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
Monday, September 22, 2008
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)