Wednesday, June 19, 2013

The NGF Crisis

I am sure of what happened at the Nigeria Governors Forum (NGF) elections held on Thursday May 23, 2013-Governor Chibuike Amaechi of Rivers State, erstwhile Chair defeated his rival, Jonah Jang of Plateau by 19 votes to 16 to retain his position. But I was entirely not surprised by the subsequent turn of events! Before the vote, I had made two predictions-the elections would be very close-indeed my analysis showed a tally of 18-18, 19-17, or 20-16. In the event, one Governor was absent during the voting and the outcome was altered only to that extent. My second prediction was that irrespective of whichever side prevailed, the group would be splintered, probably irretrievably, at least as long as its make-up consisted mostly of the current holders. This second projection was a consequence of the first-with the elections having being elevated into a pre-2015 test of power between President Goodluck Jonathan and forces ranged against him within his party and the opposition, the political stakes had probably become so high that no side was likely to accept defeat. Remember that in the run-up to the elections, PDP had already formed a “PDP Governors Forum” headed by Akwa Ibom governor, Godswill Akpabio while a “Progressive Governors Forum” had similarly emerged headed by opposition Governor Kayode Fayemi. The president’s real opponent was not just Amaechi, but the Northern regional power groups opposed to his re-election and the All Progressives Congress (APC) coalition that wishes to displace Jonathan and the PDP in 2015. In fact Amaechi’s 19 votes came from 10 APC and 9 PDP Northern Governors while Jang’s votes came from the South-South, South-East, Middle-Belt, the sole Labour and APGA Governors allied with Jonathan and a minority of 7 Northern PDP governors currently in the president’s camp. In my view, the practical outcome is a strategic failure, a lose-lose outcome for both Amaechi and President Jonathan-the president has been severely embarrassed losing a very public political battle; Governor Amaechi has avoided a defeat that may have been politically ruinous at home, but the NGF has been damaged and divided into two almost equal halves, its credibility and influence eroded; Amaechi is in effect fighting a proxy war for political forces opposed by-and-large to the political sentiments in his base and may yet face pressures to reconcile himself with local interests (don’t they say “all politics is local”); and while it suffered a public embarrassment, the presidency has at least curtailed the powerful and united threat it perceived from the NGF. In my view, all this is highly unfortunate! The NGF could be a force for good in our nation as a non-partisan policy mechanism focused on sharing best practices, peer review and fostering collaboration across political divides among governors and between governors, the presidency, National Assembly and other inter-governmental agencies like the non-partisan US National Governors Association. I am familiar with some of the important policy work the NGF has done-on polio eradication in collaboration with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; in the area of peer review, with a strong institutional mechanism and two concluded reviews on Ekiti and Anambra States; in the areas of primary health care and taxation; and even sharing best practices such as the Lagos State Security Trust Fund which some other states have emulated. Sadly with the current imbroglio and the focus on politics, rather than policy, such benefits are now in danger of being lost. The NGF Crisis has had other consequences-solidarity within the Northern States Governors has also being fatally wounded with Governors Yuguda and Suswan of Bauchi and Benue States in effect accusing their colleagues of treachery and disavowing further participation. The Northern Governors carried out a charade of endorsing Jang as their consensus candidate and most of them including their Chairman Babangida Aliyu evidently did the opposite! It is not difficult to anticipate that trust between the Christian Middle-Belt and Northern Muslims has also been further eroded by what now appears to be deliberately setting up Jang for failure! The image of Nigerian democracy has been disparaged as the absurdity of controversy over an election involving only 35 governors in one room with 36 ballot papers questions our integrity and nobility as a people. The general interpretation is that this forebodes ill for the 2015 election-if the pre-run involving only 36 electors is so controversial, will the actual elections involving millions of voters not lead to similar or worse consequences? I have even before this confusion projected several possible adverse scenarios for 2015-intensification of regional posturing and incendiary comments from the North and Niger-Delta; the run-up towards 2015 already resembles a volatile zero-sum game; the rhetoric with which the president is addressed and with which his spokesmen respond already fosters a sense of antagonism in the polity; and the question of how the Niger-Delta, currently lapping up the spoils of office and “our oil” would get used to cessation of easy money in the event that Jonathan loses in 2015, all pose difficult scenario implications for 2015. What all these tells me is the need to de-escalate the current crisis-return to a harmonious NGF focused on policy and peer review and not as a lever of power; toning down the “war” rhetoric over 2015; an electoral contest between PDP and APC (?) based on alternate policy prescriptions rather than mutually assured destruction; and reconciliation between President and Dame Jonathan and Governor Amaechi.

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

Jonathan's Mid-Term Scorecard

In line with the long-established tradition of this column, this week we review the half-term performance of President Goodluck Jonathan. This is an exercise I have carried out both on this page and through our policy advisory firm for his two predecessors, and is in line with Jonathan’s challenge to critics to appraise his administration based on a clear “marking scheme.” I agree with the President that rating a government ought to be based on clearly defined criteria and measurements, as I did for both ex-President Olusegun Obasanjo and late Umaru Yar’Adua. In the case of Jonathan, I have established seven criteria on which to rate his first two years - corruption; economic management; social sector; security; infrastructure; international relations, and democracy and institutions. The government’s performance in relation to anti-corruption efforts has generally been unimpressive! There is a general perception that corruption has been tolerated under this government, especially from persons close to the President’s political and regional constituency. If there was any doubt about the regime’s lack of antipathy towards corruption when it is committed by its “friends,” the notorious pardon of D. S. P Alamieyeseigha and Alhaji Bulama who had been convicted for stealing state and banking funds, respectively, made the situation more glaring. The ease with which oil subsidy totals rose in the early days of the Jonathan Presidency by over N1 trillion was part of what seemed like a culture of graft and easy money. The government’s grade would have been a straight F, but for some redeeming considerations - the clean-up of the fertiliser scam by the Ministry of Agriculture and its replacement by a more transparent e-wallet scheme; the budgetary reforms and fiscal consolidation, which is restoring some credibility to fiscal policy, and the fact that investigations and trials are ongoing for (some of!) those who abused oil subsidy resources. On the whole, the government earns an E, and has a chance in its second half to “re-sit” the corruption exam by taking stronger action against it. The government’s macro-economic management has been evidently above average. I have referred to fiscal reforms which have begun to shift the balance in favour of capital expenditure; reduced the budget deficit; increased reserves to almost $50 billion, and ensured higher spending for education and health sectors. In addition, the inauguration of a sovereign wealth fund and sustained GDP growth around 6-7 percent are positive. In my rating, the regime would have earned at least a B+ for economic management, but for a significant minus- the divergence between GDP and other macro indices and the welfare of the people, expressed in poor Human Development Indices (HDI). The government has also blown the chance to reform the downstream petroleum sector and pass an urgently-needed Petroleum Industry Bill. In the event, I score Jonathan a B in this sector, and government must now focus on inclusive growth and petroleum sector reforms to better this grade in the remaining two years. Nigeria’s social sector outlook remains alarming poverty over 60 percent nationwide; unemployment at 23.9 percent; youth unemployment around 40 percent, and dismal conditions in education, health and urban transportation! The government has taken some token actions at generating employment - the YOU-WIN programme and SURE-P, but they have not gone far enough. Spending on education and health has gone up, but value-for-money is not visible and performance hugely lags the required. What is needed is not a “part-time” attention to the social time-bomb we have, but concerted action towards generating jobs, redressing poverty and improving our schools and hospitals. I score the regime a D, even though one could in fact argue that is a generous grade! On security, I believe Jonathan dithered over the decision to impose a state of emergency on the regions consumed by Boko Haram terrorism with the consequence that 4,200 persons were killed. Rather than, perhaps, if the emergency was imposed after only 500 deaths, or less! The refusal to reform policing in the direction of more efficient policing at sub-national levels has created a situation of pervasive breakdown of law and order across the nation characterised by armed robberies, kidnapping and other crimes. The authority of the state has been eroded as insurgents, militias and “Fulani herdsmen” take on the state and kill people in large numbers. The government has redeemed itself with the emergency and Malian intervention, but still scores a C- in this regard. Jonathan has made some modest action to improve the state of infrastructure - power privatisation is almost complete, promising a better outlook in the medium to long term; some railway services are being restored; airports are being re-modelled (though probably at a questionable cost!) and many road contracts are ongoing. However, the overall infrastructure position remains abject and value-for-money in procurement is doubtful. Here we also score Jonathan a C+. The government has done fairly well in foreign policy with a respectable position within ECOWAS, AU, Commonwealth and the UN, and with sensible interventions in Mali and Guinea-Bissau earning a strong B+. Finally, Jonathan has conducted a series of reasonably-fair elections in Anambra, Edo and Ondo states, all of which were won by the opposition, and allowed free expression and some level of institutional development. Recent intolerance is yet to rise to alarming levels and I would still rate a B. The overall average would thus be a C, which would be downgraded to C- based on our negative score on the bonus criteria-leadership!

Wednesday, June 5, 2013

Boston, Woolwich and the West

When bombers attacked the finish line of the Boston Marathon killing 3 and injuring 264 people, I thought it was not likely to be typical Islamist fundamentalists at work. The location of the incident in Boston, Massachusetts, an academic city and the nature of the two “pressure cooker” bombs and other improvised explosive devices suggested a “mad scientist” or university type disgruntled over other aspects of American society rather than the usual rantings of Al Qaeda and its adherents. As it turned out, I was right in some aspects, but otherwise wrong-Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev were Muslim Chechen immigrants from Dagestan motivated by extremist Islamic ideology, even though one of them was indeed a “university type” and engineering student. In the case of the animalistic hacking of British soldier Lee Rigby in Woolwich, England, once I saw footage of the “senior” terrorist addressing a “press conference”, axe and meat cleaver in bloodied hands, I feared that this was likely to be a Nigerian-British person! I have heard many UK-based Nigerians speak in similar accent-friends, children of friends, family and former classmates and other Nigerians. I silently wished my fear would turn out misplaced and the guy would be linked to other places-Tanzania, Gambia, Jamaica, Kenya, Somalia or the Caribbean, anywhere other than Nigeria, but that depraved butcher of Woolwich who cut down a fellow human being with an axe like he was a cow and proudly announced his motivation in defense of Muslim lands was of Nigerian, indeed Yoruba and Christian progeny by name, Michael Adebolajo! Apparently he had converted to Islam; had become “Mujahhid” and had become committed to the cause of violent Jihad in furtherance of his new beliefs. His more reserved and probably hesitant accomplice also turned out to be Michael Adebowale!!! For me it was a real shame and tragedy! These could easily have been children from families known to me! They could well have been junior brothers to any of my friends or colleagues. God forbid, but couldn’t they have in fact been our own children? I do not subscribe to the hypocritical denial that these deranged individuals have nothing to do with Nigeria. Many Nigerians proudly claim Phillip Idowu, Aby Oyepitan, Christine Ohurogu, MP Chuka Umunna, Gabriel Agbonlahor etc. We have claimed Victor Moses for our national team, as well as Sola Ameobi and Victor Anichebe. Many of our children hold British, American, Irish or Canadian passports. Are we also rejecting those ones? It is true that the Yoruba say that the successful child belongs to the father, while the one who brings dishonour to the family name is a bastard, but we should at least be consistent in our positions! It is sufficient that we express our sympathy to the good British people and their government, demonstrate our regrets at the actions of these losers and dissociate ourselves from their motivations. That does not make us liable for their actions and we are perfectly entitled to point at the more worthy contributions of the vast majority of Nigerians and British-Nigerians in the United Kingdom as the more appropriate characterization of our people. Having said that it is also true that the evil and misguided “Michaels” were radicalized in Britain, and not Nigeria, and the British have a duty to their society and the rest of the world to curb the radicalization “institutes” and “teachers” that they have allowed to thrive in the UK in the name of freedom of religion! Ironically the inclination of the UK and particularly the US towards Nigeria’s Boko Haram terrorists and their sponsors has been one of appeasement! Indeed the West faces two deeper challenges, which if not redressed may undermine their civilization. The first is political correctness and extreme liberal agendas which prevent them from taking common sense positions! I watched on CNN as the Imam suspected to have radicalized Michael Adebolajo refused to condemn his actions. He is in fact reported to have commended his courage; many extremist Imams openly preach hate and terror in many mosques across the UK and other parts of Europe, carefully staying on the border lines of legality and the British government is helpless to stop them; both the Boston bombers and the Woolwich butchers were known to American and British intelligence, based on information from other nations, Russia and Kenya, yet political correctness meant they did nothing substantial until the terrorists took Western lives; the liberal agenda of multi-culturalism has been interpreted to mean that the West cannot even insist on adherence to its civilized values in accepting immigrants into its cities, turning many of its neighbourhoods into replications of the third world slums that the immigrants were running away from! The other challenge is that the West has abandoned faith and therefore has no alternative to offer its children, when extremist Islamists present their radical Islamic ideology! Western children who have grown up with no relationship with God; brought up on a menu of gay rights, abortion, entertainment, drugs and a complete renunciation of the spiritual, will continue to be intrigued by any thought system which presents itself as higher than self and the material! Human beings know somewhere deep inside them, that there is God! If the West doesn’t teach its children about the God who prospered their society and gave them enduring transformational values, others will tell them about a different God! They may not like the consequences!!!