While it is not criminal for a
magistrate or judge to err in law, same
cannot be said of a president when he or
she errs in democracy. In law, an
appellate court will simply correct the
error which is also seen as “mistake of
law.” In a presidential democracy, the
electorates will correct an erring
president by voting him out of office if
he or she is seeking re-election. On the
other hand, the electorates are easily
persuaded to embrace the opposition if
the erring president is not seeking
re-election. This has happened several
times in American presidential
democracy.
There is an emerging line of reasoning
that sound political leaders can never
be misled by their lieutenants in a
democracy. This is not true. It must be
noted that different people are in
government for diverse 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 organizations.
Of greater worry are those who stay in
government to deliberately give counsels
that will pitch the people against
government. In most cases, those who
prime themselves to deliberately mislead
political leaders wear honourable
personalities and also parade very
attractive credentials that can flatter
anybody. They are the ones I term “false
patriots.” This is what Jesus Christ
said of such people in Matthew 24:24-25,
“For false Christs and false prophets
will rise and show great signs and
wonders to deceive, if possible, even
the elect. See, I have told you
beforehand.” There are very many “false
patriots” in the corridors of power in
Abuja. The only way to survive this
minority but influential clan of “false
patriots” is for the president to stand
with the masses.
One question that readily comes to mind
at this point is: why are political
leaders easily misled by “false
patriots” even in the light of all the
deliberate designs put in place to
protect the culture of democracy and
promote good governance? Specifically,
political leaders are misled due to the
peculiar template of democratic
bureaucracy, where internal independence
is usually granted some specialized
sectors such as military, economy,
agriculture, science and technology. For
instance, current and past global
economic crisis are products of internal
independence granted some specialised
agencies of governments in the West. To
be more specific, former president
George Bush of the United States was
misled into ordering the invasion of
Iraq in 2003 owing to false
intelligence. It has now become clear
that internal independence gives too
much room for administration officials
to mislead political leaders and heads
of national government.
As part of efforts to effectively tackle
this problem, most legislatures in the
developed climes have responded by
showing deeper interests in critical
national issues that are traditionally
left in the hands of the executive arm
of government. The aim is to safeguard
national security and economy. In almost
all advanced democracies today, national
security has been elaborated to
consciously identify causes of dissent
arising from unpopular government
policies. Members of the legislature and
the media play a major role in this
regard.
It is in realization of this important
fact that the fanatical anti-subsidy
apostles in Nigeria have now shifted
their battle to the sacred floors of the
National Assembly in Abuja. The aim is
to lure lawmakers to endorse plans by
the federal government to remove fuel
subsidy next year after stiff opposition
from NLC, TUC, NUPENG, NBA, and other
pro-masses organizations. Nigerian
masses have come to the conclusion that
the promised palliative measures cannot
adequately compensate for their already
feeble purchasing power that will be
further weakened by the increase in the
prices of goods and services that have
direct and indirect link with petrol.
This writer does not know of any product
or service that does not have direct or
indirect attachment to petrol.
One basic fact need to be highlighted
here. The nation’s economic advisers and
fiscal policy formulators are lazy and
non-creative. They are merely “copying
and pasting” foreign fiscal policies. An
economic strategy that works in country
A may not necessarily do well in country
B. This is because population, literacy
level, culture, religion, science and
technology determines which policy works
where and when. The IMF and World Bank
have all accepted this fact. Sadly
however, both the IMF and World Bank are
quick in advising developing economies
to devalue their currencies and abandon
subsidy regimes. But unknown to many,
the United States, Canada, and members
of the European Union subsidize critical
sectors of their economies in order to
protect their citizens cum national
security. High unemployment, poverty,
and hunger pose great threats to the
national security of a country.
In 2010, the European Union spent €57
billion on agricultural development
programme. Of this amount, €39 billion
was spent on direct subsidies. Who is
fooling who? The West is indeed fooling
Africans. They are however using some of
our willing intellectuals to do so. It
is the duty of every government to
identify the critical sector in its
economy to intervene. Frankly, it would
be wide of the mark for Nigeria to
remove fuel subsidy because Britain or
the United did so. It is so sad that our
fiscal policy formulators and economic
advisers have become so lethargic that
they have relegated themselves to merely
copying and pasting foreign fiscal
policies that do not fit with our
peculiar circumstances.
For months now, our nation’s “false
patriots” have been fighting dirty to
win the subsidy removal battle. It is
extremely absurd for anyone to remind
Nigerian masses of the pump price of
petrol in the United States, Canada, or
Europe all in a bid to buttress their
campaign for the removal of fuel
subsidy. Apart from the fact that
unemployment figures are low in those
climes, they also have cheap and
efficient mass transportation systems,
discounted housing and health care
programs. These are just a few of the
safety nets put in place by governments
in developed democracies to protect the
welfare of their citizens. These safety
nets were not deployed in four or eight
years. For instance, it would take up to
a decade to build an effective national
transportation infrastructure. That is
one reason why those who are in a
position to appreciate what it would
take government to put in place safety
nets to cushion the effects of
withdrawal of fuel subsidy suspect
government’s sincerity. For the
avoidance of doubt, it would cost
government more than what it spends on
fuel subsidy to deploy effective safety
nets to cushion the effects of increase
in the price of petrol. Government
should not make the mistake of tying the
deployment of new and the rehabilitation
of existing national public
infrastructure to the removal of fuel
subsidy. It is something government owes
the citizenry.
It will also be necessary to remind the
minority clan of anti-subsidy
campaigners that Nigerians would be too
willing to buy a liter of petrol for
even N150 if public and private sector
workers earn as much as their
contemporaries do in America and Europe.
Instead of being creative, the nation’s
fiscal policy formulators and economic
experts in government have chosen to
take the short-cut to national
transformation by merely copying and
pasting World Bank and IMF
prescriptions. It is longer secret that
both the World Bank and IMF are tools
used by the West to pursue their hidden
economic agendas against developing
countries especially in Africa. Most of
the fiscal prescriptions that come out
of the World Bank and IMF are usually
anti-people and specifically designed to
pitch the masses in developing countries
against their governments so as to brew
economic crisis and consequent social
dissent. With this, they would be able
to discreetly sabotage rapid economic
growth in Africa and protect the
export-based economies of Western
democracies. Some of such fiscal
prescriptions are Structural Adjustment
Program, Currency Devaluation, and
Anti-Subsidy policy.
The time has come for President Jonathan
to hear the truth. There are too many
“false patriots” in his administration.
No doubt, they are honourable in
appearance and eloquent during debates.
The truth is that they do not mean well
for him and Nigeria. Like it is in every
developed country, the people are the
centerpiece of democracy. For this
singular reason, any policy that will
injure the welfare of the people must be
jettisoned. Call for the removal of fuel
subsidy is one of them.
It has been very clear right from the
onset that the federal government’s
fiscal plan of withdrawing fuel subsidy
next year is not the idea of President
Goodluck Jonathan. Nevertheless, he will
bear whatever consequences that may
arise from it. This is the major reason
why the president must ignore the
minority clan of well-heeled elites and
stand with the Nigerian masses like he
promised during the campaign season. To
do this, President Jonathan would have
to quickly separate reality from cheap
logic as being postulated by some of his
lieutenants in the corridors of power.
For the avoidance doubt, it is the
fundamental responsibility of government
to see that the welfare of the citizens
is protected through deliberate policies
with human face. The planned removal of
fuel subsidy would not have human face
as far as the poor and hapless Nigerian
masses are concerned. Government should
rather look for other means of raising
money to fund the nation’s
socio-economic framework. In the last
five decades, it has been the low and
middle class that have shouldered the
burden of national transformation,
leaving the wealthy few to swim in their
typically questionable affluence.
Government can raise up to N1 trillion
by imposing 2% annual tax (for 5 years
from date of purchase) on every private
car above N3 million, 2% tax on every
private residential house costing more
than N7 million, 1% on each local flight
ticket, 2% on each international flight
ticket, 2% tax on accommodation in
luxury hotels, and 50% reduction in the
salaries and allowances of elected and
appointed government officials.
Furthermore, government should build
more refineries and also ensure that the
four existing ones operate at optimum
capacities. With this, the pump price of
petrol will fall in line with what is
obtainable in other OPEC countries,
where a liter of petrol sells between N9
and N45. The masses should not be
punished for the deliberate ineptitude
of some government officials that
sabotaged our local refineries in order
to promote the fuel import business.
KALI GWEGWE
CEO, NIGERIA DEMOCRACY
WATCHTOWER
2, GREENVILLA-CUSTOM
LINK ROAD
BIOGBOLO-EPIE
YENAGOA
BAYELSA STATE
08064074810
http://nigeriademocracywatchtower.blogspot.com
Published
November 29th, 2011
