Be calm and focused on your strategy. Be passionate but not emotional: Success in strategy requires intense focus, passion and commitment. But the line between passion and emotions is very thin. Don’t cross that line. Barack Obama never crossed the line. John McCain crossed it virtually every day of the campaign. He got angry, appearing irritated and insulted that Obama had the audacity to contest against him. In the debates, he couldn’t bare to look directly at Obama. The problem is anger and other disruptive emotions get in the way of your reasoning and lead to mistakes, and not surprisingly McCain moved from one error to another, acquiring a reputation as being erratic. Note however that genuine positive emotions (such as Hillary’s tearful moment) may sometimes help.
Execution is everything!: Barack Obama built an overwhelming and tight execution capacity and worked it very tightly through the primaries to the general election. Plans are nothing, if you can’t execute them. You must have a very effective and disciplined organisation that ensures you carry out your plans before your competitor. He raised money easily, had foot soldiers all over the US, even in republican strongholds and built a system that delivered the voters.
Use Technology: Obama’s campaign reminds businesses that technology can be a real source of competitive advantage, and not just a cost centre, or fanciful machines. The campaign used the internet better than any other campaign, used social networking sites such as facebook and myspace, kept an impressive database of supporters with whom it communicated seamlessly and raised vast sums of money through the internet, leaving experienced politicians versed in “manual” face-to-face politics wondering what hit them. Don’t just buy fashionable technology. Use it to overwhelm your opposition.
Charisma and Intellect combined with sound strategy and excellent communication skills make you an unbeatable brand: It is not accidental that the most important leaders in business and politics are charismatic and communicate well. J.F Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Kwame Nkrumah, Martin Luther King Jnr, Murtala Muhammed, Tony Blair are all “good looking” and speak well. For businesses, your brand is your looks, and your brand projection and external communication represents your ability to speak well. Nurture your “looks” and “speech” and your business will thrive. But note that this people didn’t just speak well, they had the intellect and depth to go with it. So build your brand on substance, not hype (like Sarah Palin).
Don’t fight today’s or tomorrow’s wars using yesterday’s strategies: Successful generals always make the mistake of using their old successful tactics and strategies anytime they are confronted with a new foe, ultimately to their peril. The war front and the competitive market place are always changing. No matter how successful you have been in the past, carefully observe in what way the terrain has changed and adapt or even overhaul your strategy accordingly. The Republican Party has been very successful against the democrats, beating Al Gore and John Kerry with a much weaker candidate-George W Bush. But they did not recognise that Americans were tired of war, and were worried about the economy. These ultimately cost them victory. Obama on the other hand, suspected that Americans wanted a new direction, with less partisanship, and issue-oriented campaigns, and crafted an appropriate strategy.
When the industry leader is over-confident and complacent, it may be time to move against him: The “industry leaders” in America were tired and arrogant, a very bad combination. The Republicans as a party, and the political elite-the Bushes, McCains, Clintons, and Kennedys no longer had the fire in their belly that had propelled them to the top. They now had a sense of entitlement, as if the world was obligated to them. Well the world owes you nothing! The market owes you nothing! You succeed or fail on your current performance, not historical record. Obama had that fire and challenged the tired incumbents. It is the same in business. Success often changes the successful and presents an opportunity to the ambitious. Seize that opportunity.
Don’t fight dirty, but don’t ignore your opponent’s underhand tactics: Barack Obama learnt important lessons from Al Gore, John Kerry and even Michael Dukakis. The republicans used “swift boat politics” to destroy Kerry’s record as a war hero; they rigged out Al Gore in Florida; and they turned Dukakis’ intellect against him making him look like a Harvard academic rather than a political leader. Guess what they used all three against Obama, but none of them worked because Obama prepared against all those tactics. He responded to every Jeremiah Wright or William Ayers accusation; he aggressively brought out black, Latino and young voters in the battleground states and encouraged early voting to preclude a Florida scenario; and he was careful not to validate republican accusations of being ‘professorial’.
Build a loyal and committed team: Barack Obama reminds us of the invaluable benefit of having a loyal and committed team. The Obama campaign was a very loyal powerhouse, with no leaks and everyone absolutely committed to the team’s success. Victory was not just a credit to Obama, it was about Michelle Obama, David Plouffe, David Axelrod, Robert Gibbs, Paul Harstad, Susan Rice, Gregory Craig, Rahm Emmanuel, Valerie Jarret and other members of the tight Chicago team that Obama assembled working together towards a common goal. Obama had his back covered. Many people are surrounded by their enemies. To succeed in any enterprise, ensure you are surrounded by the right people.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Strategy Lessons from Barack Obama (1)
The strategist may be concerned and may derive conceptual lessons and applications from national development strategies, military and war strategy, politics, sports, love and friendship, personal success and even from spiritual warfare and the Bible. I have for instance written on these pages “Strategy Lessons from football” which was an attempt to distil lessons business managers could learn from soccer. I have also written “The Ultimate Strategist”-that of course is the Almighty God, who alone ultimately grants success to any human venture-“except the Lord builds, they labour in vain who build the house”.
Today we focus on politics and specifically Barack Obama’s astounding victory in the November 4, 2008 US presidential elections. It was an improbable victory. It looked like a long shot. Obama sought a political objective that was unprecedented, perhaps revolutionary. Yet in the end, his victory was total and complete, even redefining the US political map and changing probably for ever the course of political and social development in America and the rest of the world. Surely there must be some lessons business managers and strategists can learn from Barack Obama. In this article, we attempt to identify some of those lessons.
Don’t accept Industry Orthodoxy: If Obama had accepted the accepted orthodoxy in the political “industry”, he would have believed that he needed to build up a decent Senate legislative record before he could countenance a run for the White House. He would also have been told that an African-American could not hope to win the US presidency, especially a first-generation one with a Kenyan father, and a Muslim background. Obama did not believe any of this believing that industry conditions are dynamic, not static, and that individual market participants are not helpless concerning them. In short, he sought and succeeded in shaping his industry, rather than accepting received wisdom.
There is no reason why you can’t aim for industry leadership: Related to the above point, Obama felt he was as entitled as any one else to become US president. That would have been presumptuous considering the giants like Hillary Clinton (a former first lady with the powerful Clinton machinery behind her) within his party, and a war hero and distinguished long serving Senator like John McCain who he faced in the general election. Any conventional “manager” may have been sensible to discount the possibility of victory in such a lop-sided contest. But not Obama, and his audacity of hope. The concept of strategic intent is similar. Successful companies set audacious, stretch goals, and put strategy, passion and commitment behind them, and many times, they succeed.
Look beyond current industry boundaries: Barack Obama may not have won either the democratic primary or the general election if he didn’t attract new voters into the equation. So he aggressively courted young, first time voters and encouraged many to vote for the very first time. Business strategists must similarly think beyond current consumers and markets. Where are the “blue oceans”? Who are the consumers of the future? How can your firm change the market boundaries to your advantage?
When there is a winning idea, resources and capital will always be available: Many firms and entrepreneurs blame the shortcomings of their businesses on the lack of finance. Obama suggests otherwise. There is no conceivable reason why anyone could have expected Obama to raise more money than Hillary or McCain. But markets recognise good ideas. If your idea is a winning one, capital will become available.
A nimble, creative and resourceful new entrant can outmanoeuvre the big, unwieldy, resource-rich dinosaur: At the end of the day, creativity and innovation will defeat a bigger player, who has no new ideas. John McCain brought nothing new into the general elections except the scare tactics that had been used successfully against John Kerry and Al Gore. The voters facing economic crisis had been inured against those but McCain’s strategists did not recognise the need for a new strategy. Same with Hillary-she assumed it was about experience, but the market wanted change, and it was too late before she realised.
Find the right strategy, and stick to it!: Barack Obama had only one message throughout the democratic primaries and the general election-change! While John McCain kept on trying every tactic in the book, Obama stuck to his single message-change we can believe in, change we need, change has come to Washington!
Take the battle to your opponent’s territory: Barack Obama in the last days of the campaign forced McCain to continue to defend states that were historically assumed to be safe republican territory, and in the end won several of them. He succeeded in forcing McCain on the defensive, even spending scare campaign resources in his home state of Arizona. Of course McCain could not dare near any democratic stronghold-Chicago, New York, Massachusetts etc, but was on the defensive in Ohio, Indiana, etc. Don’t be continuously defending your markets, let the competitor be busy defending his while you consolidate your own markets.
Today we focus on politics and specifically Barack Obama’s astounding victory in the November 4, 2008 US presidential elections. It was an improbable victory. It looked like a long shot. Obama sought a political objective that was unprecedented, perhaps revolutionary. Yet in the end, his victory was total and complete, even redefining the US political map and changing probably for ever the course of political and social development in America and the rest of the world. Surely there must be some lessons business managers and strategists can learn from Barack Obama. In this article, we attempt to identify some of those lessons.
Don’t accept Industry Orthodoxy: If Obama had accepted the accepted orthodoxy in the political “industry”, he would have believed that he needed to build up a decent Senate legislative record before he could countenance a run for the White House. He would also have been told that an African-American could not hope to win the US presidency, especially a first-generation one with a Kenyan father, and a Muslim background. Obama did not believe any of this believing that industry conditions are dynamic, not static, and that individual market participants are not helpless concerning them. In short, he sought and succeeded in shaping his industry, rather than accepting received wisdom.
There is no reason why you can’t aim for industry leadership: Related to the above point, Obama felt he was as entitled as any one else to become US president. That would have been presumptuous considering the giants like Hillary Clinton (a former first lady with the powerful Clinton machinery behind her) within his party, and a war hero and distinguished long serving Senator like John McCain who he faced in the general election. Any conventional “manager” may have been sensible to discount the possibility of victory in such a lop-sided contest. But not Obama, and his audacity of hope. The concept of strategic intent is similar. Successful companies set audacious, stretch goals, and put strategy, passion and commitment behind them, and many times, they succeed.
Look beyond current industry boundaries: Barack Obama may not have won either the democratic primary or the general election if he didn’t attract new voters into the equation. So he aggressively courted young, first time voters and encouraged many to vote for the very first time. Business strategists must similarly think beyond current consumers and markets. Where are the “blue oceans”? Who are the consumers of the future? How can your firm change the market boundaries to your advantage?
When there is a winning idea, resources and capital will always be available: Many firms and entrepreneurs blame the shortcomings of their businesses on the lack of finance. Obama suggests otherwise. There is no conceivable reason why anyone could have expected Obama to raise more money than Hillary or McCain. But markets recognise good ideas. If your idea is a winning one, capital will become available.
A nimble, creative and resourceful new entrant can outmanoeuvre the big, unwieldy, resource-rich dinosaur: At the end of the day, creativity and innovation will defeat a bigger player, who has no new ideas. John McCain brought nothing new into the general elections except the scare tactics that had been used successfully against John Kerry and Al Gore. The voters facing economic crisis had been inured against those but McCain’s strategists did not recognise the need for a new strategy. Same with Hillary-she assumed it was about experience, but the market wanted change, and it was too late before she realised.
Find the right strategy, and stick to it!: Barack Obama had only one message throughout the democratic primaries and the general election-change! While John McCain kept on trying every tactic in the book, Obama stuck to his single message-change we can believe in, change we need, change has come to Washington!
Take the battle to your opponent’s territory: Barack Obama in the last days of the campaign forced McCain to continue to defend states that were historically assumed to be safe republican territory, and in the end won several of them. He succeeded in forcing McCain on the defensive, even spending scare campaign resources in his home state of Arizona. Of course McCain could not dare near any democratic stronghold-Chicago, New York, Massachusetts etc, but was on the defensive in Ohio, Indiana, etc. Don’t be continuously defending your markets, let the competitor be busy defending his while you consolidate your own markets.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
American Definitions
Long time followers of this space will be aware that we occasionally update our book of definitions to reflect the real meaning of words and phrases in current usage. Sometimes our definitions are different from the conventional meanings as per the English language dictionaries but be assured that we capture the true essence of all we define.
Hockey Mums: Good looking, white American women who do not read newspapers, and who think Africa is a country. They may run for high national office without once discussing economic issues, foreign, defence or national security or indeed anything of substance.
Cultural Conservatives: Racists. People who are deeply suspicious of any one or any ideas that reflects a background or viewpoint different from theirs.
Socialist: George W Bush! He has nationalised banks, he’s spending unprecedented sums on economic stimulus packages and bail-out packages for failed businesses.
Fiscal Conservatives: Republicans, until they get into the White House! After entering the White House, they reduce taxes for the rich, expend the national budget fighting wars and helping the military-industrial complex, pile up huge fiscal deficits and increase the national debt to unprecedented levels.
Trickle-Down Economics: A principle crafted by Ronald Reagan and faithfully practiced by George W Bush that says that if you make the rich richer, the poor will get inspired to stop being lazy and work harder to get themselves out of their self-imposed poverty.
Primaries: The system by which political parties in the US choose their candidates for general elections. It is a transparent mechanism that allows any interested party member to indicate interest in any office and persuade fellow members to choose him as the party’s candidate. If he succeeds in persuading them, be becomes the candidate and can go on to win (or lose) the election. (Note-the word has a different meaning in Nigeria, where it means a process whereby a few party chieftains select the candidate and impose him or her on the helpless party members. If the members are stubborn, they may simply cancel the primaries and announce the candidate of their choice, who may not even have been a candidate in the primaries.)
Undecided Voters: People who knew they should vote for Obama, but were looking for a reason (other than his race) not to do so. Fortunately Obama gave them no alibi, so they voted for him.
Swing States: The few states that decide who wins the elections in America. Also means states with a lot of undecided voters.
Sarah Palin: A pitbull who wears lipstick and can see Russia from her home in Alaska.
Maverick: One maverick is good, but two? Another word for erratic, tactical and unpredictable. The older you get, the more “mavericky” you become. (Note-if you are a hockey mum, pitbull or Alaskan, it is also a word you can use to explain away any question you don’t understand-just say mavericky, mavericky, mackericky….ad infinitum, until the interviewer gets tired)
George W Bush: The lame-duck Vice-President of the US. He acts as President when Dick Cheney is undergoing another heart by-pass surgery. He was elected to office as a Republican, but before and during the last elections, he became an independent! Notice that John McCain criticised him and the Republicans avoided him like a plague. Having being silently expelled from the Republican Party, he was not allowed to attend a single campaign event for the McCain-Palin ticket.
Cindy McCain: The rich, glass-eyed, ice cold lady who lost to Michelle Obama.
Michelle Obama: She went to Princeton and Harvard, and is now very proud of the United States of America. Who wouldn’t be!
Hillary Clinton: The person who democrats would have nominated for Presidency if they were rational and sensible. But being Democrats, as usual they acted irrationally and chose a single-term, Kenyan-born, black American Senator from Illinois with a strange name, a middle name of Hussein and a very thin CV to Republican glee. Fortunately after eight years of George W Bush, Americans would have voted for even Hosni Mubarak if he was the alternative to the Republican Party! And God sent the ten plagues-stock market collapses, sub-prime mortgage crisis, bank failures, credit crunch, automakers potential bankruptcy, global energy crisis, global food crisis, rising unemployment figures, mortgage foreclosures and global warming to convince Americans to let his people become President.
Barack Obama: President-elect of the United States!!! The historical product of the dalliance between a Kenyan intellectual (who later returned to Kenya and as you might expect died of depression and alcoholism) and a white American idealist. Against all odds, he went to Columbia and Harvard and has now proven to all that if you have a child with an American passport, better leave him or her in America! Worst case the child will become Tiger Woods, or Shaquille O’Neal. Thank God they did not take him back to Kenya-he may have been shot during a students’ demonstration at University of Nairobi, by a policeman asking for bribe or during the post-election violence involving his Luo tribe. Alternatively he may have died of malaria, AIDS or tuberculosis. Or hunger. If all fails, the witches and wizards who killed his father would have turned their attention to him.
Hockey Mums: Good looking, white American women who do not read newspapers, and who think Africa is a country. They may run for high national office without once discussing economic issues, foreign, defence or national security or indeed anything of substance.
Cultural Conservatives: Racists. People who are deeply suspicious of any one or any ideas that reflects a background or viewpoint different from theirs.
Socialist: George W Bush! He has nationalised banks, he’s spending unprecedented sums on economic stimulus packages and bail-out packages for failed businesses.
Fiscal Conservatives: Republicans, until they get into the White House! After entering the White House, they reduce taxes for the rich, expend the national budget fighting wars and helping the military-industrial complex, pile up huge fiscal deficits and increase the national debt to unprecedented levels.
Trickle-Down Economics: A principle crafted by Ronald Reagan and faithfully practiced by George W Bush that says that if you make the rich richer, the poor will get inspired to stop being lazy and work harder to get themselves out of their self-imposed poverty.
Primaries: The system by which political parties in the US choose their candidates for general elections. It is a transparent mechanism that allows any interested party member to indicate interest in any office and persuade fellow members to choose him as the party’s candidate. If he succeeds in persuading them, be becomes the candidate and can go on to win (or lose) the election. (Note-the word has a different meaning in Nigeria, where it means a process whereby a few party chieftains select the candidate and impose him or her on the helpless party members. If the members are stubborn, they may simply cancel the primaries and announce the candidate of their choice, who may not even have been a candidate in the primaries.)
Undecided Voters: People who knew they should vote for Obama, but were looking for a reason (other than his race) not to do so. Fortunately Obama gave them no alibi, so they voted for him.
Swing States: The few states that decide who wins the elections in America. Also means states with a lot of undecided voters.
Sarah Palin: A pitbull who wears lipstick and can see Russia from her home in Alaska.
Maverick: One maverick is good, but two? Another word for erratic, tactical and unpredictable. The older you get, the more “mavericky” you become. (Note-if you are a hockey mum, pitbull or Alaskan, it is also a word you can use to explain away any question you don’t understand-just say mavericky, mavericky, mackericky….ad infinitum, until the interviewer gets tired)
George W Bush: The lame-duck Vice-President of the US. He acts as President when Dick Cheney is undergoing another heart by-pass surgery. He was elected to office as a Republican, but before and during the last elections, he became an independent! Notice that John McCain criticised him and the Republicans avoided him like a plague. Having being silently expelled from the Republican Party, he was not allowed to attend a single campaign event for the McCain-Palin ticket.
Cindy McCain: The rich, glass-eyed, ice cold lady who lost to Michelle Obama.
Michelle Obama: She went to Princeton and Harvard, and is now very proud of the United States of America. Who wouldn’t be!
Hillary Clinton: The person who democrats would have nominated for Presidency if they were rational and sensible. But being Democrats, as usual they acted irrationally and chose a single-term, Kenyan-born, black American Senator from Illinois with a strange name, a middle name of Hussein and a very thin CV to Republican glee. Fortunately after eight years of George W Bush, Americans would have voted for even Hosni Mubarak if he was the alternative to the Republican Party! And God sent the ten plagues-stock market collapses, sub-prime mortgage crisis, bank failures, credit crunch, automakers potential bankruptcy, global energy crisis, global food crisis, rising unemployment figures, mortgage foreclosures and global warming to convince Americans to let his people become President.
Barack Obama: President-elect of the United States!!! The historical product of the dalliance between a Kenyan intellectual (who later returned to Kenya and as you might expect died of depression and alcoholism) and a white American idealist. Against all odds, he went to Columbia and Harvard and has now proven to all that if you have a child with an American passport, better leave him or her in America! Worst case the child will become Tiger Woods, or Shaquille O’Neal. Thank God they did not take him back to Kenya-he may have been shot during a students’ demonstration at University of Nairobi, by a policeman asking for bribe or during the post-election violence involving his Luo tribe. Alternatively he may have died of malaria, AIDS or tuberculosis. Or hunger. If all fails, the witches and wizards who killed his father would have turned their attention to him.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Africa and Barack Obama
Many Africans have high expectations from an Obama Presidency. It is very likely that many of those hopes will be disappointed. Many Kenyans for instance will feel a sense of entitlement when they apply for visas at the US embassy in Nairobi after January 20, 2009! Many African leaders will expect easier access and greater assistance from the US government after Obama is sworn in. African NGOs and civil society leaders will assume they can demand stronger support from the US government and its agencies. On the streets, senates and state houses across Africa, many harbour unrealistic hopes that an Obama Presidency in the US will in some way transform Africa and its relationship with America.
The reality is that the greatest transformation the Obama Presidency will carry out will be within the United States. Barack Obama takes office at a time when America is in the midst of serious financial and economic crisis-struggling to free itself from dependence on foreign (middle eastern) oil, facing the necessity of re-thinking its assumptions about the operation of its free market economic system, trying to save its endangered middle class which is reeling under the weight of a mortgage and housing crisis, growing unemployment, stock market declines, a credit squeeze and a looming recession. America must disentangle itself from the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan it is currently fighting as well as resolve stand-offs on many other fronts-Iran, Pakistan, Russia, North Korea amongst others.
The US must repair and/or re-define its relationship with its allies in Europe, Asia and the Pacific, try to make peace in the middle-east, deal with global warming and climate change and must try to modernise its education, healthcare, social security and industrial strategy and architecture to deal with the challenges of the twenty-first century. In this myriad, Africa may unfortunately not be a priority for the Obama or any other US administration for that matter. My view is that instead Africa must itself learn the right lessons from the Obama victory and must choose a proactive and effective strategy for engaging with the US government of Barack Obama.
So what are the lessons for Africa from Barack Obama? Africa must create a society that gives opportunity to its own citizens. That requires investments in education, health and social infrastructure. That requires African governments to create a society that does not discriminate against children, women, ethnic or religious minorities and the poor. Africa must deepen its democracy and expand individual freedoms. That requires ideas-based politics, transparent elections and electoral systems, stronger political parties with disciplined and stable membership, internal democracy and popular participation. We must build better societies founded on ethics and a spiritual transformation that rejects wickedness, evil practices and witchcraft.
Our nations must become merit-based societies where people progress on the basis of their character and competence rather than opaque affiliations and nepotism. African societies must become more open allowing dissent and the multiplicity of ideas. The media must be supported to be more effective in its role as guardians of democracy and to become more accountable where they err. And African economies must allow entrepreneurial energies of their people to be released and design economies that are based on free enterprise principles, but with strong regulation, consumer protection and competition. Our economic systems must create jobs for the teeming unemployed and provide social security and public infrastructure (such as public transportation, urban water and rural development) to make things easier for the poor and marginalised. And we must reduce or eliminate corruption and mis-governance.
These are the real lessons for Africa from the success of Barack Obama. It is because of access to education that he and Michelle Obama could attend the best universities in America. It is because the Democratic and Republican parties have strong internal democracy that he could emerge as candidate of his party on the back of young, new voters and raise millions of dollars mostly from average Americans. And it is because of America’s transparent electoral systems that he could prevail in the general election.
So what can Africa realistically expect or demand from an Obama Presidency. I would argue that civil society should not leave African governments to decide our “terms of engagement” with Obama. We should help Obama define his Africa strategy-essentially his objective should be assisting Africa become more democratic, less-corrupt, more accountable to the people, and to offer better economic opportunity and social integration to its people. In effect the US government under Obama should be strongly encouraged to engage directly not just with government but with non-governmental institutions in Africa-the media, educational and religious institutions, civil society organisations, businesses, women groups and labour.
President Obama must nudge African nations towards greater investment in education, health care and disease prevention systems, water, public transportation and infrastructure and generally to raise the standard of living on the continent. He must focus strongly on ensuring free and fair elections and multi-party democracy in Africa and use the strong arm where necessary to compel compliance. Obama must reject the notion of an un-progressive black solidarity in which for instance African leaders refuse to criticise Robert Mugabe’s excesses in Zimbabwe even as he destroys his nation and makes the whole continent look foolish. Obama and the US administration under him must tell African leaders the truth and hold them to the same standards as developed world leaders. The best Obama can do for Africa is to help us improve our capacity to manage ourselves.
The reality is that the greatest transformation the Obama Presidency will carry out will be within the United States. Barack Obama takes office at a time when America is in the midst of serious financial and economic crisis-struggling to free itself from dependence on foreign (middle eastern) oil, facing the necessity of re-thinking its assumptions about the operation of its free market economic system, trying to save its endangered middle class which is reeling under the weight of a mortgage and housing crisis, growing unemployment, stock market declines, a credit squeeze and a looming recession. America must disentangle itself from the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan it is currently fighting as well as resolve stand-offs on many other fronts-Iran, Pakistan, Russia, North Korea amongst others.
The US must repair and/or re-define its relationship with its allies in Europe, Asia and the Pacific, try to make peace in the middle-east, deal with global warming and climate change and must try to modernise its education, healthcare, social security and industrial strategy and architecture to deal with the challenges of the twenty-first century. In this myriad, Africa may unfortunately not be a priority for the Obama or any other US administration for that matter. My view is that instead Africa must itself learn the right lessons from the Obama victory and must choose a proactive and effective strategy for engaging with the US government of Barack Obama.
So what are the lessons for Africa from Barack Obama? Africa must create a society that gives opportunity to its own citizens. That requires investments in education, health and social infrastructure. That requires African governments to create a society that does not discriminate against children, women, ethnic or religious minorities and the poor. Africa must deepen its democracy and expand individual freedoms. That requires ideas-based politics, transparent elections and electoral systems, stronger political parties with disciplined and stable membership, internal democracy and popular participation. We must build better societies founded on ethics and a spiritual transformation that rejects wickedness, evil practices and witchcraft.
Our nations must become merit-based societies where people progress on the basis of their character and competence rather than opaque affiliations and nepotism. African societies must become more open allowing dissent and the multiplicity of ideas. The media must be supported to be more effective in its role as guardians of democracy and to become more accountable where they err. And African economies must allow entrepreneurial energies of their people to be released and design economies that are based on free enterprise principles, but with strong regulation, consumer protection and competition. Our economic systems must create jobs for the teeming unemployed and provide social security and public infrastructure (such as public transportation, urban water and rural development) to make things easier for the poor and marginalised. And we must reduce or eliminate corruption and mis-governance.
These are the real lessons for Africa from the success of Barack Obama. It is because of access to education that he and Michelle Obama could attend the best universities in America. It is because the Democratic and Republican parties have strong internal democracy that he could emerge as candidate of his party on the back of young, new voters and raise millions of dollars mostly from average Americans. And it is because of America’s transparent electoral systems that he could prevail in the general election.
So what can Africa realistically expect or demand from an Obama Presidency. I would argue that civil society should not leave African governments to decide our “terms of engagement” with Obama. We should help Obama define his Africa strategy-essentially his objective should be assisting Africa become more democratic, less-corrupt, more accountable to the people, and to offer better economic opportunity and social integration to its people. In effect the US government under Obama should be strongly encouraged to engage directly not just with government but with non-governmental institutions in Africa-the media, educational and religious institutions, civil society organisations, businesses, women groups and labour.
President Obama must nudge African nations towards greater investment in education, health care and disease prevention systems, water, public transportation and infrastructure and generally to raise the standard of living on the continent. He must focus strongly on ensuring free and fair elections and multi-party democracy in Africa and use the strong arm where necessary to compel compliance. Obama must reject the notion of an un-progressive black solidarity in which for instance African leaders refuse to criticise Robert Mugabe’s excesses in Zimbabwe even as he destroys his nation and makes the whole continent look foolish. Obama and the US administration under him must tell African leaders the truth and hold them to the same standards as developed world leaders. The best Obama can do for Africa is to help us improve our capacity to manage ourselves.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
We are all Americans!!!
We are all Americans now! America has demonstrated why it is the greatest democracy on earth. US voters have once again proven to the rest of the world that indeed America is the land of the possible. America has shown like Barack Obama set out to establish that there is no black, white, red, blue or purple America, but one United States of America. America has “sent a powerful signal to the rest of the world about racial and ethnic integration and the futility of racial, ethnic and other stereotypes and prejudices” as I wrote in “Miscellaneous Updates” on July 16, 2008.
This column has written nine times about the Obama phenomenon dating back to February 6, 2008 during the party primaries. Readers will recall that my initial preference was for a Clinton-Obama democratic ticket (A vote for Clinton-Obama) in which I sought to have “two for the price of one…Can’t we have a President Hillary Clinton and Vice-President Barack Obama and make it an event of multiple historical proportions-a first female president, who will also be a first former first lady to be elected Senator and then President, and who will be elected on a ticket that produces the first African-American Vice-President who can then go ahead to become President subsequently!...… ”
In May 28, I wrote “A Vote for Clinton-Obama Part 2” pushing the same argument. I noted that Obama’s election “would be a truly revolutionary event in American politics, and not just as some argue for the symbolism. It would indicate, just like J.F Kennedy’s election in the 1960s another generational shift in US politics but more importantly signal a major shift in mind-sets as well in America that may lead to perhaps some change in global perceptions on race and ideology…” I noted then that it appeared the Republicans preferred an Obama nomination to Hillary Clinton in the erroneous belief that he would be easier to defeat. How wrong! As I had noted in “Miscellaneous Updates” the democrats chose “a riskier strategy, but then nothing ventured, nothing gained”.
By July 23, 2008, I was sufficiently enthralled by the prospect of Barack Obama being elected US President that I issued an early endorsement of Obama. In “Endorsing Barack Obama”, I predicted, “Well bad news for the republicans! This column feels confident at this point in time to offer an unconditional endorsement of Illinois Senator Barack Obama as the next president of the United States. And we fully expect that come January 20, 2009, Barack Obama will step into the White House as President of the United States of America.” That great epoch is now with us. A rearguard conservative backlash is possible and Obama and his supporters must be vigilant and prepared, but nothing can detract from the immensity of this development.
As I wrote in that article, Obama’s election offers "hope to all African-Americans and indeed all minorities in the US that race, colour, class, sex (thanks to Hillary) and personal disadvantages of any hue can not limit one in reaching any heights we seek. It would be a moment of restoration for the African-Americans after slavery, segregation and discrimination and I hope should help create a new stereotype of the African-American male which generations to follow can aspire to.” It would be good if not just America, but indeed the whole world, particularly Nigeria and Africa learnt the right lessons from Barack Obama’s election.
I was happy to endorse Obama after reading his book, “The Audacity of Hope”. In the article of same title on July 30, 2008 I noted that “Reading the book, you get the sense of the hand of God steering this young, brilliant, idealistic, intelligent and yet pragmatic lawyer to a great destiny…” That great destiny is here with us. If anyone doubts the presence of a divine direction, ask why the global financial crisis happened at the critical stage in the campaigns? Why did job losses, mortgage foreclosures, bank failures, stock market collapses all happen at the worst time for McCain and propel the Obama campaign to a landslide victory? That is not to deny the vision, commitment, organisational acumen, communication skills, sharpness of mind and unbelievable audacity that Obama brought into the race. He is completely deserving of his success.
In “Nigerian and American Scenarios Part 2” published on September 10, 2008, I examined the implication of Obama for Nigeria and Africa asking the questions, “Is the Obama phenomenon possible in Nigeria? If Barack had been born in Nigeria, would the system have given him the opportunity to project himself to his present position? Would he have been able to retain his principles while doing so? If Obama’s father had taken him back to Kenya, where would he be today?” I will only restate the conclusion I reached in that article-“Nigeria and Africa must rise to the real lesson of the Obama revolution and begin to create a new, truly democratic society that gives opportunity through education and other social infrastructure to all their citizens, and allows the best of our society, and not the most venal, sycophantic, base and unprincipled to rise to positions of leadership.” On November 4, 2008, Americans voted to renew the idea of the American dream. They voted for renewal, revival, and re-invigoration. What will Nigeria and Africa do? opeyemiagbaje.blogspot.com
Agbaje is CEO of Resources and Trust Company Ltd-a strategy, consultancy and business advisory firm. RTC POLICY is the policy, government and political consultancy division while RTC Strategy and Advisory offers private sector advisory services.
This column has written nine times about the Obama phenomenon dating back to February 6, 2008 during the party primaries. Readers will recall that my initial preference was for a Clinton-Obama democratic ticket (A vote for Clinton-Obama) in which I sought to have “two for the price of one…Can’t we have a President Hillary Clinton and Vice-President Barack Obama and make it an event of multiple historical proportions-a first female president, who will also be a first former first lady to be elected Senator and then President, and who will be elected on a ticket that produces the first African-American Vice-President who can then go ahead to become President subsequently!...… ”
In May 28, I wrote “A Vote for Clinton-Obama Part 2” pushing the same argument. I noted that Obama’s election “would be a truly revolutionary event in American politics, and not just as some argue for the symbolism. It would indicate, just like J.F Kennedy’s election in the 1960s another generational shift in US politics but more importantly signal a major shift in mind-sets as well in America that may lead to perhaps some change in global perceptions on race and ideology…” I noted then that it appeared the Republicans preferred an Obama nomination to Hillary Clinton in the erroneous belief that he would be easier to defeat. How wrong! As I had noted in “Miscellaneous Updates” the democrats chose “a riskier strategy, but then nothing ventured, nothing gained”.
By July 23, 2008, I was sufficiently enthralled by the prospect of Barack Obama being elected US President that I issued an early endorsement of Obama. In “Endorsing Barack Obama”, I predicted, “Well bad news for the republicans! This column feels confident at this point in time to offer an unconditional endorsement of Illinois Senator Barack Obama as the next president of the United States. And we fully expect that come January 20, 2009, Barack Obama will step into the White House as President of the United States of America.” That great epoch is now with us. A rearguard conservative backlash is possible and Obama and his supporters must be vigilant and prepared, but nothing can detract from the immensity of this development.
As I wrote in that article, Obama’s election offers "hope to all African-Americans and indeed all minorities in the US that race, colour, class, sex (thanks to Hillary) and personal disadvantages of any hue can not limit one in reaching any heights we seek. It would be a moment of restoration for the African-Americans after slavery, segregation and discrimination and I hope should help create a new stereotype of the African-American male which generations to follow can aspire to.” It would be good if not just America, but indeed the whole world, particularly Nigeria and Africa learnt the right lessons from Barack Obama’s election.
I was happy to endorse Obama after reading his book, “The Audacity of Hope”. In the article of same title on July 30, 2008 I noted that “Reading the book, you get the sense of the hand of God steering this young, brilliant, idealistic, intelligent and yet pragmatic lawyer to a great destiny…” That great destiny is here with us. If anyone doubts the presence of a divine direction, ask why the global financial crisis happened at the critical stage in the campaigns? Why did job losses, mortgage foreclosures, bank failures, stock market collapses all happen at the worst time for McCain and propel the Obama campaign to a landslide victory? That is not to deny the vision, commitment, organisational acumen, communication skills, sharpness of mind and unbelievable audacity that Obama brought into the race. He is completely deserving of his success.
In “Nigerian and American Scenarios Part 2” published on September 10, 2008, I examined the implication of Obama for Nigeria and Africa asking the questions, “Is the Obama phenomenon possible in Nigeria? If Barack had been born in Nigeria, would the system have given him the opportunity to project himself to his present position? Would he have been able to retain his principles while doing so? If Obama’s father had taken him back to Kenya, where would he be today?” I will only restate the conclusion I reached in that article-“Nigeria and Africa must rise to the real lesson of the Obama revolution and begin to create a new, truly democratic society that gives opportunity through education and other social infrastructure to all their citizens, and allows the best of our society, and not the most venal, sycophantic, base and unprincipled to rise to positions of leadership.” On November 4, 2008, Americans voted to renew the idea of the American dream. They voted for renewal, revival, and re-invigoration. What will Nigeria and Africa do? opeyemiagbaje.blogspot.com
Agbaje is CEO of Resources and Trust Company Ltd-a strategy, consultancy and business advisory firm. RTC POLICY is the policy, government and political consultancy division while RTC Strategy and Advisory offers private sector advisory services.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
The Infiltration of the Church Part 2
Last Christmas, I wrote Part 1 of this article in which I reviewed church history and postulated a tentative hypothesis-that the enemies of the church appeared to have changed their erstwhile strategy of persecution but are now fighting from inside, in effect suggesting that the devil and his agents may have infiltrated the church. Some days ago, some friends and I were gathered discussing sundry matters, and the discussion turned to matters of faith.
Many of those gathered had horror stories to tell. These people were having serious challenges in their walk with God, amazingly coming not from outside the church, but from within. Kayode had the first horror experience to share. Apparently he was a member of a respectable Pentecostal church-he had been for over 10 years. He had never gotten involved in inner workings of the church however, as in popular parlance, he had not become a ‘worker’. He considered himself a child of God, but he had been susceptible to the occasional sin, so he didn’t quite consider himself a candidate. As Kayode advanced in age and career however he recognised a need to get closer to God. He attended Bible School and thoroughly enjoyed the experience, but he still chose not to join the church workforce. On the other hand, his growing profile meant he could no longer be anonymous in church, or any other context for that matter.
Kayode usually worshipped in the branch of the church closest to wherever he lived, and went about his business quietly. After moving to the island, he moved to a proximate branch as usual. In this new church his wife became a worker. Surprisingly, within weeks she was made a head of department, above more qualified, longstanding members. Kayode had his reservations as he wondered in what way she had earned the promotion. He felt the appointment was somehow linked to him. But he felt it was inappropriate to stop her from serving God in any capacity so he kept quiet. A few weeks afterwards, the local pastor approached Kayode with a loan request to buy a property in a choice part of Lagos Island. Kayode obliged. Weeks later, Kayode had cause to mention his plans for a change of career to his local pastor.
The pastor who at that point in time was also in career transition requested to see Kayode’s business plan! Kayode did not feel obliged to share such proprietary business information with someone in a similar career line, so he diplomatically denied the request thinking that was the end of the matter, but was he mistaken? A few weeks later, the local pastor declared to a workers retreat that the calling of the Lord was upon Kayode and appointed him a Minister. Kayode had not become a worker and was not present at the retreat! The stage was set for blackmail-if Kayode declined he would be accused of shirking the call of God; if he accepted he would come under the direct spiritual authority of an individual he now had cause to be wary of! Kayode hoped for the best and decided to honour the ministerial appointment. Well he wasn’t so lucky. Not more than a few days afterwards, the gentleman who proclaimed the call of God on his life began spreading malicious gossip about Kayode. He was careful to keep the gossip ‘below the radar’ so Kayode had no opportunity to respond.
Moji a teacher shared another horror tale. Her colleague, had been considering returning to her profession which she had not had the opportunity of practicing since graduation. Moji’s friend was not so sure she could cope with some of the things she heard happened in the industry. She then met an apparently fervent minister who ran a firm in that profession. Surely this was God answering her prayer? She arranged to spend her next vacation in the minister’s firm to test her interest in her original profession. The practices in the minister’s firm were worse than all she had heard about. And the minister personally gave her instructions to carry out those activities (knowing her previous reservations about such) without any compunction.
Olu also shared his story. Olu’s pastor and his wife ran the church like a closely-held corporation, with the pastor as CEO, the wife as Chief Operating Officer, and their children as members of the Board of Directors. A few carefully selected cronies were permitted into the Board. Apparently a “third world war” had started when the church leaders transferred a new minister to preside over the territory. The “CEO” thoroughly isolated the poor fellow, tormenting him spiritually, physically, socially and otherwise, and boasted that he would show the hapless newcomer who owned the church! Soon petitions began to fly. Members of the congregation watched in confusion as the warfare began to manifest publicly.
These are real life experiences. Reflecting on these stories, I was reminded of my hypothesis about the infiltration of the church. Surely these are not the doings of people who know anything about Christ? My worry is how many people are being driven from the faith daily by these ministers from hell. My co-discussants were already settled in their relationship with God-no one could drive them away, but how about younger Christians and unbelievers? How do we explain to them that these people do not represent the reality of the Christian faith?
Many of those gathered had horror stories to tell. These people were having serious challenges in their walk with God, amazingly coming not from outside the church, but from within. Kayode had the first horror experience to share. Apparently he was a member of a respectable Pentecostal church-he had been for over 10 years. He had never gotten involved in inner workings of the church however, as in popular parlance, he had not become a ‘worker’. He considered himself a child of God, but he had been susceptible to the occasional sin, so he didn’t quite consider himself a candidate. As Kayode advanced in age and career however he recognised a need to get closer to God. He attended Bible School and thoroughly enjoyed the experience, but he still chose not to join the church workforce. On the other hand, his growing profile meant he could no longer be anonymous in church, or any other context for that matter.
Kayode usually worshipped in the branch of the church closest to wherever he lived, and went about his business quietly. After moving to the island, he moved to a proximate branch as usual. In this new church his wife became a worker. Surprisingly, within weeks she was made a head of department, above more qualified, longstanding members. Kayode had his reservations as he wondered in what way she had earned the promotion. He felt the appointment was somehow linked to him. But he felt it was inappropriate to stop her from serving God in any capacity so he kept quiet. A few weeks afterwards, the local pastor approached Kayode with a loan request to buy a property in a choice part of Lagos Island. Kayode obliged. Weeks later, Kayode had cause to mention his plans for a change of career to his local pastor.
The pastor who at that point in time was also in career transition requested to see Kayode’s business plan! Kayode did not feel obliged to share such proprietary business information with someone in a similar career line, so he diplomatically denied the request thinking that was the end of the matter, but was he mistaken? A few weeks later, the local pastor declared to a workers retreat that the calling of the Lord was upon Kayode and appointed him a Minister. Kayode had not become a worker and was not present at the retreat! The stage was set for blackmail-if Kayode declined he would be accused of shirking the call of God; if he accepted he would come under the direct spiritual authority of an individual he now had cause to be wary of! Kayode hoped for the best and decided to honour the ministerial appointment. Well he wasn’t so lucky. Not more than a few days afterwards, the gentleman who proclaimed the call of God on his life began spreading malicious gossip about Kayode. He was careful to keep the gossip ‘below the radar’ so Kayode had no opportunity to respond.
Moji a teacher shared another horror tale. Her colleague, had been considering returning to her profession which she had not had the opportunity of practicing since graduation. Moji’s friend was not so sure she could cope with some of the things she heard happened in the industry. She then met an apparently fervent minister who ran a firm in that profession. Surely this was God answering her prayer? She arranged to spend her next vacation in the minister’s firm to test her interest in her original profession. The practices in the minister’s firm were worse than all she had heard about. And the minister personally gave her instructions to carry out those activities (knowing her previous reservations about such) without any compunction.
Olu also shared his story. Olu’s pastor and his wife ran the church like a closely-held corporation, with the pastor as CEO, the wife as Chief Operating Officer, and their children as members of the Board of Directors. A few carefully selected cronies were permitted into the Board. Apparently a “third world war” had started when the church leaders transferred a new minister to preside over the territory. The “CEO” thoroughly isolated the poor fellow, tormenting him spiritually, physically, socially and otherwise, and boasted that he would show the hapless newcomer who owned the church! Soon petitions began to fly. Members of the congregation watched in confusion as the warfare began to manifest publicly.
These are real life experiences. Reflecting on these stories, I was reminded of my hypothesis about the infiltration of the church. Surely these are not the doings of people who know anything about Christ? My worry is how many people are being driven from the faith daily by these ministers from hell. My co-discussants were already settled in their relationship with God-no one could drive them away, but how about younger Christians and unbelievers? How do we explain to them that these people do not represent the reality of the Christian faith?
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Renewing America and the World
Four years ago, just after the re-election of George W Bush, I was involved in a discussion with an American, an Indian and a Nigerian on US politics. I was surprised that America re-elected Bush in spite of what had become clear-his incompetence and lack of intellectual ability to handle that important office. But as someone who philosophically always looks for the good in any circumstances, I had reached a new, positive angle-Bush’s re-election would so damage America that it would isolate the US voters from the Republican party and lead to a long period of Democratic rule once his tenure was over. I suggested these viewpoints that day to vigorous debate by my dinner companions.
I never imagined then the degree George W Bush’s erosion of American power-economic, political, and military and its influence and respect in the world go. America under Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld (until his position as Secretary for Defence became completely untenable), Karl Rove and the “neo-cons” (with Bush as surrogate) has behaved so irresponsibly that it has lost the respect of the rest of the world. America’s European allies and admirers from developing nations (like this columnist) who held the United States up as a model for democracy and constitutionalism have been embarrassed by American torture of prisoners of war, rigged elections in Florida and a government that seeks to project power by deception, propaganda, bluster and brute force.
The Republicans accuse democrats of being “tax and spend”, “big government” advocates, but have presided over the unprecedented expansion of the US budget deficits and national debt and are now having to nationalise the financial sector. In foreign policy their only strategy is war, and even that they handle poorly leading to unnecessary loss of lives and increase in global tension. They mouth poorly thought-out and out-dated ideologies and have now brought the US economy to its knees, weakened its leadership in education, science and technology, and potentially threatening to erode its military power as well. Unfortunately the world cannot gloat over American weakness! Would you prefer a world dominated by China, Russia, Iran, India or by the likes of Osama Bin Laden?
The world is disappointed by US behaviour over the last eight years precisely because enlightened observers recognise that the values of democracy, liberty, opportunity, free enterprise, personal responsibility, patriotism and civic citizenship, global cooperation and faith which America has come to symbolise are ideals to which the rest of the world should aim. America under Bush and the neo-cons have moved away from those ideals. Instead America has looked more and more like its enemies, as it abandons moral superiority in favour of force and unilateralism. If the neo-cons who have held the Republican Party hostage must hold on to power by all means, at least they could be a little bit more competent!
Amazingly they have learnt absolutely nothing over the last eight years. Seeing that the Republican brand is so badly damaged, they do a deal with John McCain, the only Republican who could plausibly claim to be different from Bush; take over and revive his floundering campaign; select Sarah Palin for him as running-mate (who like Bush does not have the intellectual capacity to function in high office and who can be manipulated and tele-guided in office) and cynically go about persuading America to continue in the same path that has brought that great country almost to its knees. Since McCain is 72 years old, it can be presumed that at best he will be a single-term leader, and may not even make it to the end of his first term. Against that background, the selection of Sarah Palin as McCain’s running mate is irresponsible and demonstrates all that is wrong with Bush’s America.
Competence does not matter-propaganda will take care of that, and it makes it easy for a shadowy group to control her; she is the candidate of the evangelical right and family values, even if her 17-year old daughter is pregnant and her sister has gone through a messy divorce-it doesn’t matter that Obama is happily married, with absolutely unimpeachable family values; she and McCain will reform Washington even if McCain has been there for twenty-six years and she is under investigation in Alaska for firing the man who refused to fire her former brother-in-law; it doesn’t matter that she just got an international passport and travelled outside the US in 2007-all she has to do is arrange some photo-ops with Kissinger, use the words “bless us” every now and then (to appeal to the Christian right), avoid direct media interviews, mock Barrack Obama, and appeal to cultural conservatives. It really is a shame.
The choice before American voters on November 4 goes beyond voting for president. Americans will be voting either to renew America or signal the beginning of the end of the American era. When great empires decline, it is often characterised by a succession of weak and incompetent leaders and a leadership elite that refuses to learn from initial errors. If America votes for Obama, it will be a vote for renewal, revival and re-invigoration. It will be a message to the world that its time for a world free of prejudice and divisiveness. opeyemiagbaje.blogspot.com
Agbaje is CEO of Resources and Trust Company Ltd-a strategy, consultancy and business advisory firm. RTC POLICY is the policy, government and political consultancy division while RTC Strategy and Advisory offers private sector advisory services.
I never imagined then the degree George W Bush’s erosion of American power-economic, political, and military and its influence and respect in the world go. America under Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld (until his position as Secretary for Defence became completely untenable), Karl Rove and the “neo-cons” (with Bush as surrogate) has behaved so irresponsibly that it has lost the respect of the rest of the world. America’s European allies and admirers from developing nations (like this columnist) who held the United States up as a model for democracy and constitutionalism have been embarrassed by American torture of prisoners of war, rigged elections in Florida and a government that seeks to project power by deception, propaganda, bluster and brute force.
The Republicans accuse democrats of being “tax and spend”, “big government” advocates, but have presided over the unprecedented expansion of the US budget deficits and national debt and are now having to nationalise the financial sector. In foreign policy their only strategy is war, and even that they handle poorly leading to unnecessary loss of lives and increase in global tension. They mouth poorly thought-out and out-dated ideologies and have now brought the US economy to its knees, weakened its leadership in education, science and technology, and potentially threatening to erode its military power as well. Unfortunately the world cannot gloat over American weakness! Would you prefer a world dominated by China, Russia, Iran, India or by the likes of Osama Bin Laden?
The world is disappointed by US behaviour over the last eight years precisely because enlightened observers recognise that the values of democracy, liberty, opportunity, free enterprise, personal responsibility, patriotism and civic citizenship, global cooperation and faith which America has come to symbolise are ideals to which the rest of the world should aim. America under Bush and the neo-cons have moved away from those ideals. Instead America has looked more and more like its enemies, as it abandons moral superiority in favour of force and unilateralism. If the neo-cons who have held the Republican Party hostage must hold on to power by all means, at least they could be a little bit more competent!
Amazingly they have learnt absolutely nothing over the last eight years. Seeing that the Republican brand is so badly damaged, they do a deal with John McCain, the only Republican who could plausibly claim to be different from Bush; take over and revive his floundering campaign; select Sarah Palin for him as running-mate (who like Bush does not have the intellectual capacity to function in high office and who can be manipulated and tele-guided in office) and cynically go about persuading America to continue in the same path that has brought that great country almost to its knees. Since McCain is 72 years old, it can be presumed that at best he will be a single-term leader, and may not even make it to the end of his first term. Against that background, the selection of Sarah Palin as McCain’s running mate is irresponsible and demonstrates all that is wrong with Bush’s America.
Competence does not matter-propaganda will take care of that, and it makes it easy for a shadowy group to control her; she is the candidate of the evangelical right and family values, even if her 17-year old daughter is pregnant and her sister has gone through a messy divorce-it doesn’t matter that Obama is happily married, with absolutely unimpeachable family values; she and McCain will reform Washington even if McCain has been there for twenty-six years and she is under investigation in Alaska for firing the man who refused to fire her former brother-in-law; it doesn’t matter that she just got an international passport and travelled outside the US in 2007-all she has to do is arrange some photo-ops with Kissinger, use the words “bless us” every now and then (to appeal to the Christian right), avoid direct media interviews, mock Barrack Obama, and appeal to cultural conservatives. It really is a shame.
The choice before American voters on November 4 goes beyond voting for president. Americans will be voting either to renew America or signal the beginning of the end of the American era. When great empires decline, it is often characterised by a succession of weak and incompetent leaders and a leadership elite that refuses to learn from initial errors. If America votes for Obama, it will be a vote for renewal, revival and re-invigoration. It will be a message to the world that its time for a world free of prejudice and divisiveness. opeyemiagbaje.blogspot.com
Agbaje is CEO of Resources and Trust Company Ltd-a strategy, consultancy and business advisory firm. RTC POLICY is the policy, government and political consultancy division while RTC Strategy and Advisory offers private sector advisory services.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Nigeria and the Global Financial Crisis Part 2
Last week I argued that with the exception of our sound macroeconomic conditions, every other element of the current global financial crisis is present in Nigeria. These include the existence of asset bubbles (share prices and probably property values), excess banks’ capital, imprudent financial sector lending, excessive capital market exuberance, and weak regulation in the financial sector and capital markets. As I wrote this article, I thought it would be interesting to review some of the things said in relation to the economy and particularly the financial sector in this column over the last two years.
Business in 2008 (February 13, 2008)
“The CBN policy of a uniform year end for all banks will mean tighter liquidity not just for the banks but all borrowers and corporates as the banks all seek to call-in loans and strengthen their balance sheets at the same time of the year…Many economists continue to question the link between corporate earnings and the pricing of shares in the Nigerian Stock Exchange. If this concern becomes a mainstream one, then there may be risky times ahead for capital market investors…On the whole sensible investors will be cautious.”
The Banking Industry in 2008 (February 20, 2008)
“I thought the imperatives for the industry at the end of consolidation included stronger corporate governance, professional ethics and transparency in financial reporting, stronger regulation, tighter credit standards, regional and continental expansion, putting in place institutional mechanisms for consumer finance (such as credit bureaus, abolishing the Land Use Act, instituting a national identity management system and faster commercial adjudication) and strengthening capacity-human, risk management, information technology and systems and processes-in the industry. I also thought that further consolidation was required in the industry to eliminate the two-tier structure such that the more marginal entities could be acquired by stronger local players or international banks and to guarantee sustainable levels of investment returns… But the emphasis in the industry has been a second round of capital raising, rather than further consolidation through mergers and acquisitions. The only notable merger transaction was the IBTC Chartered tie-up with Standard Bank of South Africa…questions will remain (and may generate heightened attention in the years to come) about the efficiency of the increased capital and assets that the banks now carry and their returns on investment.”
Soludo Again!!...Well? (August 29, 2007)
“I think we have done well with macro-economic and banking reforms, but I think we are both over-celebrating and doing so too early! A large part of the macro-economic success has been “wind-assisted”, aided by extra-ordinarily high oil prices. We remain dependent on oil for export earnings, the economy is still import-dependent, infrastructure is still decrepit and domestic productivity is still weak….our economy is still highly susceptible to internal and external shocks-stock market bubbles and high oil prices being my biggest concerns.”
Nigerian Banking: Differentiating or Commoditising? (August 1, 2007)
“This trend may also be re-enforced if over capacity emerges as banks build overlapping branches, duplicate ATM locations, chase the same markets and acquire capital in excess of current requirements. The classic sequence then is for price competition to ensue, margins to drop, and in the specific context of banking, imprudent loans and transactions to be booked. These sequences will be amplified if the market is not growing or growing slower than the rate of capacity accumulation. There is nothing that suggests that Nigerian banking must follow this sequence, but nothing precludes the possibility.”
Conclusion
It does seem that if policy makers and market participants had taken a few of the things written on these pages seriously, we would at the very least not be surprised by much of what has happened-the liquidity implications, and consequent failure of the uniform bank year end policy; the capital market collapse; the implications of excess bank capital (one notable exception-Skye Bank went to the market to raise just as much capital as it needed rather than follow the Joneses!); the sequence leading to imprudent lending; and weak supervision; we might as well have recognised the real imperatives for the industry-such as regional and continental expansion (which Access Bank for instance seems to get) and strengthening capacity, governance and systems.
Nigeria is not completely immune from the global financial crisis as some have suggested. On the other hand, we are unlikely to suffer as severe a financial and economic crisis as the western economies, even though individual institutions may get into trouble. But we have common attributes which if not well managed can deteriorate into crisis. If macroeconomic management and regulatory capacity are not improved, adverse scenarios may develop. So far however the regulators are simply in denial. Deferring banks’ recognition of already bad loans is not a good idea-like merely covering a wound with plasters, it merely postpones the evil day, makes the wound fester, and makes the required treatment more radical and expensive. Restricting the downward price movement of shares is a similar regulatory error. opeyemiagbaje.blogspot.com
Agbaje is CEO of Resources and Trust Company Ltd-a strategy, consultancy and business advisory firm. RTC POLICY is the policy, government and political consultancy division while RTC Strategy and Advisory offers private sector advisory services.
Business in 2008 (February 13, 2008)
“The CBN policy of a uniform year end for all banks will mean tighter liquidity not just for the banks but all borrowers and corporates as the banks all seek to call-in loans and strengthen their balance sheets at the same time of the year…Many economists continue to question the link between corporate earnings and the pricing of shares in the Nigerian Stock Exchange. If this concern becomes a mainstream one, then there may be risky times ahead for capital market investors…On the whole sensible investors will be cautious.”
The Banking Industry in 2008 (February 20, 2008)
“I thought the imperatives for the industry at the end of consolidation included stronger corporate governance, professional ethics and transparency in financial reporting, stronger regulation, tighter credit standards, regional and continental expansion, putting in place institutional mechanisms for consumer finance (such as credit bureaus, abolishing the Land Use Act, instituting a national identity management system and faster commercial adjudication) and strengthening capacity-human, risk management, information technology and systems and processes-in the industry. I also thought that further consolidation was required in the industry to eliminate the two-tier structure such that the more marginal entities could be acquired by stronger local players or international banks and to guarantee sustainable levels of investment returns… But the emphasis in the industry has been a second round of capital raising, rather than further consolidation through mergers and acquisitions. The only notable merger transaction was the IBTC Chartered tie-up with Standard Bank of South Africa…questions will remain (and may generate heightened attention in the years to come) about the efficiency of the increased capital and assets that the banks now carry and their returns on investment.”
Soludo Again!!...Well? (August 29, 2007)
“I think we have done well with macro-economic and banking reforms, but I think we are both over-celebrating and doing so too early! A large part of the macro-economic success has been “wind-assisted”, aided by extra-ordinarily high oil prices. We remain dependent on oil for export earnings, the economy is still import-dependent, infrastructure is still decrepit and domestic productivity is still weak….our economy is still highly susceptible to internal and external shocks-stock market bubbles and high oil prices being my biggest concerns.”
Nigerian Banking: Differentiating or Commoditising? (August 1, 2007)
“This trend may also be re-enforced if over capacity emerges as banks build overlapping branches, duplicate ATM locations, chase the same markets and acquire capital in excess of current requirements. The classic sequence then is for price competition to ensue, margins to drop, and in the specific context of banking, imprudent loans and transactions to be booked. These sequences will be amplified if the market is not growing or growing slower than the rate of capacity accumulation. There is nothing that suggests that Nigerian banking must follow this sequence, but nothing precludes the possibility.”
Conclusion
It does seem that if policy makers and market participants had taken a few of the things written on these pages seriously, we would at the very least not be surprised by much of what has happened-the liquidity implications, and consequent failure of the uniform bank year end policy; the capital market collapse; the implications of excess bank capital (one notable exception-Skye Bank went to the market to raise just as much capital as it needed rather than follow the Joneses!); the sequence leading to imprudent lending; and weak supervision; we might as well have recognised the real imperatives for the industry-such as regional and continental expansion (which Access Bank for instance seems to get) and strengthening capacity, governance and systems.
Nigeria is not completely immune from the global financial crisis as some have suggested. On the other hand, we are unlikely to suffer as severe a financial and economic crisis as the western economies, even though individual institutions may get into trouble. But we have common attributes which if not well managed can deteriorate into crisis. If macroeconomic management and regulatory capacity are not improved, adverse scenarios may develop. So far however the regulators are simply in denial. Deferring banks’ recognition of already bad loans is not a good idea-like merely covering a wound with plasters, it merely postpones the evil day, makes the wound fester, and makes the required treatment more radical and expensive. Restricting the downward price movement of shares is a similar regulatory error. opeyemiagbaje.blogspot.com
Agbaje is CEO of Resources and Trust Company Ltd-a strategy, consultancy and business advisory firm. RTC POLICY is the policy, government and political consultancy division while RTC Strategy and Advisory offers private sector advisory services.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Nigeria and the Global Financial Crisis Part 1
The on-going global financial crisis has generated debates about the extent to which the Nigerian economy is at risk of contagion which is spreading all over the world. To sensibly answer this question, we must carefully diagnose the causes and critical elements of the US and European financial meltdown which have now degenerated into a cause for global concern. The root of the problem was the housing bubble which led to unrealistic property prices in the US. This led banks to lower lending standards and grant mortgages to borrowers who would otherwise not be qualified to access them. Those borrowers on their part were enticed to procure those mortgages because of easy initial terms and the presumed availability of refinancing options on more favourable terms.
Remember this all made sense because interest rates were low, and property values were rising dramatically on a seemingly sustained basis. However once housing prices started to stagnate or drop, and interest rates began to tighten, refinancing became more difficult, and defaults and foreclosures began to increase. Once that cycle was broken, the wheel would naturally turn in the opposite direction, and property prices began to plunge just as easy initial terms began to expire and adjustable rate mortgages were reset to higher interest rates leading to more defaults and foreclosures. Gradually concerns about the value of portfolios of financial institutions and corporates with exposure to housing and mortgage markets began to spread and credit to such institutions dried up.
That led consecutively to the failure of Northern Rock, INDYMAC and Bear Sterns a major US investment bank with exposure to securitized mortgages. Fears began to spread about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and American capital markets plunged leading to a government “bail out” of the two mortgage behemoths. By this time, a credit crisis had developed which eventually spread beyond mortgage and housing related businesses to the entire financial markets as no one knew which institution would follow. Huge veritable firms were threatened-Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, HBOS, Washington Mutual and the top two investment banks, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs had to convert to bank holding companies (essentially seeking access to retail deposits and FDIC insurance) to survive. In September everything hit the fan, leading to Henry Paulson’s famous $700billion bail-out plan as the credit squeeze now threatened a wider recession.
What were the critical elements that combined to produce this spectacular market failure? There were six major ones- weak macroeconomic conditions produced by an irresponsible US government under George Bush that incurred huge budget deficits and unsustainable debts while fighting two major wars; asset price bubbles (housing); excess capital in financial markets; imprudent lending by banks and the financial sector; “irrational exuberance” in capital and financial markets; and weak financial market regulation. With the exception of our very strong macroeconomics (huge foreign currency reserves and low external debt), each one of the other elements in present in the Nigerian case!
We have asset price bubbles (recently busted share prices and perhaps a developing property bubble as well); banks have been encouraged to amass capital in excess of their requirements (clearly there is an over-supply of bank stocks on the capital market and the talk about share buy-backs is an admission of over-capitalisation); there has been a wave of imprudent lending most notably (but not limited to) margin lending to purchase over-valued stocks; there has been a mass hysteria in the capital market with wholesale, institutional and retail investors alike rushing in and expecting 100 percent annual returns! I also believe there has not been sufficient or appropriate regulation in the financial sector as everyone focused on banking sector growth and capital market regulators did not display sufficient understanding of the underlying market risks.
It does seem that the major insulation from a domestic financial crisis is not the financial sector itself, but our very strong macroeconomic conditions. We must thank God for Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala (and debt forgiveness) and Olusegun Obasanjo (for leaving us $50billion in reserves). And even our macroeconomics while sound, are headed in the wrong direction-oil prices are plunging, spending is rising, infrastructure remains weak, and policy is stagnant or reversing. The outlook for Nigeria will depend on the answer to some critical questions-will government curtail spending and revise its oil price benchmark downwards in the face of plummeting oil prices? Will government put in play a more effective policy for power, transport and other infrastructure, as well as overall economic management? How large are the margin lending related (and other loan) losses in the banking sector? How significant are Nigerian bank exposures to international banks? Finally will regulatory capacity in the capital market be rapidly overhauled? opeyemiagbaje.blogspot.com
Agbaje is CEO of Resources and Trust Company Ltd-a strategy, consultancy and business advisory firm. RTC POLICY is the policy, government and political consultancy division while RTC Strategy and Advisory offers private sector advisory services.
Remember this all made sense because interest rates were low, and property values were rising dramatically on a seemingly sustained basis. However once housing prices started to stagnate or drop, and interest rates began to tighten, refinancing became more difficult, and defaults and foreclosures began to increase. Once that cycle was broken, the wheel would naturally turn in the opposite direction, and property prices began to plunge just as easy initial terms began to expire and adjustable rate mortgages were reset to higher interest rates leading to more defaults and foreclosures. Gradually concerns about the value of portfolios of financial institutions and corporates with exposure to housing and mortgage markets began to spread and credit to such institutions dried up.
That led consecutively to the failure of Northern Rock, INDYMAC and Bear Sterns a major US investment bank with exposure to securitized mortgages. Fears began to spread about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and American capital markets plunged leading to a government “bail out” of the two mortgage behemoths. By this time, a credit crisis had developed which eventually spread beyond mortgage and housing related businesses to the entire financial markets as no one knew which institution would follow. Huge veritable firms were threatened-Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, HBOS, Washington Mutual and the top two investment banks, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs had to convert to bank holding companies (essentially seeking access to retail deposits and FDIC insurance) to survive. In September everything hit the fan, leading to Henry Paulson’s famous $700billion bail-out plan as the credit squeeze now threatened a wider recession.
What were the critical elements that combined to produce this spectacular market failure? There were six major ones- weak macroeconomic conditions produced by an irresponsible US government under George Bush that incurred huge budget deficits and unsustainable debts while fighting two major wars; asset price bubbles (housing); excess capital in financial markets; imprudent lending by banks and the financial sector; “irrational exuberance” in capital and financial markets; and weak financial market regulation. With the exception of our very strong macroeconomics (huge foreign currency reserves and low external debt), each one of the other elements in present in the Nigerian case!
We have asset price bubbles (recently busted share prices and perhaps a developing property bubble as well); banks have been encouraged to amass capital in excess of their requirements (clearly there is an over-supply of bank stocks on the capital market and the talk about share buy-backs is an admission of over-capitalisation); there has been a wave of imprudent lending most notably (but not limited to) margin lending to purchase over-valued stocks; there has been a mass hysteria in the capital market with wholesale, institutional and retail investors alike rushing in and expecting 100 percent annual returns! I also believe there has not been sufficient or appropriate regulation in the financial sector as everyone focused on banking sector growth and capital market regulators did not display sufficient understanding of the underlying market risks.
It does seem that the major insulation from a domestic financial crisis is not the financial sector itself, but our very strong macroeconomic conditions. We must thank God for Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala (and debt forgiveness) and Olusegun Obasanjo (for leaving us $50billion in reserves). And even our macroeconomics while sound, are headed in the wrong direction-oil prices are plunging, spending is rising, infrastructure remains weak, and policy is stagnant or reversing. The outlook for Nigeria will depend on the answer to some critical questions-will government curtail spending and revise its oil price benchmark downwards in the face of plummeting oil prices? Will government put in play a more effective policy for power, transport and other infrastructure, as well as overall economic management? How large are the margin lending related (and other loan) losses in the banking sector? How significant are Nigerian bank exposures to international banks? Finally will regulatory capacity in the capital market be rapidly overhauled? opeyemiagbaje.blogspot.com
Agbaje is CEO of Resources and Trust Company Ltd-a strategy, consultancy and business advisory firm. RTC POLICY is the policy, government and political consultancy division while RTC Strategy and Advisory offers private sector advisory services.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Re: Freedom of Information Bill
I believe a freedom of Information Bill if passed (in an authentic form, rather than in a fundamentally diluted version-which we must guard against) will be an important element in restructuring our politics and democracy.
We have a political system that is not accountable to the people-votes do not necessarily determine who wins elections; parties are not internally democratic; the economy is not significantly dependent on taxes; corruption and abuse of office is endemic; and elected officers become masters rather than servants of the electorate, once in office.
I believe access to information is a fundamental plank in addressing this “colonial” political system.
Of course there must be other planks – civic citizenship, popular participation by elite and middle class groups, internal democracy within political parties, electoral reform, and strengthening INEC and judicial independence amongst others.
I believe that because our current class of political overlords understand the real possibility that greater access to government information can severely erode their political prerogatives and power and expose corruption and maladministration they will not willingly allow its passing.
So civil society must increase the pressure and seek international support.
We must also put individual legislators on the line to indicate whether they support FOI or not.
We have a political system that is not accountable to the people-votes do not necessarily determine who wins elections; parties are not internally democratic; the economy is not significantly dependent on taxes; corruption and abuse of office is endemic; and elected officers become masters rather than servants of the electorate, once in office.
I believe access to information is a fundamental plank in addressing this “colonial” political system.
Of course there must be other planks – civic citizenship, popular participation by elite and middle class groups, internal democracy within political parties, electoral reform, and strengthening INEC and judicial independence amongst others.
I believe that because our current class of political overlords understand the real possibility that greater access to government information can severely erode their political prerogatives and power and expose corruption and maladministration they will not willingly allow its passing.
So civil society must increase the pressure and seek international support.
We must also put individual legislators on the line to indicate whether they support FOI or not.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Is Nigeria a Colonial State?
A law firm organised a conference on freedom of information earlier this year to which I was invited. When time came to contribute to the discussions, I urged participants at the event to recognise the fundamental issues involved in passing a freedom of information bill. My argument was essentially that constitutional law in nation-states, and laws having a bearing on constitutional structure, political power and fundamental human rights usually reflect the balance of power within such states. The constitution of the United Kingdom for instance has evolved from a full monarchy to a titular monarchy within a parliamentary democracy essentially reflecting the shifting balance of power in that country.
The Americans constructed a constitution reflecting the aspirations of its founding fathers for a federal democracy in which all men would be free and in which no man would be all-powerful. Given that the US was founded by people in search of liberty and freedom, the US constitution reflects those realities and biases. It is the same for other countries. The existence of a freedom of information bill in a country reflects the fact that political power in those countries reside with the people. Only a truly democratic nation could enact a real freedom of information bill. China for instance, in spite of its economic success cannot afford to promulgate a freedom of information law. Neither can Saudi Arabia, Iran or Cuba. Nigerians I therefore argued should recognise that our real assignment would be to change the balance of power in the Nigerian state in favour of the people.
I agreed that passage of the freedom of information bill would be a big bonus in the journey towards altering that balance of power, but I cautioned that no one knows that better than the present custodians of the state, who know only too well the potential of such legislation in exposing corruption, deepening participatory democracy and expanding fundamental human rights. Accordingly given the corrupt and undemocratic nature of the Nigerian state, it would be very naive to expect an authentic freedom of information bill to be enacted. That was why ex-President Obasanjo did not sign the bill passed by the past National Assembly, and that was why I was pessimistic that the current Assembly would do the same.
Given the feedback I received during and after the seminar, I realised (quite to my surprise) that my hypothesis was a bit too complicated for some of the attendees and speakers, even for a gathering of lawyers and journalists. One particular learned gentleman asked whether I was a coup plotter! After the event Ms Valerie Ogbuah, Businessday’s late law editor (may her sweet gentle soul rest in peace) sent me an e-mail requesting me to document my views for Businessday’s law pages, which I did and which she published. In that publication, I added that Nigerians must be vigilant as to the contents of any freedom of information bill that would be passed by the current legislature. Again, knowing the nature of the Nigerian state, I suspected that when the state was cornered on the matter, the legislature would resort to subterfuge-enact a law that carries the title “Freedom of Information” but whose contents would be diametrically opposed to any such notion.
The day the Presidency gathered all its appointees into the Aso Rock banquet hall, brought in a judge, and made all of them swear publicly to an oath of secrecy, any notions that this government is supportive of free access to information by the citizens and the mass media became fanciful and unrealistic. It was significant that the presidency which could have asked those appointees to sign those oaths privately (like secret cults do) and inserted same in their files, chose to have the event done publicly perhaps to signal to those citizens who think Nigeria belongs to them that, “No, this country belongs to the government!” Now we hear that the Senate Committee on Information has re-drafted the Bill to actually make it virtually impossible to access information, much as I expected.
The roots of the problem go back to our colonial times. The colonial government created a state reflecting the needs of a government that had imposed itself on a conquered people-a colonial army and police “force” oriented towards maintaining public order by force of arms and brainwashed into regarding the citizenry as “bloody civilians”, Government Reservation Areas (GRAs) in which colonial officers could live in safety and seclusion from angry natives, Official Secrets Acts and “General Orders” which preserved the colonial masters’ secrets from exposure to citizens and nationalist leaders, and laws against sedition which prevented educated natives from inciting the populace against the colonialists. While these were perfectly understandable needs of a colonial regime, the tragedy is that at independence, nationalist politicians merely inherited the colonial state with little or no changes. opeyemiagbaje.blogspot.com
Agbaje is CEO of Resources and Trust Company Ltd-a strategy, consultancy and business advisory firm. RTC POLICY is the policy, government and political consultancy division of the company.
The Americans constructed a constitution reflecting the aspirations of its founding fathers for a federal democracy in which all men would be free and in which no man would be all-powerful. Given that the US was founded by people in search of liberty and freedom, the US constitution reflects those realities and biases. It is the same for other countries. The existence of a freedom of information bill in a country reflects the fact that political power in those countries reside with the people. Only a truly democratic nation could enact a real freedom of information bill. China for instance, in spite of its economic success cannot afford to promulgate a freedom of information law. Neither can Saudi Arabia, Iran or Cuba. Nigerians I therefore argued should recognise that our real assignment would be to change the balance of power in the Nigerian state in favour of the people.
I agreed that passage of the freedom of information bill would be a big bonus in the journey towards altering that balance of power, but I cautioned that no one knows that better than the present custodians of the state, who know only too well the potential of such legislation in exposing corruption, deepening participatory democracy and expanding fundamental human rights. Accordingly given the corrupt and undemocratic nature of the Nigerian state, it would be very naive to expect an authentic freedom of information bill to be enacted. That was why ex-President Obasanjo did not sign the bill passed by the past National Assembly, and that was why I was pessimistic that the current Assembly would do the same.
Given the feedback I received during and after the seminar, I realised (quite to my surprise) that my hypothesis was a bit too complicated for some of the attendees and speakers, even for a gathering of lawyers and journalists. One particular learned gentleman asked whether I was a coup plotter! After the event Ms Valerie Ogbuah, Businessday’s late law editor (may her sweet gentle soul rest in peace) sent me an e-mail requesting me to document my views for Businessday’s law pages, which I did and which she published. In that publication, I added that Nigerians must be vigilant as to the contents of any freedom of information bill that would be passed by the current legislature. Again, knowing the nature of the Nigerian state, I suspected that when the state was cornered on the matter, the legislature would resort to subterfuge-enact a law that carries the title “Freedom of Information” but whose contents would be diametrically opposed to any such notion.
The day the Presidency gathered all its appointees into the Aso Rock banquet hall, brought in a judge, and made all of them swear publicly to an oath of secrecy, any notions that this government is supportive of free access to information by the citizens and the mass media became fanciful and unrealistic. It was significant that the presidency which could have asked those appointees to sign those oaths privately (like secret cults do) and inserted same in their files, chose to have the event done publicly perhaps to signal to those citizens who think Nigeria belongs to them that, “No, this country belongs to the government!” Now we hear that the Senate Committee on Information has re-drafted the Bill to actually make it virtually impossible to access information, much as I expected.
The roots of the problem go back to our colonial times. The colonial government created a state reflecting the needs of a government that had imposed itself on a conquered people-a colonial army and police “force” oriented towards maintaining public order by force of arms and brainwashed into regarding the citizenry as “bloody civilians”, Government Reservation Areas (GRAs) in which colonial officers could live in safety and seclusion from angry natives, Official Secrets Acts and “General Orders” which preserved the colonial masters’ secrets from exposure to citizens and nationalist leaders, and laws against sedition which prevented educated natives from inciting the populace against the colonialists. While these were perfectly understandable needs of a colonial regime, the tragedy is that at independence, nationalist politicians merely inherited the colonial state with little or no changes. opeyemiagbaje.blogspot.com
Agbaje is CEO of Resources and Trust Company Ltd-a strategy, consultancy and business advisory firm. RTC POLICY is the policy, government and political consultancy division of the company.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Yar'adua's Renaissance Part 2
So it appears that since his return from Saudi Arabia, President Yar’adua is revving up his administration’s engines; he has asked his flight engineer (some will say control tower) out of the craft and selected a new one, he is engaging the gears and is now seeking to re-assemble a new flight crew. But he still has to define the destination. And the definition of the destination must also influence the choice of a crew. In simple terms, while it appears that the regime is looking more decisive, it is not yet clear in what direction that decisiveness proposes to go. The regime’s policy direction is yet to be fully clarified and in the absence of that clarification, it is not clear what type of people the regime would be looking for in its proposed cabinet re-shuffle.
One worrying indicator was the Channels Television closure which suggested a possible intent towards a more authoritarian inclination. It is clear like most commentators have noted that Channels TV made a professional error in not cross-checking the report that the president may resign before airing it. In spite of this error however, there was more than enough mitigation in the whole circumstances. The station quoted a third-party international news agency which had been similarly deceived by whoever sent those hoax reports. They immediately reported the rebuttal and apologised rather than stick to a wrong position. Clearly the government’s action was an over-reaction and reflects probably a desire to send a message of a tougher posture in relation to the media. Someone in government or the security agencies is clearly uncomfortable with the media’s open discussion of matters they would prefer to be handled behind closed doors. In any event, the resort to arbitary actions rather than an adherence to the rule of law, has damaged the regime’s democratic credentials.
More importantly, the Channels affair reminds us that there are some constituencies who are interested in formenting national disorder and who will do anything to achieve their desires. The real issue is, who were the people who sent the hoax e-mails in the name of the News Agency of Nigeria, and what was their objective? And why do the PDP national executives continue to make reckless allegations of treason in response to every press statement issued by opposition parties? My suspicion is that all we are seeing (including the scape-goating of Channels) are symptoms reflective of deeper tensions over more fundamental concerns relating to political power and succession scenarios.
But back to the Yar’adua regime and the prospects for policy invigoration. The most important role of a leader is to provide a vision and direction, and them to assemble a team that he can influence, manage, motivate, and lead to actualise that vision. And then the leader must communicate the vision and secure support of the people for the vision. And the leader must be bold, courageous and decisive in removing obstacles and facing challenges in the path. And the vision, direction and policies charted by the leader must be the right one. It is perfectly possible (as Hitler for instance demonstrated) for a leader to lead a whole nation on a path that is not quite right.
The 7-Point Agenda provides a basis for identifying areas of government priorities. But it does not define what is to be done with any of the matters contained in the agenda. Like the power sector for instance has demonstrated, a policy that understands the issues in the sector and that provides a road map for dealing with those issues is indispensable. The NEEDS document was an example of a detailed economic strategy document that analysed the issues, defined objectives, solutions and policies, provided an action plan and identified targets and deliverables. Underlying any vision or strategy is a philosophy-some coherent beliefs and first principles that provide a frame of reference for the details in the plan. So what is the regime’s philosophy of governance?
Does the regime believe in a private-sector driven economy? Does the regime want to see an economy operating on free enterprise principles but with strong regulation and an effective competition and anti-trust regime? What are its views about education, health and social services? What is President Yar’adua’s position on some of the major political and constitutional issues confronting Nigeria-devolution of power, fiscal federalism, Niger-Delta and other matters relating to the structure of our federal system? What does the President really think about corruption and economic crimes? What kind of nation does President Yar’adua want to create? What national identity does he hope to forge out of Nigeria’s many ethnic groups and peoples, if any? What is the regime’s attitude to the world that defines its thinking on foreign, defence and security policy? Government and leadership cannot operate in a philosophical vacuum and where there is no clarity about an entity’s philosophical orientation, something emerges to fill the space. Nature as they say abhors a vacuum!
The point of this all-the regime must urgently define its philosophy, vision and direction, and policy orientation and select ministers who understand and can implement actions to realise that vision.
One worrying indicator was the Channels Television closure which suggested a possible intent towards a more authoritarian inclination. It is clear like most commentators have noted that Channels TV made a professional error in not cross-checking the report that the president may resign before airing it. In spite of this error however, there was more than enough mitigation in the whole circumstances. The station quoted a third-party international news agency which had been similarly deceived by whoever sent those hoax reports. They immediately reported the rebuttal and apologised rather than stick to a wrong position. Clearly the government’s action was an over-reaction and reflects probably a desire to send a message of a tougher posture in relation to the media. Someone in government or the security agencies is clearly uncomfortable with the media’s open discussion of matters they would prefer to be handled behind closed doors. In any event, the resort to arbitary actions rather than an adherence to the rule of law, has damaged the regime’s democratic credentials.
More importantly, the Channels affair reminds us that there are some constituencies who are interested in formenting national disorder and who will do anything to achieve their desires. The real issue is, who were the people who sent the hoax e-mails in the name of the News Agency of Nigeria, and what was their objective? And why do the PDP national executives continue to make reckless allegations of treason in response to every press statement issued by opposition parties? My suspicion is that all we are seeing (including the scape-goating of Channels) are symptoms reflective of deeper tensions over more fundamental concerns relating to political power and succession scenarios.
But back to the Yar’adua regime and the prospects for policy invigoration. The most important role of a leader is to provide a vision and direction, and them to assemble a team that he can influence, manage, motivate, and lead to actualise that vision. And then the leader must communicate the vision and secure support of the people for the vision. And the leader must be bold, courageous and decisive in removing obstacles and facing challenges in the path. And the vision, direction and policies charted by the leader must be the right one. It is perfectly possible (as Hitler for instance demonstrated) for a leader to lead a whole nation on a path that is not quite right.
The 7-Point Agenda provides a basis for identifying areas of government priorities. But it does not define what is to be done with any of the matters contained in the agenda. Like the power sector for instance has demonstrated, a policy that understands the issues in the sector and that provides a road map for dealing with those issues is indispensable. The NEEDS document was an example of a detailed economic strategy document that analysed the issues, defined objectives, solutions and policies, provided an action plan and identified targets and deliverables. Underlying any vision or strategy is a philosophy-some coherent beliefs and first principles that provide a frame of reference for the details in the plan. So what is the regime’s philosophy of governance?
Does the regime believe in a private-sector driven economy? Does the regime want to see an economy operating on free enterprise principles but with strong regulation and an effective competition and anti-trust regime? What are its views about education, health and social services? What is President Yar’adua’s position on some of the major political and constitutional issues confronting Nigeria-devolution of power, fiscal federalism, Niger-Delta and other matters relating to the structure of our federal system? What does the President really think about corruption and economic crimes? What kind of nation does President Yar’adua want to create? What national identity does he hope to forge out of Nigeria’s many ethnic groups and peoples, if any? What is the regime’s attitude to the world that defines its thinking on foreign, defence and security policy? Government and leadership cannot operate in a philosophical vacuum and where there is no clarity about an entity’s philosophical orientation, something emerges to fill the space. Nature as they say abhors a vacuum!
The point of this all-the regime must urgently define its philosophy, vision and direction, and policy orientation and select ministers who understand and can implement actions to realise that vision.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Yar'adua's Renaissance?
It is amazing how the prognosis has shifted concerning the Yar’adua Presidency in just one week! When it was first reported that President Yar’adua had undertaken a trip to Saudi Arabia for the lesser hajj, just after replacing the service chiefs, I immediately started asking myself questions, even before the escalated rumours about his health began to circulate. Why did he replace the service chiefs? Was there more to the decision? Wasn’t he supposed to be quite close to General Azazi? Why did he feel compelled to fire him as defence chief? And of course I wondered whether it was just lesser hajj, or whether a trip to some Saudi hospital was not on the cards.
So I was not terribly surprised when I saw an on-line report in Sahara Reporters suggesting that our president was really in hospital. And then the president went quiet…and quiet… and still quiet, while Nigerians and the whole world wondered what was going on. In the information vacuum, the rumour mill and “scenario planning” began to swirl. I was a guest on CNBC Africa last Monday precisely to discuss those matters and of course this column last week began to examine leadership succession scenarios. And of course, it does appear that most of the “succession planning” was happening right inside the presidency, with the president’s own cabinet and government secretary touted to be the planner-in-chief!
When it was reported that the president had essentially (as one newspaper put it) sneaked into the country at 3am, some speculated not unreasonably that perhaps our dear leader had been on a wheelchair or stretcher, or at least he was not in a state to be seen by the public. Well we would never really know. By the time it was reported that the president would be at work last Monday I was clear in my mind that no such thing was likely to happen. I dismissed it as another doubtful statement that would prolong the uncertainty and lack of clarity about the true state of things concerning Yar’adua’s condition. And then the blitz. That morning, Yar’adua truly turned up at work and swore in the new service chiefs. And then fired Babagana Kingibe!
There was one part of me that had always wondered whether after Kingibe completed the accumulation of government power in the SGF’s office, someone else was not going to inherit the immense powers so amassed. And so it now turns out. Like I warned in this column last week, sometimes the best schemes blow up in the face of the schemer! And then the presidency announced a new government structure. By and large, I support the new structure, especially the creation of a ministry on Niger-Delta, which I hope will accelerate infrastructural development and youth empowerment in the region. And of course also provide badly-needed political oversight for the NDDC.
I suspect the “unbundling” of the other ministries including power, police affairs, works, aviation, water resources, environment etc, was also probably justified. However I make the point that the underlying logic for the previous mergers remain valid-there is need for policy integration at the ministerial level in those ministries, and a new mechanism will have to be found to achieve that integration. For example, the minister of power needs coordination with the petroleum affairs ministry, particularly the gas segment of it, and the same can be said of all the others. I concede however that given the state of the Nigerian bureaucracy, the merged ministries may have become too unwieldy to move at the required speed.
And then the vice-president has inaugurated the Niger-Delta technical committee, and there appears to be finally some hope of the type of multi-track engagement-infrastructural investment, youth empowerment, dialogue and law enforcement that hopefully may make a difference in the troubled region. At the very least, this multi-track approach should reduce civil support for the militants and criminals who have now taken over in the Delta. Now the whole buzz is about an impending cabinet reshuffle. It appears Yar’adua has finally had enough of cabinet largely imposed on him by the governors and party chieftains and now seeks to create his own team that may share the new found sense of urgency.
The President can move quickly to reconstitute the cabinet, ensure prompt approval of his nominees for the Infrastructure Concessioning and Regulatory Commission (ICRC) and Fiscal Responsibility Commission, constitute the National Procurement Commission and then commence a rapid implementation of his government’s agenda. He can revert to a faith in private sector mechanisms particularly in respect of the power sector, ensure quick execution of his oil sector reforms and remove any impressions about a reducing commitment to anti-corruption. a lot can be done in just under three years, or whenever, and the president appears to have made up his mind to shake things up a bit. Now that Yar’adua appears to be finding his rhythm, let’s hope he will sustain the pace. opeyemiagbaje.blogspot.com
Agbaje is CEO of Resources and Trust Company Ltd, a strategy, consultancy and business advisory firm. RTC POLICY is the policy, government and political consultancy division of the co
So I was not terribly surprised when I saw an on-line report in Sahara Reporters suggesting that our president was really in hospital. And then the president went quiet…and quiet… and still quiet, while Nigerians and the whole world wondered what was going on. In the information vacuum, the rumour mill and “scenario planning” began to swirl. I was a guest on CNBC Africa last Monday precisely to discuss those matters and of course this column last week began to examine leadership succession scenarios. And of course, it does appear that most of the “succession planning” was happening right inside the presidency, with the president’s own cabinet and government secretary touted to be the planner-in-chief!
When it was reported that the president had essentially (as one newspaper put it) sneaked into the country at 3am, some speculated not unreasonably that perhaps our dear leader had been on a wheelchair or stretcher, or at least he was not in a state to be seen by the public. Well we would never really know. By the time it was reported that the president would be at work last Monday I was clear in my mind that no such thing was likely to happen. I dismissed it as another doubtful statement that would prolong the uncertainty and lack of clarity about the true state of things concerning Yar’adua’s condition. And then the blitz. That morning, Yar’adua truly turned up at work and swore in the new service chiefs. And then fired Babagana Kingibe!
There was one part of me that had always wondered whether after Kingibe completed the accumulation of government power in the SGF’s office, someone else was not going to inherit the immense powers so amassed. And so it now turns out. Like I warned in this column last week, sometimes the best schemes blow up in the face of the schemer! And then the presidency announced a new government structure. By and large, I support the new structure, especially the creation of a ministry on Niger-Delta, which I hope will accelerate infrastructural development and youth empowerment in the region. And of course also provide badly-needed political oversight for the NDDC.
I suspect the “unbundling” of the other ministries including power, police affairs, works, aviation, water resources, environment etc, was also probably justified. However I make the point that the underlying logic for the previous mergers remain valid-there is need for policy integration at the ministerial level in those ministries, and a new mechanism will have to be found to achieve that integration. For example, the minister of power needs coordination with the petroleum affairs ministry, particularly the gas segment of it, and the same can be said of all the others. I concede however that given the state of the Nigerian bureaucracy, the merged ministries may have become too unwieldy to move at the required speed.
And then the vice-president has inaugurated the Niger-Delta technical committee, and there appears to be finally some hope of the type of multi-track engagement-infrastructural investment, youth empowerment, dialogue and law enforcement that hopefully may make a difference in the troubled region. At the very least, this multi-track approach should reduce civil support for the militants and criminals who have now taken over in the Delta. Now the whole buzz is about an impending cabinet reshuffle. It appears Yar’adua has finally had enough of cabinet largely imposed on him by the governors and party chieftains and now seeks to create his own team that may share the new found sense of urgency.
The President can move quickly to reconstitute the cabinet, ensure prompt approval of his nominees for the Infrastructure Concessioning and Regulatory Commission (ICRC) and Fiscal Responsibility Commission, constitute the National Procurement Commission and then commence a rapid implementation of his government’s agenda. He can revert to a faith in private sector mechanisms particularly in respect of the power sector, ensure quick execution of his oil sector reforms and remove any impressions about a reducing commitment to anti-corruption. a lot can be done in just under three years, or whenever, and the president appears to have made up his mind to shake things up a bit. Now that Yar’adua appears to be finding his rhythm, let’s hope he will sustain the pace. opeyemiagbaje.blogspot.com
Agbaje is CEO of Resources and Trust Company Ltd, a strategy, consultancy and business advisory firm. RTC POLICY is the policy, government and political consultancy division of the co
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Nigerian and American Scenarios Part 2
What does this mean for Nigeria? Is the Obama phenomenon possible in Nigeria? If Barack had been born in Nigeria, would the system have given him the opportunity to project himself to his present position? Would he have been able to retain his principles while doing so? If Obama’s father had taken him back to Kenya, where would he be today? A frustrated law professor in University of Nairobi? An exiled dissident? A labour leader, social activist or civil society activist? A journalist or newspaper columnist crying like a lone voice in the wilderness? A disgruntled opposition leader? A depressed poet or intellectual who takes solace in alcohol and drugs? Or perhaps unable to beat them, might he have joined in corruption, election rigging, occultism, violence and maladministration forgoing previous lofty ideals? Nigeria and Africa must rise to the real lesson of the Obama revolution and begin to create a new, truly democratic society that gives opportunity through education and other social infrastructure to all their citizens, and allows the best of our society, and not the most venal, sycophantic, base and unprincipled to rise to positions of leadership.
Which brings me to the current outlook for Nigeria. If you were a scenario thinker, what scenarios would you be thinking about currently? Are they hopeful or troubling scenarios? First you would have to be projecting an end-game in the Niger-Delta. I have written recently (“The Trouble in the Niger-Delta”-August 13) about the situation in the region and stated my views about the way out. But the present state of things offers little hope. It looks increasingly like the Nigerian state is stumbling into disaster in the region. Possibilities include a total breakdown of law and order, full scale outbreak of military hostilities, or diminished or lost sovereignty. I suspect that one day, the Nigerian state will offer the region 75 per cent derivation and it may be too late.
The worst case “Sharia” scenario may appear to have receded somewhat, but perhaps appearances may be deceptive. It still seems to me that left to millions of people up north, having being denied education and prosperity; they will rather live in a society governed in line with full scale application of Islamic law as they increasingly equate their leaders’ inability to provide them a worthwhile existence with non-adherence to Allah’s injunctions. And today, the only context in which the northern urban poor have a voice is when they speak in the name of God. The governors in the region may have attempted to blunt and deflect this desire with half-hearted (what Obasanjo called “Political Sharia”) Sharia but may be the chicken will come home to roost someday. You either educate the children in the North, reduce poverty and improve the quality of life in the region or we will have to deal with some revolutionary upheaval tainted with religion someday.
More immediate scenarios revolve around the presidency. What will the Supreme Court say about the 2007 elections when it finally considers the petitions filed by Atiku Abubakar and Muhammadu Buhari? If the Court nullifies the election, Nigeria will be walking in uncharted waters as the Senate President may be called upon to conduct a fresh election. That would place Brigadier-General David Mark in Aso Rock at least for a while. David Mark was an insider in the shuffling, scheming and plotting of military politics that we saw from 1983 to 1999 spanning the Buhari, Babangida and Abacha regimes. And he emerged from it all a consummate survivor who has been a power broker in the Senate since the return to democracy. That would also give Buhari, Atiku, Babangida and perhaps others such as Babagana Kingibe, Olusola (or even Bukola) Saraki or Peter Odili an opportunity to mount a now or never challenge for the Presidency. In a context in which there is no legitimate regime-in-power such a scenario may have several levers of in-built instability.
What of issues of presidential succession if the office becomes vacant by other means? The Hausa-Fulani North has waited impatiently for Obasanjo’s eight years to “have our power back”. Will they have faith in the constitutionally prescribed mode of succession in which a Southern vice-president ascends to the Presidency? Would some seek to short-circuit the constitution and thus create a new “June 12” scenario? Would the Ijaws and the entire Niger-Delta not have a strengthened argument for “resource control” or even worse if the constitution is disregarded in such cavalier manner? What is the strategic import of the recent changes in the leadership of the Armed Forces? Do they have any bearing with these issues and possibilities? What of the abolishment of the office of Chief of Staff and cleaning up of the Aso Rock bureaucracy? Is there a strategic positioning of forces going on? Why? Why is the PDP’s own publicity secretary flying a kite about treason and threats against the state? On whose behalf is he testing which waters?
The import of these questions is that there are distinctly troubling possibilities if like me you enjoy projecting into the future. While America is preparing to elect as president a man whose father was a Kenyan student, we may actually be preparing to take a big step backwards, and endanger the gains we have recorded since 1999. As I was writing this, the Republicans who were praying for rain to disturb Obama’s open air speech are having to re-jig their own convention as Hurricane Gustav threatens Loiusiana reminding us to be careful what we pray or scheme for as our schemes sometimes blow up in our faces. God help Nigeria.
Which brings me to the current outlook for Nigeria. If you were a scenario thinker, what scenarios would you be thinking about currently? Are they hopeful or troubling scenarios? First you would have to be projecting an end-game in the Niger-Delta. I have written recently (“The Trouble in the Niger-Delta”-August 13) about the situation in the region and stated my views about the way out. But the present state of things offers little hope. It looks increasingly like the Nigerian state is stumbling into disaster in the region. Possibilities include a total breakdown of law and order, full scale outbreak of military hostilities, or diminished or lost sovereignty. I suspect that one day, the Nigerian state will offer the region 75 per cent derivation and it may be too late.
The worst case “Sharia” scenario may appear to have receded somewhat, but perhaps appearances may be deceptive. It still seems to me that left to millions of people up north, having being denied education and prosperity; they will rather live in a society governed in line with full scale application of Islamic law as they increasingly equate their leaders’ inability to provide them a worthwhile existence with non-adherence to Allah’s injunctions. And today, the only context in which the northern urban poor have a voice is when they speak in the name of God. The governors in the region may have attempted to blunt and deflect this desire with half-hearted (what Obasanjo called “Political Sharia”) Sharia but may be the chicken will come home to roost someday. You either educate the children in the North, reduce poverty and improve the quality of life in the region or we will have to deal with some revolutionary upheaval tainted with religion someday.
More immediate scenarios revolve around the presidency. What will the Supreme Court say about the 2007 elections when it finally considers the petitions filed by Atiku Abubakar and Muhammadu Buhari? If the Court nullifies the election, Nigeria will be walking in uncharted waters as the Senate President may be called upon to conduct a fresh election. That would place Brigadier-General David Mark in Aso Rock at least for a while. David Mark was an insider in the shuffling, scheming and plotting of military politics that we saw from 1983 to 1999 spanning the Buhari, Babangida and Abacha regimes. And he emerged from it all a consummate survivor who has been a power broker in the Senate since the return to democracy. That would also give Buhari, Atiku, Babangida and perhaps others such as Babagana Kingibe, Olusola (or even Bukola) Saraki or Peter Odili an opportunity to mount a now or never challenge for the Presidency. In a context in which there is no legitimate regime-in-power such a scenario may have several levers of in-built instability.
What of issues of presidential succession if the office becomes vacant by other means? The Hausa-Fulani North has waited impatiently for Obasanjo’s eight years to “have our power back”. Will they have faith in the constitutionally prescribed mode of succession in which a Southern vice-president ascends to the Presidency? Would some seek to short-circuit the constitution and thus create a new “June 12” scenario? Would the Ijaws and the entire Niger-Delta not have a strengthened argument for “resource control” or even worse if the constitution is disregarded in such cavalier manner? What is the strategic import of the recent changes in the leadership of the Armed Forces? Do they have any bearing with these issues and possibilities? What of the abolishment of the office of Chief of Staff and cleaning up of the Aso Rock bureaucracy? Is there a strategic positioning of forces going on? Why? Why is the PDP’s own publicity secretary flying a kite about treason and threats against the state? On whose behalf is he testing which waters?
The import of these questions is that there are distinctly troubling possibilities if like me you enjoy projecting into the future. While America is preparing to elect as president a man whose father was a Kenyan student, we may actually be preparing to take a big step backwards, and endanger the gains we have recorded since 1999. As I was writing this, the Republicans who were praying for rain to disturb Obama’s open air speech are having to re-jig their own convention as Hurricane Gustav threatens Loiusiana reminding us to be careful what we pray or scheme for as our schemes sometimes blow up in our faces. God help Nigeria.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Nigerian and American Scenarios Part 1
I was inclined to re-focus on Nigeria this week. On the other hand, I have been watching the historic Democratic National Convention (DNC) and I thought it would be useful sharing my thoughts on that exercise with our readers. So necessity, as they say became the mother of invention. This week we will review the DNC, and see what lessons the Nigerian nation can learn from that remarkable democratic exercise. And we will do this against the background of possible short and medium term Nigerian scenarios.
The democrats put up a real show in Denver, Colorado last week. I stayed up between 1 and 4am (Nigerian time) on each of the convention days. I wanted to carefully notice all the nuances of the process that would determine whether Barack Obama would succeed in seizing the opportunity of the convention to fully reveal himself to the American people. At the end of the week, I believe he succeeded beyond measure, and victory in November is now a distinct possibility. Senator Ted Kennedy’s mere appearance on convention day one was itself a major boost to democratic spirits. The old Senator is ill and has had brain surgery, yet he flew to Denver and gave a powerful speech to the democratic partisans gathered. But the highlight of the night was Michelle Obama.
Her task was to introduce herself to the American people, persuade them she was first lady material and tell the story of herself and Barack such that America would trust them with power. She did excellently. I was impressed by her intellect, grace and grit, and at the end of the day, her story and that of her husband and two daughters was one all Americans of all races and backgrounds could identify with. Day 2 was Hillary Clinton show, and she seized the moment. Hillary in my view gave the best speech of her life-passionate, articulate, bold and strategic. She just about eliminated any Republican hopes of reaping from a divided Democratic house, and positioned herself as the major power broker in the Democratic Party no matter what happens in this election. This lady is sure going to be around!
Day 3 saw the return of the master-Bill Clinton! He defined the issues in this race very clearly-a republican party that had squandered both economic and security gains of the previous democratic regime, and whose ideas were just wrong, and endorsed Barack Obama as ready to rule. The Clintonite passion, empathy and depth of communication skills was brought to bear as Clinton reminded Americans that Republicans had questioned his “foreign policy credentials” before he was elected in 1992 just as they were doing with Obama now and basically tore to shreds the carefully designed republican attack platform to rapturous applause. Joe Biden also gave an enthusiastic speech attacking John McCain as only he had the credibility to do.
On the final convention night, over 80,000 enthusiasts were packed in the stadium and hundreds or thousands more were on queues outside trying to get in. The rest of America and millions elsewhere were watching on television sets all over the world-over 40 million Americans according to the New York Times, more than watched the Olympic opening ceremony or Academy awards this year. Barack Obama was ready. I’m convinced he completed the demolition of the case the republicans had prepared against him, which Bill and Hillary Clinton (and that night Al Gore who had reminded Americans that President Abraham Lincoln’s cumulative experience before his election to the US Presidency was just about equivalent to Obama’s) had already severely damaged.
He outlined a clear economic and energy plan, with details; he attacked McCain’s touted judgment on foreign policy outlining instances-the Iraq war, Afghanistan, timeline for troop withdrawal from Iraq etc in which he was right and McCain wrong, and challenged him to a debate precisely on that turf; he destroyed republican attempts to portray him as merely a celebrity leaning on his work as a social and community activist and brought the whole stadium to tears. There was no African-American in that stadium who was not teary-eyed. I can confirm that I was happily crying along in my family lounge. The co-incidence of that day with the 45th anniversary of the “I have a dream” speech of Martin Luther King was too pungent to be missed. Indeed America has come a long way, and no matter what happens in November, America has proven that indeed it is the land of the possible. I look forward to a Barack Obama presidency.
The democrats put up a real show in Denver, Colorado last week. I stayed up between 1 and 4am (Nigerian time) on each of the convention days. I wanted to carefully notice all the nuances of the process that would determine whether Barack Obama would succeed in seizing the opportunity of the convention to fully reveal himself to the American people. At the end of the week, I believe he succeeded beyond measure, and victory in November is now a distinct possibility. Senator Ted Kennedy’s mere appearance on convention day one was itself a major boost to democratic spirits. The old Senator is ill and has had brain surgery, yet he flew to Denver and gave a powerful speech to the democratic partisans gathered. But the highlight of the night was Michelle Obama.
Her task was to introduce herself to the American people, persuade them she was first lady material and tell the story of herself and Barack such that America would trust them with power. She did excellently. I was impressed by her intellect, grace and grit, and at the end of the day, her story and that of her husband and two daughters was one all Americans of all races and backgrounds could identify with. Day 2 was Hillary Clinton show, and she seized the moment. Hillary in my view gave the best speech of her life-passionate, articulate, bold and strategic. She just about eliminated any Republican hopes of reaping from a divided Democratic house, and positioned herself as the major power broker in the Democratic Party no matter what happens in this election. This lady is sure going to be around!
Day 3 saw the return of the master-Bill Clinton! He defined the issues in this race very clearly-a republican party that had squandered both economic and security gains of the previous democratic regime, and whose ideas were just wrong, and endorsed Barack Obama as ready to rule. The Clintonite passion, empathy and depth of communication skills was brought to bear as Clinton reminded Americans that Republicans had questioned his “foreign policy credentials” before he was elected in 1992 just as they were doing with Obama now and basically tore to shreds the carefully designed republican attack platform to rapturous applause. Joe Biden also gave an enthusiastic speech attacking John McCain as only he had the credibility to do.
On the final convention night, over 80,000 enthusiasts were packed in the stadium and hundreds or thousands more were on queues outside trying to get in. The rest of America and millions elsewhere were watching on television sets all over the world-over 40 million Americans according to the New York Times, more than watched the Olympic opening ceremony or Academy awards this year. Barack Obama was ready. I’m convinced he completed the demolition of the case the republicans had prepared against him, which Bill and Hillary Clinton (and that night Al Gore who had reminded Americans that President Abraham Lincoln’s cumulative experience before his election to the US Presidency was just about equivalent to Obama’s) had already severely damaged.
He outlined a clear economic and energy plan, with details; he attacked McCain’s touted judgment on foreign policy outlining instances-the Iraq war, Afghanistan, timeline for troop withdrawal from Iraq etc in which he was right and McCain wrong, and challenged him to a debate precisely on that turf; he destroyed republican attempts to portray him as merely a celebrity leaning on his work as a social and community activist and brought the whole stadium to tears. There was no African-American in that stadium who was not teary-eyed. I can confirm that I was happily crying along in my family lounge. The co-incidence of that day with the 45th anniversary of the “I have a dream” speech of Martin Luther King was too pungent to be missed. Indeed America has come a long way, and no matter what happens in November, America has proven that indeed it is the land of the possible. I look forward to a Barack Obama presidency.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Biden cancels out McCain
Barack Obama announced his choice of vice-presidential nominee on Saturday morning. Contrary to many US analysts who have argued that the choice of vee-pee was not important, I have always felt that at least in the case of Obama, it would be a very critical decision. It gives Obama an opportunity to address voters’ concerns about his race, age, inexperience, and weakness on foreign policy and defence. It could be an opportunity to reach out to white, blue-collar, male and elderly voters an important voting bloc which had voted for Hillary in the democratic primary and had a possibility of going McCain in the general election. And it was also an opportunity to deal with the difficult decision of what to do with Hillary Clinton supporters who constituted almost fifty percent of democratic voters in the primaries.
Hilary Clinton remained my sentimental favourite for the job. Followers of this column will remember only too well my two articles on the so-called “Obama-Clinton” or “Clinton-Obama” dream ticket in which I leaned towards a joint-ticket of the two front-runners irrespective of who was at the head of the ticket. My initial preference for the top job was of course Hillary but I have since accepted (and enthusiastically too!) Obama’s candidacy and have become something of an advocate myself. And while my heart wanted Hillary as vice-president, my head knew it was unlikely to happen. Barack Obama was quite unlikely to want Hillary and Bill Clinton breathing down his neck and knowing that Hillary would still be looking towards another presidential run whenever the opportunity presents itself.
The fear that many Clinton-haters in the Republican Party would be energised by a Hillary nomination and thus further polarise the elections would have been another consideration against Hillary. Finally a friend of mine reminded me that the Kennedys who had turned over the family’s support to Barack Obama and one of whom was now in charge of the vee-pee pick were unlikely to re-empower their Clintonite rivals for influence within the Democratic Party by picking Hillary for the job. On the other hand, the continued disaffection of the large bloc of Clinton primary voters who may be crucial to an Obama victory in November was a strong argument for considering Hillary in spite of any misgivings. On a morbid note, I thought picking Hillary as vice-president may discourage any potential hit-men from planning to shoot a President Obama for fear of a worse outcome-a President Hillary Clinton!
I must mention by the way, that I have been disturbed by the trivialisation of the Obama candidacy by the “Corporate Nigeria” group whose previous notable political activity was their undisguised support for Obasanjo’s third-term. I suspect government may have to find new jobs for some of these people if we are to have more decorous and professional management of our stock exchange going forward. One of the things I find amusing about Nigerian society is the dissonance between the heros we claim and our behaviour. If you ask most Nigerian politicians who their political role models are, they are liable to mention Nelson Mandela, Lee Kuan Yew, Mahatma Ghandi and the like. Why I always wonder, don’t they make any effort to try to emulate these people?
In the end, Obama selected Senator Joe Biden of Delaware as his running-mate and prospective vice-president. Senator Biden, aged 65 is a veteran and heavy-weight in US Congressional politics and in the foreign policy establishment. He currently serves as Chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee and has chaired a Senate Judiciary sub-committee on crimes and drugs. He has been in the US Senate for 35 years and has himself run for President-first in 1988 and most recently in the race which yielded Obama as nominee. Even though Biden represents Delaware, a small state, his Pennsylvania roots and Irish, Roman Catholic background may be significant in other states.
Unlike McCain, Biden who has working-class roots may appeal to blue-collar whites, the sort who flocked to Hilary’s support and who may have tilted until now towards McCain. The most important contribution of Senator Biden to the Obama ticket however is in the re-assurance he offers to the foreign policy, defence and security establishment, and voters on whose minds those issues weigh most heavily, that the US Presidency under Obama will have the benefit of a voice as tested and knowledgeable as that of Biden when and if America’s relations with the world become the issue. When McCain seeks to remind Americans of Barack Obama’s lack of foreign policy experience, they can’t but notice that Joe Biden has that in abundance. In fact Biden has been in the Senate longer than McCain and as Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee can claim to know one or two things that McCain doesn’t know.
When McCain talks up issues like Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran and other potential trouble spots, the voters cannot fail to remember that Biden is very familiar with those issues. White, elderly and male voters will see Joe Biden and will hopefully be less worried about entrusting America to a still little-known African-American Senator with a tinge of Kenyan and Muslim roots. In short, Biden offers everything that McCain offers-pedigree, safety, experience and assurance, and more. In effect Biden should cancel out McCain in November, and that leaves us with Obama!
Hilary Clinton remained my sentimental favourite for the job. Followers of this column will remember only too well my two articles on the so-called “Obama-Clinton” or “Clinton-Obama” dream ticket in which I leaned towards a joint-ticket of the two front-runners irrespective of who was at the head of the ticket. My initial preference for the top job was of course Hillary but I have since accepted (and enthusiastically too!) Obama’s candidacy and have become something of an advocate myself. And while my heart wanted Hillary as vice-president, my head knew it was unlikely to happen. Barack Obama was quite unlikely to want Hillary and Bill Clinton breathing down his neck and knowing that Hillary would still be looking towards another presidential run whenever the opportunity presents itself.
The fear that many Clinton-haters in the Republican Party would be energised by a Hillary nomination and thus further polarise the elections would have been another consideration against Hillary. Finally a friend of mine reminded me that the Kennedys who had turned over the family’s support to Barack Obama and one of whom was now in charge of the vee-pee pick were unlikely to re-empower their Clintonite rivals for influence within the Democratic Party by picking Hillary for the job. On the other hand, the continued disaffection of the large bloc of Clinton primary voters who may be crucial to an Obama victory in November was a strong argument for considering Hillary in spite of any misgivings. On a morbid note, I thought picking Hillary as vice-president may discourage any potential hit-men from planning to shoot a President Obama for fear of a worse outcome-a President Hillary Clinton!
I must mention by the way, that I have been disturbed by the trivialisation of the Obama candidacy by the “Corporate Nigeria” group whose previous notable political activity was their undisguised support for Obasanjo’s third-term. I suspect government may have to find new jobs for some of these people if we are to have more decorous and professional management of our stock exchange going forward. One of the things I find amusing about Nigerian society is the dissonance between the heros we claim and our behaviour. If you ask most Nigerian politicians who their political role models are, they are liable to mention Nelson Mandela, Lee Kuan Yew, Mahatma Ghandi and the like. Why I always wonder, don’t they make any effort to try to emulate these people?
In the end, Obama selected Senator Joe Biden of Delaware as his running-mate and prospective vice-president. Senator Biden, aged 65 is a veteran and heavy-weight in US Congressional politics and in the foreign policy establishment. He currently serves as Chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee and has chaired a Senate Judiciary sub-committee on crimes and drugs. He has been in the US Senate for 35 years and has himself run for President-first in 1988 and most recently in the race which yielded Obama as nominee. Even though Biden represents Delaware, a small state, his Pennsylvania roots and Irish, Roman Catholic background may be significant in other states.
Unlike McCain, Biden who has working-class roots may appeal to blue-collar whites, the sort who flocked to Hilary’s support and who may have tilted until now towards McCain. The most important contribution of Senator Biden to the Obama ticket however is in the re-assurance he offers to the foreign policy, defence and security establishment, and voters on whose minds those issues weigh most heavily, that the US Presidency under Obama will have the benefit of a voice as tested and knowledgeable as that of Biden when and if America’s relations with the world become the issue. When McCain seeks to remind Americans of Barack Obama’s lack of foreign policy experience, they can’t but notice that Joe Biden has that in abundance. In fact Biden has been in the Senate longer than McCain and as Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee can claim to know one or two things that McCain doesn’t know.
When McCain talks up issues like Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran and other potential trouble spots, the voters cannot fail to remember that Biden is very familiar with those issues. White, elderly and male voters will see Joe Biden and will hopefully be less worried about entrusting America to a still little-known African-American Senator with a tinge of Kenyan and Muslim roots. In short, Biden offers everything that McCain offers-pedigree, safety, experience and assurance, and more. In effect Biden should cancel out McCain in November, and that leaves us with Obama!
A New Cold War?
The more things change, the more they remain the same? When the Berlin Wall came tumbling down in November 1989, German re-unification the next year and the collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991, the West triumphant proclaimed, “The End of History…” as Francis Fukuyama famously declared in his book of the same title. Fukuyama wrote that “a remarkable consensus concerning the legitimacy of liberal democracy as a system of government had emerged throughout the world over the past few years, as it conquered rival ideologies like hereditary monarchy, fascism, and most recently communism” and argued that liberal democracy may constitute the “end point of man kind’s ideological evolution”. From then, every reference to the United States of America on CNN and other western media was prefaced with the obligatory celebration, “the World’s sole superpower” rubbing it in to the ex-Soviets and all else who cared to listen that the US and its allies in NATO had conquered the world.
The Soviets were left stunned and confused. Mikhail Gorbachev had not sought the disintegration on of the USSR. He imagined himself to be a trusted partner of the US, and merely sought to ensure greater political and economic freedom in the USSR. While the west encouraged and celebrated him, their real objective was later revealed to be destruction of the Soviet system, and global dominance. In his resignation speech after the country he presided over disappeared beneath him, Gorbachev lamented, “I have firmly stood for independence, self-rule of nations, for the sovereignty of the republics, but at the same time for preservation of the union state, the unity of the country. Events went a different way. The policy prevailed of dismembering this country and disuniting the state, with which I cannot agree.”
I recall western analysts dismissing Gorbachev’s later distress with disdain, as the unstable Yeltsin became the new western friend and hero. The USSR became the Commonwealth of Independent States, then Russia, and continued to splinter in pieces. Many eastern bloc countries, (except the ones which switched unambiguously to the West such as Poland), continued to disintegrate-Yugoslavia into Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, Slovenia, Montenegro, and most recently Kosovo; Czechoslovakia into Czech and Slovakia, while on the other hand Western Germany which was in the western axis united with the weary eastern half. Russia continued to go down hill, as Yeltsin under western advice plunged into privatisation without market institutions leading to the emergence of oligarchs who seized control in the un-transparent sales. Until the remnants of the Russian security apparatus led by Vladimir Putin rose up to, as they saw it, rescue Russian from virtual ignominy and irrelevance.
I think the west misunderstood and mismanaged the undoubted victory of the free enterprise democratic system at the end of the cold war. The victory of the NATO Allies was most importantly a moral and philosophical victory that demonstrated the inherent superiority of the ideological underpinnings of free enterprise democracy. The USSR and its allies were not conquered; they decayed from inside. Gorbachev in the same speech earlier referred to admitted that the Soviet “society was suffocating in the vice of the command-bureaucratic system, doomed to serve ideology and bear the terrible burden of the arms race. It had reached the limits of its possibilities.” Even Deng Xiaoping in China had in 1978 come to the same realisation that communism now needed a dose of capitalism to grow as stagnation emerged.
But the west in my view continued to fight against a defeated foe, strangely as this was an adversary who under Gorbachev voluntarily admitted defeat and sought friendly relations with the west. Gorbachev proclaimed that “we opened ourselves to the world, gave up interference into other people’s affairs, the use of troops beyond the borders of the country, and trust, solidarity and respect came in response”. A conservative backlash was inevitable as Russia felt betrayed, and the west must ponder why Putin has enjoyed approval ratings averaging over 80 percent in his years in power-most Russians now regret the break-up of the Soviet Union and Russia’s diminished place in the world.
The world may now be sliding into a new cold war, with Russia seeking to preserve its sphere of influence and China becoming a global power. The events in Georgia in the last week demonstrate what I suspect is western strategy that is now lacking in moral clarity. What principles for instance justify independence in Kosovo, but not South Ossetia and Abkhazia? Why must Russia accept western missiles on Russia’s border in Georgia, while the US rejected Soviet missiles in Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis? Why must the territorial integrity of Georgia be preserved, when that of Serbia was not sacrosanct? Why has no one blamed Georgia which clearly started the fight in South Ossetia, giving Russia an opportunity to flex its muscles? US and Russian policy makers may be unwittingly creating a new cold war, but it may be one in which principles may not be entirely on either side.
The Soviets were left stunned and confused. Mikhail Gorbachev had not sought the disintegration on of the USSR. He imagined himself to be a trusted partner of the US, and merely sought to ensure greater political and economic freedom in the USSR. While the west encouraged and celebrated him, their real objective was later revealed to be destruction of the Soviet system, and global dominance. In his resignation speech after the country he presided over disappeared beneath him, Gorbachev lamented, “I have firmly stood for independence, self-rule of nations, for the sovereignty of the republics, but at the same time for preservation of the union state, the unity of the country. Events went a different way. The policy prevailed of dismembering this country and disuniting the state, with which I cannot agree.”
I recall western analysts dismissing Gorbachev’s later distress with disdain, as the unstable Yeltsin became the new western friend and hero. The USSR became the Commonwealth of Independent States, then Russia, and continued to splinter in pieces. Many eastern bloc countries, (except the ones which switched unambiguously to the West such as Poland), continued to disintegrate-Yugoslavia into Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, Slovenia, Montenegro, and most recently Kosovo; Czechoslovakia into Czech and Slovakia, while on the other hand Western Germany which was in the western axis united with the weary eastern half. Russia continued to go down hill, as Yeltsin under western advice plunged into privatisation without market institutions leading to the emergence of oligarchs who seized control in the un-transparent sales. Until the remnants of the Russian security apparatus led by Vladimir Putin rose up to, as they saw it, rescue Russian from virtual ignominy and irrelevance.
I think the west misunderstood and mismanaged the undoubted victory of the free enterprise democratic system at the end of the cold war. The victory of the NATO Allies was most importantly a moral and philosophical victory that demonstrated the inherent superiority of the ideological underpinnings of free enterprise democracy. The USSR and its allies were not conquered; they decayed from inside. Gorbachev in the same speech earlier referred to admitted that the Soviet “society was suffocating in the vice of the command-bureaucratic system, doomed to serve ideology and bear the terrible burden of the arms race. It had reached the limits of its possibilities.” Even Deng Xiaoping in China had in 1978 come to the same realisation that communism now needed a dose of capitalism to grow as stagnation emerged.
But the west in my view continued to fight against a defeated foe, strangely as this was an adversary who under Gorbachev voluntarily admitted defeat and sought friendly relations with the west. Gorbachev proclaimed that “we opened ourselves to the world, gave up interference into other people’s affairs, the use of troops beyond the borders of the country, and trust, solidarity and respect came in response”. A conservative backlash was inevitable as Russia felt betrayed, and the west must ponder why Putin has enjoyed approval ratings averaging over 80 percent in his years in power-most Russians now regret the break-up of the Soviet Union and Russia’s diminished place in the world.
The world may now be sliding into a new cold war, with Russia seeking to preserve its sphere of influence and China becoming a global power. The events in Georgia in the last week demonstrate what I suspect is western strategy that is now lacking in moral clarity. What principles for instance justify independence in Kosovo, but not South Ossetia and Abkhazia? Why must Russia accept western missiles on Russia’s border in Georgia, while the US rejected Soviet missiles in Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis? Why must the territorial integrity of Georgia be preserved, when that of Serbia was not sacrosanct? Why has no one blamed Georgia which clearly started the fight in South Ossetia, giving Russia an opportunity to flex its muscles? US and Russian policy makers may be unwittingly creating a new cold war, but it may be one in which principles may not be entirely on either side.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Infrastructure Lessons from Telecommunications
I was at the Nigeria Infrastructure Summit organised by the Federal Ministries of Finance and National Planning in Abuja from August 6th to 8th. It was a commendable initiative by Mallam Sanusi Daggash and Dr Shamsudeen Usman, and the organisation was impeccable. Credit must go the Ministers and to their incredibly dynamic and intelligent Special Assistants, Sufianu Garba, Dr. Yemi Kale and Jaffar Muhammed who displayed organisational skills and commitment rarely seen in the public sector. More important was the implicit recognition that ran through both the conception and design of the proceedings that involvement and engagement with the private sector will be critical in addressing our severe infrastructure deficit.
I was lead speaker at the Telecommunications and Information Technology Session and my take on the discussion was to focus on what lessons Nigeria can learn from the experience in Telecommunications as we seek to overcome our most significant economic challenge-infrastructure, particularly power and transportation. The success in telecommunications has been nothing short of phenomenal, even though as we shall later see, challenges remain. But the current state of the telecommunications sector in Nigeria was frankly inconceivable as recently as 2001. I remember that in 1996/1997 as I tried to obtain an analogue mobile phone (which cost somewhere in the region of N200, 000), I had to seek the help of a friend whose uncle was a federal permanent secretary in the ministry of communications! Just to get a mobile phone!!! Truly at that time, telephones were not for the poor, and it was debatable whether they were even for middle class professionals.
Some statistics will show how radically the situation has changed. As at 2001, we had only 400,000 connected telephone lines and 25,000 analogue mobile phones. I went to the Summit with the last publicly available figures-about 46 million connected lines. The NCC Executive Vice-Chairman, Engineer Ernest Ndukwe who was a co-panelist provided updated figures-over 55 million! The industry has grown by more than 6 million lines every year against an annual growth of only 10,000 in the decades up to 2001. Tele-density today is 38% as against 0.4% in 2001 and today you can get a mobile phone virtually for free. The last statistic however reveals what lies at the root of the exponential growth-as at 2001, cumulative investment in telecommunications amounted to about $50 million, but in the over seven years since then over $12billion of investment has gone into the sector, essentially from private sector institutions.
So the transformation of the telecommunications sector has been achieved without recourse to the public treasury. On the contrary, the government of Nigeria has earned billions of dollars from the sector. You recall three GSM providers paid $285million, Globacom added $200million for its second national carrier license, and Mubadala paid $400million for its GSM license. That already adds up to $1.455billion! Add the payments for unified and 3G licenses and payments for other spectrum licenses, taxes and customs duties, and other charges and the income to the government may be as much as $3billion. This excludes the impact of direct employment of over 12,000 workers and thousands of indirect employees and entrepreneurs and businesses engaged in the sector. Today there are 5 GSM operators, 4 CDMA mobile operators, 26 licensed fixed line operators, 117 ISPs, instead of 1 inefficient government-owned monopoly and several weak private telecommunications operators in 2001
But there are challenges. Fixed and Internet Service growth and penetration has been less successful, with 1.43million active fixed wireless telephone lines as at Feb 2008 and less than 5 million people with internet access. As at 2006, a technology research firm estimated that there were 2,350 cyber cafes, 71,635 dial-up accounts and 2.2 million internet users, a penetration rate of 2.2% of the population. Today internet penetration remains less than 5%. And the problems with power, insecurity, and skill and competency gaps manifest in sub-optimal quality of service. We still lack a domestic IT software and hardware industry and duplication of infrastructure by operators means higher operating costs. But ongoing investments in various submarine cable projects, increased competition with unified licensing, end of GSM exclusivity and 3G licensing portends better service and improved internet and data capabilities in the medium term.
What are the lessons from all this? First market liberalisation and deregulation drives infrastructure growth. No amount of money pumped into NITEL would have delivered this revolution. Indeed while the private telecommunications operators were growing in leaps and bounds, NITEL was dying in government hands. Private capital and management is critical. For the managers of the power sector who seem to prefer to delay privatisation in favour of more government spending, it is a shocking failure to learn from experience including recent revelations about the NIPPs. Government of course has a role-providing strong and competent regulation, creating the right investment climate (incentives, laws, transparent licensing, concessioning or privatisation regimes, security and law enforcement etc.), social investment such as education to provide skills and consumer protection. Finally government must ensure competition and an appropriate and sustainable industry framework dependent on market pricing and not subsidies or price control.
I was lead speaker at the Telecommunications and Information Technology Session and my take on the discussion was to focus on what lessons Nigeria can learn from the experience in Telecommunications as we seek to overcome our most significant economic challenge-infrastructure, particularly power and transportation. The success in telecommunications has been nothing short of phenomenal, even though as we shall later see, challenges remain. But the current state of the telecommunications sector in Nigeria was frankly inconceivable as recently as 2001. I remember that in 1996/1997 as I tried to obtain an analogue mobile phone (which cost somewhere in the region of N200, 000), I had to seek the help of a friend whose uncle was a federal permanent secretary in the ministry of communications! Just to get a mobile phone!!! Truly at that time, telephones were not for the poor, and it was debatable whether they were even for middle class professionals.
Some statistics will show how radically the situation has changed. As at 2001, we had only 400,000 connected telephone lines and 25,000 analogue mobile phones. I went to the Summit with the last publicly available figures-about 46 million connected lines. The NCC Executive Vice-Chairman, Engineer Ernest Ndukwe who was a co-panelist provided updated figures-over 55 million! The industry has grown by more than 6 million lines every year against an annual growth of only 10,000 in the decades up to 2001. Tele-density today is 38% as against 0.4% in 2001 and today you can get a mobile phone virtually for free. The last statistic however reveals what lies at the root of the exponential growth-as at 2001, cumulative investment in telecommunications amounted to about $50 million, but in the over seven years since then over $12billion of investment has gone into the sector, essentially from private sector institutions.
So the transformation of the telecommunications sector has been achieved without recourse to the public treasury. On the contrary, the government of Nigeria has earned billions of dollars from the sector. You recall three GSM providers paid $285million, Globacom added $200million for its second national carrier license, and Mubadala paid $400million for its GSM license. That already adds up to $1.455billion! Add the payments for unified and 3G licenses and payments for other spectrum licenses, taxes and customs duties, and other charges and the income to the government may be as much as $3billion. This excludes the impact of direct employment of over 12,000 workers and thousands of indirect employees and entrepreneurs and businesses engaged in the sector. Today there are 5 GSM operators, 4 CDMA mobile operators, 26 licensed fixed line operators, 117 ISPs, instead of 1 inefficient government-owned monopoly and several weak private telecommunications operators in 2001
But there are challenges. Fixed and Internet Service growth and penetration has been less successful, with 1.43million active fixed wireless telephone lines as at Feb 2008 and less than 5 million people with internet access. As at 2006, a technology research firm estimated that there were 2,350 cyber cafes, 71,635 dial-up accounts and 2.2 million internet users, a penetration rate of 2.2% of the population. Today internet penetration remains less than 5%. And the problems with power, insecurity, and skill and competency gaps manifest in sub-optimal quality of service. We still lack a domestic IT software and hardware industry and duplication of infrastructure by operators means higher operating costs. But ongoing investments in various submarine cable projects, increased competition with unified licensing, end of GSM exclusivity and 3G licensing portends better service and improved internet and data capabilities in the medium term.
What are the lessons from all this? First market liberalisation and deregulation drives infrastructure growth. No amount of money pumped into NITEL would have delivered this revolution. Indeed while the private telecommunications operators were growing in leaps and bounds, NITEL was dying in government hands. Private capital and management is critical. For the managers of the power sector who seem to prefer to delay privatisation in favour of more government spending, it is a shocking failure to learn from experience including recent revelations about the NIPPs. Government of course has a role-providing strong and competent regulation, creating the right investment climate (incentives, laws, transparent licensing, concessioning or privatisation regimes, security and law enforcement etc.), social investment such as education to provide skills and consumer protection. Finally government must ensure competition and an appropriate and sustainable industry framework dependent on market pricing and not subsidies or price control.
The Trouble in the Niger-Delta
Like a simple wound left without prompt and decisive attention, the situation in the Niger-Delta appears to be getting deeper and wider. In such circumstances, the longer the wound is left without careful management, the greater the risk that the wound will get infected and perhaps malignant. At times, the degenerate part may have to be surgically extracted and sometimes the patient may indeed die. What is usually required to prevent such a tragic consequence is immediate medical attention; careful cleaning of the wound; examination and diagnosis of the situation by a competent, dedicated and sincere people; and immediate remedial actions to ensure the wound is treated, and managed until it fully heals.
The deeper the wound and the longer it is allowed to fester, the more radical and painful the curative approach usually required, and the wound may heal only after a very sustained period of treatment and management. Where the patient is a child or some other person under the care and authority of a parent or other person, the parent may have to accept responsibility for ensuring the right conditions to ensure the wound is properly treated and heals-the right doctor and hospital, compliance by the patient with the doctor’s instructions, the right drugs, and an environment which facilitates the treatment and healing process. The child’s siblings and friends may also have to help. But whether the patient is a child or an adult, he or she will also bear some responsibility for wanting to be healed and must behave in a manner compatible with the desire for healing.
I suspect the above metaphor represents the paradigm with which we will have to address the Niger-Delta problem. Nigeria is the patient, the Niger-Delta is the wound, and the federal government is the parent. The wound has been left to degenerate since before independence. I have just finished reading the Willinks Commission Report of 1957, and what I find shocking is that there is nothing about the situation in the region that was not known as early as the 1950s-the fears of the Rivers, Delta and other minorities about their marginalisation in the emerging Nigerian federation, difficulty of the terrain in terms of development, the regions arguments questioning the inheriting of sovereignty over the region from the British colonialists by the Nigerian State (i.e. “resource control”), and questions about the structure of Nigerian federalism. Yet Nigeria essentially did nothing about the situation.
In addition however, after independence and large scale commercial exploitation of oil, we added new dimensions-environmental degradation, military rule, a worsening federal system, civilian political regimes that lacked popular legitimacy and between 1999 and 2003, a greedy regional elite and a particularly irresponsible set of political leaders in the region and much of the rest of the country. All of this in a context in which virtually all of the country’s revenues were extracted from the region; most of it was spent in other regions; and poverty and desperation in the region was growing in leaps and bounds. At the same time, corruption was growing phenomenally and ensuring that only a marginal fraction of the funds supposedly committed to the regions development was available for that purpose.
When Isaac Adaka Boro signalled the depth of discontent in the region, he was suppressed and ended up dying in the Nigerian civil war fighting on the Nigerian side. When Ken Saro Wiwa rose up on behalf of the Ogoni people to raise national and international attention to the perceived injustice in the region, we did not attempt a reasoned dialogue to understand the concerns of the people, and address them. When the agitation for resource control started, we did not examine the issues and at least try to negotiate a consensus acceptable to all. We did not intensify the development of the region in any significant manner. Unfortunately some of the political leaders in the region damaged the argument for resource control-the best way to justify a call for more resources, is to demonstrate what was done with available ones, and not to embezzle them. But then, a counter-argument is that corruption was a national phenomenon. The way governors in the north, east and west (and I dare say the federal government too!) perpetuated misery and poverty through mis-governance and theft of state resources was no different from that seen in the Niger-Delta. Except that the Niger-Delta governors had more resources to steal given the thirteen percent derivation funds available to them and the exceptional prices of oil.
Fortunately I think a better crop of governors appear to be emerging in some scattered locations all over the country including the Niger-Delta. I have observed for instance the Chibuike Amaechi regime in Rivers State committing huge resources to urban and rural road construction, primary health centres and general hospitals and education (including a massive infrastructural upgrade in the Rivers State University of Science and Technology) and I have mentioned these only because I have been able to personally verify some of these projects. Unfortunately criminality and brigandage has entered into the picture before such remedial actions were started. And in any event the degradation had gone on for over forty years so “treatment” will have to be continuous and sustained before the impact will be felt. And many of the actions required will also have to come from the Federal Government and other stakeholders.
Most importantly beneath the criminality and gangsterism, legitimate grievances remain unaddressed. The substantive questions about the structure of our federation, revenue allocation, responsibilities of states and federal government, state and community policing, taxation and the division of tax responsibilities amongst different tiers of government, the environment and the activities of oil and gas exploration companies, the effects of corruption on national development and constitutional and electoral reform have not yet been discussed with sincerity, let alone addressed. We believe that these fundamental issues will have to be resolved to the satisfaction of the constituent states and regions in the Nigerian federation before we can really make progress as a nation.
In addition and specifically concerning the Niger-Delta, a three-track strategy is required-a sincere and constructive discussion and engagement between all stakeholders (federal, state and local governments, community and civic associations, oil companies, NDDC, youth groups, media, donor agencies, etc) to achieve consensus on the region’s development. Secondly, massive and immediate infrastructural investment in the region-roads and bridges, railways, hospitals, urban renewal and new cities development, primary and secondary education, micro-finance institutions, as well as skills acquisition and youth and vocational centres. These actions will not only create jobs and signal a new commitment to the region’s economic development, they will deny legitimacy to the militants and criminals. It is only in this context that the third track-military and intelligence capacity building and strict and decisive law enforcement and security action can be effective.
The deeper the wound and the longer it is allowed to fester, the more radical and painful the curative approach usually required, and the wound may heal only after a very sustained period of treatment and management. Where the patient is a child or some other person under the care and authority of a parent or other person, the parent may have to accept responsibility for ensuring the right conditions to ensure the wound is properly treated and heals-the right doctor and hospital, compliance by the patient with the doctor’s instructions, the right drugs, and an environment which facilitates the treatment and healing process. The child’s siblings and friends may also have to help. But whether the patient is a child or an adult, he or she will also bear some responsibility for wanting to be healed and must behave in a manner compatible with the desire for healing.
I suspect the above metaphor represents the paradigm with which we will have to address the Niger-Delta problem. Nigeria is the patient, the Niger-Delta is the wound, and the federal government is the parent. The wound has been left to degenerate since before independence. I have just finished reading the Willinks Commission Report of 1957, and what I find shocking is that there is nothing about the situation in the region that was not known as early as the 1950s-the fears of the Rivers, Delta and other minorities about their marginalisation in the emerging Nigerian federation, difficulty of the terrain in terms of development, the regions arguments questioning the inheriting of sovereignty over the region from the British colonialists by the Nigerian State (i.e. “resource control”), and questions about the structure of Nigerian federalism. Yet Nigeria essentially did nothing about the situation.
In addition however, after independence and large scale commercial exploitation of oil, we added new dimensions-environmental degradation, military rule, a worsening federal system, civilian political regimes that lacked popular legitimacy and between 1999 and 2003, a greedy regional elite and a particularly irresponsible set of political leaders in the region and much of the rest of the country. All of this in a context in which virtually all of the country’s revenues were extracted from the region; most of it was spent in other regions; and poverty and desperation in the region was growing in leaps and bounds. At the same time, corruption was growing phenomenally and ensuring that only a marginal fraction of the funds supposedly committed to the regions development was available for that purpose.
When Isaac Adaka Boro signalled the depth of discontent in the region, he was suppressed and ended up dying in the Nigerian civil war fighting on the Nigerian side. When Ken Saro Wiwa rose up on behalf of the Ogoni people to raise national and international attention to the perceived injustice in the region, we did not attempt a reasoned dialogue to understand the concerns of the people, and address them. When the agitation for resource control started, we did not examine the issues and at least try to negotiate a consensus acceptable to all. We did not intensify the development of the region in any significant manner. Unfortunately some of the political leaders in the region damaged the argument for resource control-the best way to justify a call for more resources, is to demonstrate what was done with available ones, and not to embezzle them. But then, a counter-argument is that corruption was a national phenomenon. The way governors in the north, east and west (and I dare say the federal government too!) perpetuated misery and poverty through mis-governance and theft of state resources was no different from that seen in the Niger-Delta. Except that the Niger-Delta governors had more resources to steal given the thirteen percent derivation funds available to them and the exceptional prices of oil.
Fortunately I think a better crop of governors appear to be emerging in some scattered locations all over the country including the Niger-Delta. I have observed for instance the Chibuike Amaechi regime in Rivers State committing huge resources to urban and rural road construction, primary health centres and general hospitals and education (including a massive infrastructural upgrade in the Rivers State University of Science and Technology) and I have mentioned these only because I have been able to personally verify some of these projects. Unfortunately criminality and brigandage has entered into the picture before such remedial actions were started. And in any event the degradation had gone on for over forty years so “treatment” will have to be continuous and sustained before the impact will be felt. And many of the actions required will also have to come from the Federal Government and other stakeholders.
Most importantly beneath the criminality and gangsterism, legitimate grievances remain unaddressed. The substantive questions about the structure of our federation, revenue allocation, responsibilities of states and federal government, state and community policing, taxation and the division of tax responsibilities amongst different tiers of government, the environment and the activities of oil and gas exploration companies, the effects of corruption on national development and constitutional and electoral reform have not yet been discussed with sincerity, let alone addressed. We believe that these fundamental issues will have to be resolved to the satisfaction of the constituent states and regions in the Nigerian federation before we can really make progress as a nation.
In addition and specifically concerning the Niger-Delta, a three-track strategy is required-a sincere and constructive discussion and engagement between all stakeholders (federal, state and local governments, community and civic associations, oil companies, NDDC, youth groups, media, donor agencies, etc) to achieve consensus on the region’s development. Secondly, massive and immediate infrastructural investment in the region-roads and bridges, railways, hospitals, urban renewal and new cities development, primary and secondary education, micro-finance institutions, as well as skills acquisition and youth and vocational centres. These actions will not only create jobs and signal a new commitment to the region’s economic development, they will deny legitimacy to the militants and criminals. It is only in this context that the third track-military and intelligence capacity building and strict and decisive law enforcement and security action can be effective.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)