IBB, Atiku, Jonathan, All the Same

Nigerian politicians are at it again, trying to outmanoeuvre themselves for the big prize; the proverbial national cake which all these years has been treated like war booty by the leaders.  There is no serious debate about how to move the country forward developmentally. There is no serious debate about providing jobs, and basic utilities of water, electricity and health care to the people. There is no serious debate about curbing the worsening security situation in the country. And of course there is no serious debate about providing Nigeria with selfless leadership. The debate has been about nothing but who among the oppressive elite political class gets the drivers seat next time around.

To these politicians, some of whom have been there and done nothing for the people, it is just another opportunity to foist their avarice on Nigeria.  They grab and grab and keep taking without giving. Obasanjo ruled that country longer than any single person yet no one can point to any major achievement of his.  It was his military regime that Nigerianized foreign corporations by decree. It took the much maligned Abacha to reverse that with the Enterprise promotion Decree which opened up the road for foreign investors to return to the country.
Babangida's performance needs little thinking to recall. Is it the annulment of the June 12 election?  Is it the improperly managed devaluation of the naira and the attendant economic downturn? Is it the political charade that preceded the June 12 election. The same man is planning to go round asking people to vote for him.
What about Atiku Abubakar? It was Atiku's PDM that made it possible for Obasanjo to be President in 1999.  Too bad Obasanjo outsmarted all of them at the end, from Chuba Okadigbo who was removed as Senate president early in the Obasanjo government to Atiku whose ambition was scuttled by his former boss.
Despite his personal issues with Obasajo, Atiku presided over his own empire of booty sharing from the Vice presidential wing. He is definitely not the messiah Nigeria needs.
What about Joanthan? I don't know but he has acted like he is just comfortable being President without doing much.   One cannot point to a particular direction the country is headed under him. He promised political reform but reform does not end with the appointment of a radical professor as electoral commision chairman.  What has he really done as President? Oh! he banned the Eagles from international competition.
Really who is out there?

Overpaid Legislators, Constituency Projects or Corruption

How much does it cost to maintain a Nigerian legislator? Former president Obasanjo was reported Wednesday August 5, (Sun News) as saying he believes it costs up to 250 million naira.  A whopping figure which if multiplied by the number of legislators in the National Assembly runs into several billions.  Having been president, Obasanjo's comments should not be ignored because he is in a position to know. What is all that money used for?
Obasanjo mentioned constituency projects where the legislators would hire contractors for projects in their various constituencies. Do they really use the money for that? Is there an accounting process instituted for the purpose of monitoring the projects and fund disbursement?
Sun News also quotes the former president as saying: "... we can’t continue to have a National Assembly that is consuming a disproportional part of our resources and then expect that we would be able to make progress. They pass budget that can’t be implemented, because it has to be beefed up to satisfy their whims and caprices. Even what the ministries did not ask for they put it."
While Obasanjo cannot claim to be a saint, a nation run with such flagrant disregard for fiscal responsibility is doomed.  If the legislators actually use the funds for constituency projects, as budgeted, it would serve the various communities well, it would create jobs, infrastructure and other visible development in such communities.  In the US, members of Congress sometimes use what they call earmarks to attract projects and certain infrastructure  to their constituencies.  Even at that, it generates a lot of controversy and political debate but the difference is that those earmarked projects actually get built unlike in Nigeria where the money probably ends up in private coffers. 
Really, how much does it cost to maintain a Nigerian  legislator, from the salaries they approve for themselves to all the allowances, housing, furniture, vehicle, domestic staff, constituency staff and offices etc.?  

Beyond Yar' Adua

Nigerians have raised so much uproar about Yar'Adua's absence from Abuja that one begins to wonder what that is all about. Government in Nigeria has never been of much benefit to the larger citizenry anyway, irrespective of the person in charge. Who cares whether it is Yar' Adua now or Jonathan? That government, like the ones before it, has done little for Nigerians. Who cares whether the President is at home or in a Saudi Arabia hospital? We are not talking about a dutiful leadership seriously churning out development projects for the country. We are not talking about a truly democratic government in which the people's will is held sacrosanct. We are not talking about a nation that has known ideal leadership to the admiration of the world. We are surely not talking about a President who has earned the respect of world leaders for his achievements. While humane considerations require that the ailing president gets our sympathy and prayers, the political uproar is absolutely a distraction from the real issues at stake. The problem with Nigeria has not been caused by Yar' Adua's absence. The problem is a conspiracy of the political elite against the citizenry. Yar' Adua has only been out for a few months but had been present for years as President and achieved not much. His government has not given Nigerians regular electricity supply. They have not given Nigerians other basic utilities, potable water supply, fuel automobile or otherwise. Yar' Adua's presence is not going to change this and will not cause the crime rate to abate. His return to Nigeria is not going to improve the state of corruption in the country. It sure would not stop the Abuja politicians from continuing to do business as usual with the mantra of self before the people.
Really, all the noise about Yar' Adua being absent makes no difference. It only matters in whose picture is placed on the walls of public offices with the inscription "President and Commander in Chief". People should stop wasting time demonstrating and debating the issue. We should instead be addressing the needs of our people and how to make the government serve those needs.

US Experience and Federalism in Nigeria

Nigerian constitution is said to be fashioned after the US document, its principles and institutions but in my years of observing the two nations closely I have found more disparity than similarity in the two nations. First, Americans refer to their system as republican system of government, a democracy in which the people have ultimate say. In Nigeria, the President and his leading elite of ministers and hangers on hold ulitmate power.
Not only does the President control security forces, he also controls the finances of the nation. This is not so in the US where internal security authority is vested in the states which provide police and finances are controlled by whomever generates it. The US has no federation account that allocates money to states and local governments on a regular basis. There is no revenue allocation formula which continues to be contentious in Nigeria. Each State generates its own funds and only receives aid from the Federal government in specific areas dictated by national needs such as education and homeland security in this era of terrorism.
The US Congress determines which area of national interest such as defence, health, education, foreign relations etc gets what in the budget and, in most instances, even provides guidance on the details of how the funds so given are spent. States do not wait for these funds to operate because nothing is given to the state as its share of federal money. The money is allocated to federal projects and programs managed by federal agencies. States do not depend on these funds for survival. Each has an internal system of taxes that provides its needed funds. Worthy of note is that government owns virtually nothing in the US. Private entities own all the businesses, mines, refineries et al.. Only recently has the govenment taken temporary stakes in some major corporations; General Motors,Citibank and a few corporations to prevent their collapse in the current crisis.
If Nigeria wants to copy, it should at least be good at it. The US is a capitalist experiment that has worked for over 200 years and its population is as diverse as Nigeria's defeating any argument of homogeneity as a precursor of success.

The Lesson in Obama's Africa Trip

I am sure Nigeria's leaders are still smattering on with face saving excuses for the cold shoulders shown the 'giant of Africa' by the US President when he flew past Nigeria to visit Ghana recently. Afterall, some would say, he also shunned his father's country but Kenya has never claimed the leadership role Nigeria ascribes to itself.
It is a shame that Ghana, without Nigeria's resources, continues to outshine Nigeria in international arena. Ghana came out top of the class with its recent transition of power in an election which the incumbent leadership could easily have rigged, as is usually the case in Nigeria. It is a shame that Nigeria seems to bury its head in the sand of self delusion, a handicap imposed on the country by its corrupt leadership.
I wonder how Yar'Adua's leutenants explained it to him; one would expect that a US President would rather come to Nigeria , the most populous black nation in the world and potentially the biggest consumer nation for international goods. The US definitely would want a piece of that market. One would also expect even more since Nigeria has been a democracy since 1999. It seems, however, that it really does not matter what form of government Nigeria has. It really does not matter whether it is an Alhaji or a General in power the mannerism ramains the same and the country remains backward in world affairs.
With Nigeria's wealth, population and intellectual resources it should be a leader in the emerging markets. Nigeria has the population, the fertile minds to plant any development idea and the fiscal resources to explore and accomplish any development goal but simple things such as electricity still elude our cities. Simple things such as portable water supply remain elusive to the people. Simple things such as the conduct of free elections still pose the kind of challenge Ghanan seems to have overcome. Nigeria is still a nation where corruption permeates the fabric of society, a nation that deludes itself about its status in the comity of nations. A common fact is, there is little respect for the country outside nor for the leadership inside, from federal to local. That respect has to be earned and to begin, it has to be earned within first. The leadership has to serve its people selflessly and international respect will follow.

Ghana's Example, A Lesson for Nigeria

Nigerians, no doubt, watched neighboring Ghana's smooth hand over of power this week and many of us could not help but wonder if our beloved country will ever experience such order.

The significance of the Ghana elections is essentially in its conduct and the fact that the ruling party lost in the end.  Could anyone imagine a ruling party losing in Nigeria?  In 2007 and earlier, the ruling party had  come off with "landslide"  victories in Nigeria's elections.  NPN did it in 1983, Obasanjo's PDP did it in both 2003 and 2007.  It is anathema in Nigeria.  Being an opposition party is an execration, you are condemned to lose.  Evidently, Ghana sees things from a different perspective.

While not saying that Ghana's polls were completely free, it is doubly remarkable that despite Akufo-Addo's lead in the first poll, and the loss in the run-off he, as reports indicate, attended the presidential inauguration and watched as  Atta Mills was sworn in.  This act alone indicates a commendable level of statesmanship.   Nigerian politicians should learn from that.

Is this the End of Capitalism?

I have been a participant observer in the American system for some years now. I have worked as an employee, as self employed participant and as a small businessman responsible for others. I know what it feels like to look into someone's eyes and see desperation, fear of not knowing how to pay his next bill. I have witnessed the rise and fall of small businesses as a result of inability to obtain credit facility for working capital.

What is happening now in the global market, especially in the US, is a trickle up effect of a crisis that started a long time ago, which hit small businessmen years earlier. Now that it is beginning to affect the big corporations everyone seems to notice. It is a cumulative effect of the loss of confidence in the US credit system. A ripple effect of a sudden break in the flow of the nutrient that sustains the economic life of America.

The US is a society driven by credit, from the individual credit cards, personal loans, home equity loans and mortgages to lines of credit extended to corporations. The system stays perfect if undisturbed but crumbles immediately there is a break in the chain. Contrary to government's belief that the problem is bad investments made by banks, the real problem lies in the attempt by banks to break the flow of funds into the system by tightening up credit conditions. They simply stopped giving mortgages and loans as freely as they did a few years ago. When they upped the conditions, the people had less to spend and less new credit lines to help service existing loans. The defaults started as a result. People who used to survive by rolling debt over from one bank to another, could no longer do so. There are no new credit offers, no new balance transfer opportunities, no new mortgage refinancing hence no new source of funds to continue the roll over that has sustained the individual. And from the micro the problem extends to the macro, corporations were soon affected and finally the banks who no longer make money because the are not growing the sources. The solution? Is it an an end to capitalism as the buy in and bailout trend portends?

The solution is neither in extreme regulation nor deregulation but a mixture of both. The solution is in ensuring that banks regain confidence in borrowers' ability to pay the loans. To achieve that, the borrowers must have their jobs back, they must have their mortgage loans and credit facilities back. Which happens first seems like the chicken and egg question. Both must happen at the same time, developing simultaneously for the crisis to be over. It does not matter how much money government pumps into the banks, if banks stay the high ground of keeping tight credit conditions, the problem will linger.