It also included some civilians holding critical public positions. The consensus within the committee was for government to divest itself from overexposure in the ownership and management of businesses and industries. We concluded that liberalisation and privatisation were urgently needed. But we did emphasise the need for the government to continue to vigorously pursue its social welfare programmes as the state of development of the society could not possibly endure undiluted effects of pure market forces.
I cannot remember anyone at that time bringing the World Bank into the debate within the committee. It is quite possible that a debate about privatisation and structural adjustment programme was going on within the World Bank at the same time that we were arguing within our committee. The point I am making is that the views of the World Bank did not feature during our deliberation. It does not mean that our conclusions were correct or should not be criticised but the argument that Nigeria adopted the World Bank philosophy when it embarked on SAP in 1985 does no justice to the members of that 1980s Saleh committee.
Two reasons are responsible for the slow and tardy adoption of the philosophy of liberalisation and privatisation, long after it had become evident that government was out of its depth in running and managing industries.
Bill Clinton, in his fascinating book, My Life, wrote this about one of his professors at Georgetown University, a Professor Carroll Qugley: "Two of Quigley's insights had a particularly lasting impact. First, he said that societies have to develop organised instruments to achieve their military, political, economic, social, religious and intellectual objectives. The problem... is that all instruments eventually become 'institutionalised' - that is vested interests more committed to preserving their prerogatives than to meeting the needs for which they were created."
It was evident that not only the civil service, but all the ancillary institutions which had been created in the 1945-1985 period to service a welfare state in addition to the network of beneficiaries which the welfare state had set constituted a veritable stumbling block to change, reform or revolution. In a democratic setting, a strong party leader such as Margaret Thatcher could use the party network to create a public climate that will be sufficiently strong enough to overcome the entrenched interests. But in a military regime, whose narrow base in the military establishment, an establishment that is vulnerable to poaching by vested interests, external to that establishment, reform and change can only be embarked upon minimally, and incrementally.
The second factor that impeded change, was the influence of the left-wing intelligentsia, which was out of all proportion to its actual numerical strength. In the absence of a party system on which civilian politics is based, which would have been the source of competitive public ideas, the ideas of the left-wing intelligentsia tended to dominate the press and public debate, thereby giving a distorted view of what constituted the national interest. The fact that the press was also read avidly in the barracks, meant that a military regime which had to watch its military back was equally oversensitive to left-wing ideas even when it knew that the views were wrong. In fact this was the background to General Babangida's lashing out at radicalism when he was still the chief of army staff.
These two factors put together, meant that any attempt to implement the recommendations of the 1980 defence committee in reforming the instrumentalities of the 1980 defence committee in reforming the instrumentalities of the welfare state, in introducing liberalisation ran the risk of being labelled reactionary, comprador, running dog of capitalism or its latest label, running dog of the World Bank.
Serious reform was embarked upon in 1986, and it has continued up to date. It has witnessed the enthronement of market forces, marked by the abolition or reduction in economic regulations, marked by massive devaluation of the currency, shrinking or downsizing of the public service, abolition of licensing regimes etc. Where has this led Nigeria?
The number of banks in Nigeria has grown in several multiple terms from 1985 to 2004. A few Nigerians are supposed to have banked $107 billion abroad out of $280 billion earned since independence.? It is now known even on the streets of Askelon that the 2004 human development report rated Nigeria at 151 out of 177 countries in order of poverty. What has still not sunk in among Nigerians is how bad the details really are. Firstly, Nigeria is classified among the low human development, a category we share with Togo, Congo, Lesotho, Yemen, Kenya to mention just a few. Better off than us, in the medium human development category, are Cameroun, Nepal, Sudan, Swaziland, Nepal, Ghana, Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu, Cambodia, Sao Tome and Principe, Mongolia, Cape Verde, Equatorial Guinea, just to mention a few.
I cannot overwhelm this audience with too much statistics. So, I will just mention a few. Life expectancy is assessed at 51.6 years, compared to Pakistan at 60.8 years, Ghana at 57.8 years, Sao Tome and Principe at 69.7 years and Cape Verde at 70 years. Nigeria's literacy rate is 66.8 per cent compared to Zimbabwe at 70 per cent, Lesotho at 81.4 per cent, Swaziland at 80.9 per cent, Sao Tome and Principe at 83.1 per cent, Cape Verde at 75.7 per cent and Equatorial Guinea at 84.2 per cent. Combined gross enrolment ratio for primary, secondary and tertiary schools for Nigeria is 45 per cent compared to Uganda at 71 per cent, Togo at 67 per cent, Botswana at 70 per cent, Gabon at 74 per cent, and Cape Verde at 73 per cent. Population without sustainable access to an improved water source for Nigeria is 38 per cent compared to Equatorial Guinea at 56 per cent, Papua New Guinea at 58 per cent. Population below income poverty line is very depressing. 70 per cent live on $1 (N130) a day, 90 per cent on $2 (N260) a day. I will not even compare Nigeria with other countries as far as this category is concerned. Without comparison, the picture is grim and alarming enough. Nigeria spends 0.8 per cent of its GDP on health compared to Cape Verde, 3.8 per cent, South Africa 3.6 per cent, Botswana 4.4 per cent, and Swaziland 2.3 per cent, 36 per cent of our children are underweight and 43 per cent are underheight. Final set of figures: The richest 10 per cent of Nigerians control 40.8 per cent of the wealth, the richest 20 per cent control 55.7 per cent and the poorest 20 per cent control only 4.4 per cent of the wealth. For all its worth, I must however point out that the income distribution profiles for all the countries in the medium and low human development categories are just as scandalous.
Let me recall, at this stage, the immortal words of John F. Kennedy and rephrase it into a question: "if a free society cannot help the many who are poor, can it save the few who are rich?"
What is the way forward? Time will not permit an exhaustive presentation. My anchor will rest on five platforms: Firstly, there must be policies to ensure massive employment. This does not necessarily involve a bloated civil or public service. What it involves is a miniaturised public works system. Our roads and byways, whether inter-state, urban, or rural need repairs, maintenance and beautification. While the major repairs could be assigned to the major construction companies, maintenance and beautification should be assigned to small road maintenance companies. Young graduates from the youth service corps year should be encouraged to set up these mini companies that government, whether at federal, state, or rural, will guarantee these contracts`.
The country does not need machine-intensive construction contracts in all areas at this time. What we need are labour intensive contracts. A laudable example of what I am advocating is the recent step taken by the NCC in pre-selecting small scale companies to bid for the printing of GSM cards. In times past, such giant companies as the mint would have been selected.
Secondly, Nigerian land culture has never been amenable to ranching syndrome. Most of the cocoa and groundnut exported from this country came from small landholdings of about two acres each. Although land is a state responsibility, all the three tiers should get together to evolve an agricultural programme that will involve allocation of state land for agricultural purposes to young graduates prepared to embark on a farming career. Loans must be guaranteed, prices must be guaranteed and purchase and warehousing of produce must be guaranteed.
Thirdly, the government has to revisit the whole issue of subsidy. Let me state from the beginning that I accept that there is still a subsidy regime in place on petroleum products, based on imported landing costs, and not on extraction costs. But given the fact that Nigeria does not have a social security system in place, and given the fact that the price of petroleum affects everything from foodstuffs to housing, the constant gradual withdrawal of subsidy on petroleum products has had a devastating negative impact on the standard of living of Nigerians. Petroleum is the only asset that we have now to cushion poverty in the country. Until we get our agricultural sector back up and running, until we get industries back into full production, we have no choice but to maintain a credible subsidy regime on petroleum way above what it has been reduced to.
Fourthly, an emergency should be declared on the employment sector. I will repeat a suggestion, which I made as far back as 1999. Government should enter into dialogue with the private sector to design an employment package where manufacturers and service providers who employ more than 10 (a negotiable no) will double the employment at Federal Government expense for a two year period which may be regarded as a period of industrial attachment. The products of this programme will benefit from the small and medium scale industrial fund, which is at presently under-utilised in the banks.
Finally, there is a programme, which will tackle the twin problems of security and employment. The problem with institutions which were set up when society was settled and stable is often an inability to adapt to meet emergency needs. Normally, military training institutions take not less than two years to train officers. But during the World War II, officers were being turned out in the United States every six months. While the Nigerian police insists on its regular training programme in the limited number of police colleges, LATMA, KAI and FERMA have all shown that with limited training over a short period, paramilitary forces can be put on hands of the members of regular forces. I suggest that the government should set up a National Guard based on compulsory national service of three years duration for all graduates of post-elementary institutions who graduated in 1999 and above. Institutions by themselves are not bad and mischievous. Therefore, this proposal should not be compared with the 1990s proposal for a National Guard. With a training programme of six months, we should be able to flood Nigerian streets with paramilitary forces to reinforce security and mop up unemployed youths.
The argument against my proposals can be anchored on costs. Government find the funds for mega-projects like the Abuja stadium etc. Besides, we have now built up surplus funds from the mega-rise in the price of crude petroleum. Before these funds are expended on frivolous projects, governments can give serious consideration to these proposals.
Ancient and modern literature is full of admonitions. Proverbs 22:16 warns "if you make gifts for the rich people or oppress the poor to get rich, you will become poor yourself." John F. Kennedy in his famous warning served notice that those who make peaceful changes impossible make violent revolution inevitable. In other words, change is a constant variable of life. The alternative is to have it either peacefully or violently. If people ask for bread, bread should be provided or else it is a revolution, a revolution that in the past led to the beheading of a king and his queen.
|
|
||||||||||||
