CALLS FOR FUEL SUBSIDY REMOVAL: HOW NOT TO HELP THE PRESIDENT

 Published October 1st, 2011

Never in the history of Nigeria has any president or military ruler enjoyed the overwhelming support of the low and middle class as Goodluck Jonathan does. These two socio-economic classes make up over 80% of the Nigerian population. The interpretation of this analysis is that Goodluck Jonathan is Nigeria’s first “people’s president.” Several reasons are responsible for this political development. However, let me dwell on the fundamental factor.

After decades of uncertainty, Nigerians have come to accept democracy as the best form of government. Up till 1999, a greater percentage of Nigerians preferred military dictatorship to civilian administration. The foundation of this aberration is not far-fetched. Previous democratic experiments crashed on the heads of hapless Nigerian masses. It happened that most politicians simply used their privileged positions in government to pursue personal, tribal, and religious interests. This sad political development went on to rubbish the fair spirit of democracy. Soon, corruption, tribalism, religious intolerance, political thuggery, and decaying public infrastructure drowned the fertile expectations of the hoard of the unemployed, middle and low income Nigerians. What followed this distasteful reality was not unexpected. People started clamouring for change. Sadly however, this change came not through the ballot boxes, but barrel of guns. At first, it never mattered much to the masses. People were just interested in a change; not minding the colour or taste.

Just in no distant time, falsehood grew weak and collapsed on the laps of military dictators. These despots spoke in tongues that resembled those of saints. Despite the quality of propaganda they unleashed on harmless and unsuspecting Nigerians; all their lies could not be turned into truth. It however cost Nigeria the sweat and blood of some patriotic citizens for the unsuspecting masses to come to the realization that democracy was superior to dictatorship. The important point to note is that the problem with Nigerian democracy was traditional. It had something to do with our peculiar political attitude.

In countries where democracy is working, it is the political leaders that have made it so. This directly rests the blame for Nigeria’s poor democratic culture on the shoulders of the nation’s political class, which have continued to ignore the fundamental fact that democracy is all about identifying and finding solutions to the needs of society. These needs include peace, security of lives and property, economic growth, infrastructural development, and social welfare.

It was in this state in the political history of Nigeria that Dr. Goodluck Jonathan came into the scene. From every available indication, Jonathan’s emergence is more of a divine interjection than human connections. President Jonathan is no doubt Nigeria’s first unassuming head of government. He is intelligent, humble, hardworking, and a God-trusting personality. His captainship of Aso Rock defied many national traditions and norms. Apart from the fact that he is the first PhD holder to mount Nigeria’s presidency, Jonathan is the only minority to have been entrusted with the nation’s driving seat. His famous “I was not born rich” speech endeared him to many voters, weeks leading to the April 2011 presidential election. Millions of ordinary Nigerians, including myself hurriedly saw Jonathan as “our man.” This was a man that went to school without sandals or bag to carry his books. He slept under an electric fan only at the University of Port Harcourt.

It never took many suffering Nigerians more than ten seconds to pick Jonathan as their presidential choice. The outcome of the 2011 presidential election did not come as a surprise to many. Even the few that expressed doubt about his chances did so based on their fears about the towering ethnic and religious factors in Nigerian politics. They therefore wondered how Jonathan could survive an election that will be decided by tribe and creed. It is gladdening that Nigeria has crossed the bridge of parochial sentiments.

The outcome of the 2011 presidential election was indeed a coup against the few but powerful enemies of Nigeria. The down-trodden masses decided to join forces to say no to the dirty and old order, where they are used and hurriedly dumped after oiling the ambitions of a few smooth-tongued politicians. Even in the midst of the darkest night, one thing has become very clear. Nigerians are tired of bad political leadership. President Jonathan appreciates this fact too. Unfortunately, not many in his team are on the same page with him. This is not only dangerous for him as an individual, but a big threat to the culture of democracy in Nigeria. The president must therefore do everything within his powers to moderate the opinions and counsels of his advisers and aides.

The greatest problem political leaders worldwide face is in the selection of a “winning team.” This is responsible for the many cases where government officials reason and walk in different directions. In such cases, the president usually fails to deliver on his mandate. Like President Jonathan himself confessed shortly before the nomination of his cabinet, people seek political offices for different reasons. While some are for service, others for personal gains. There are still some who seek power just to protect the interests or agendas of third party organisations. Quite frankly, it is very difficult to separate the “clean” from the “dirty” because they all wear the same faces and robes.

To help differentiate between the “clean” and “dirty”, political leaders are expected to listen to the opinions of their advisers, but strongly consider the interests of the masses. This is the secret of successful political leaders. Very few government officials will be ingenious enough to climb down from their Olympian heights to consider the feelings of the unemployed or low income earners. Their reasoning is always unilateral. The beauty of democracy is not in how sweet a song is, but how many people “feel” the lyrics. The truth is that democracy is all about numbers. The majority may be wrong in some cases. They cannot be wrong all the time. Nigerian masses are indeed right in asking for the continuation of fuel subsidy at least for now.

It is a huge fact that many of those who voted for President Jonathan are card-carrying members of political parties other than the People’s Democratic Party (PDP). This is one good reason why the president must ignore every temptation and continue to absorb criticisms from the opposition. This will make him a better president than all his predecessors. No doubt, criticisms will come from labour, NGOs, cultural, and even faith-based organisations. It is also true that some persons and organisations simply find it fashionable to criticize every government policy or programme. This is wrong. Ordinarily, criticisms should be constructive.

However, one very important fact to consider is that criticisms of government policies and programs usually arise from isolated issues. For instance, labor and civil society organisations have vowed to resist any attempt to increase the pump price of petrol following the announcement by the minister of Finance, Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala that that government is planning to remove petrol subsidy soon. Protests also greeted the revelation that electricity tariff will be reviewed upward early next year. It is not as if these government policies are bad. The problem lies in the fact that in developing policies and frameworks, most government officials usually refuse to look at all the sides of the coin. Every policy must take into consideration associated factors such as culture, income strength, percentage of unemployment, and level of poverty. Take for instance calls for the removal of fuel subsidy. Those making this call hinge their argument mainly on the fact that other developed countries have saved a lot of money through the withdrawal of fuel subsidy. Unfortunately, the proponents of fuel subsidy removal have forgotten that the least citizens of those countries earn is as much as $130 a day. One cannot for any reason compare this to a country where many earn less that $2 a day. They have deliberately ignored the fact that the level of unemployment and poverty are still very high in Nigeria.

There is no doubt about the fact that the withdrawal of fuel subsidy will save billions of Naira for government to invest in other critical areas. However, the other side of the coin is that majority of Nigerians are too poor to buy a litre of fuel even at N65. These are persons that earn less than $2 a day. It is with this $2 that they pay for the feeding, rent, clothing, education, and medical expenses of their family members. Withdrawing fuel subsidy at this time will definitely increase the level of poverty in Nigeria. The gains of the new minimum wage of N18,000 will be rubbished by the hike in the pump price of fuel. Like I have suggested in my other write-ups on this same issue, those pushing for the removal of petroleum subsidy would sing a different song if they were earning even N100,000 a month. Many persons in the “president’s team” are not on the same page with him. Ordinarily, their opinions are supposed to be shaped by the pledge of the president, which is to “stand with the masses.”

This brings to the fore how ministers, special advisers, senior special assistants, and other aides are not helping the president to “stand with the masses.” Just as there are many ways to kill a rat, there also many ways they can help the president succeed without hurting the masses. Since from independence, hapless Nigerian masses have been forced to carry the burden of national economic transformation agendas, leaving the elites free as eagles in a clear sky. Like is usually done in western democracies, formulators of fiscal policies should turn the heat on the wealthy this time around. Government should introduce heavy taxes on luxury cars, mansions, and all imported goods that can be produced locally. Government should also reduce the salaries and allowances of elected officials and political appointees. More than that, the fight against corruption should be taken to the zenith.

Furthermore, government should pay more attention to the development of the non-oil sector of the economy. This should be done by energizing the private sector to perform at optimum capacity. This will however mean having a robust power groundwork, cheap access to credit facilities, lower interest rates, improved security of lives and property, friendly tax regime, and a sound transport infrastructure among others. With these fiscal policies, the economy will pick up and help create jobs and improve the welfare of the citizenry. It is at this point that government can contemplate the removal of fuel subsidy. By then, the nation’s socio-economic framework would be able to absorb the shocks that would come with it.

It is a shame that the world’s sixth largest producer of crude oil is importing fuel for local consumption. It shows that something is wrong with us as a nation. Instead of joining forces with the ministry of Petroleum Resources to make our refineries work at optimum capacity, the Minister of Finance, Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala and Governor of Central Bank, Mallam Sanusi Lamido Sanusi see the removal of petroleum subsidy as a magic wand that will help provide the bulk of the money Nigeria needs to service her socio-economic masterplan. They should look elsewhere to raise money. The Nigerian masses have seen enough this last fifty years! This is very important because fuel is one thing that everybody uses directly or indirectly. There is no doubt that any increase in the pump price of fuel will prompt the upward review of transport fares, school fees, house rent, food stuff, and health care services.

CEO, Nigeria Democracy Watchtower

2, Greenvilla-Customs Link Road

Biogbolo-Epie

Yenagoa

Bayelsa State.

08064074810

Join Nigerian Social Network, Make Friends, Share Your Views!