Democracy, Reforms and the Burden of Proof

As Nigeria marks twenty-seven years of uninterrupted democratic governance and three years of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration, two significant assessments of the nation’s condition have emerged almost simultaneously. One comes from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), a global financial institution whose verdicts often influence international perceptions and investor confidence. The other comes from the Federal Government itself, presented during the Democracy Day briefing by top officials led by the Minister of Information and National Orientation, Mohammed Idris, and the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Senator George Akume.

Interestingly, both narratives tell different sides of the same story. The IMF acknowledges that Nigeria’s economic reforms have strengthened macroeconomic stability and improved resilience. The Federal Government points to positive GDP growth, fiscal reforms, increased student loan disbursements, expanded social intervention programmes, improved access to consumer credit, and the country’s removal from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) grey list as evidence that Nigeria is moving in the right direction. Yet, the IMF simultaneously warns that poverty is rising, food insecurity remains widespread, inflation continues to exert pressure on households, and more than sixty percent of Nigerians now live below the poverty line.

Far from being contradictory, these two assessments may actually be describing the same reality from different vantage points. The Federal Government is largely measuring progress through institutional and macroeconomic indicators. The IMF is reminding policymakers that the ultimate test of economic policy lies not merely in balance sheets, growth statistics, or investor sentiment, but in the lived experiences of ordinary citizens. The central question, therefore, is not whether reforms were necessary. It is whether the gains of reform are reaching Nigerians quickly and broadly enough. To answer that question, one must first acknowledge a difficult truth. Many of the reforms introduced since 2023 were unavoidable.

For decades, successive governments postponed tough economic decisions. The fuel subsidy regime had become fiscally unsustainable. Multiple foreign exchange windows created distortions that encouraged arbitrage and rent-seeking. Government revenues remained inadequate relative to developmental needs. Public debt obligations increasingly constrain fiscal flexibility. When President Tinubu announced that “fuel subsidy is gone” and subsequently liberalised the foreign exchange market, he addressed structural weaknesses that many economists had long identified. In this regard, the administration deserves recognition for confronting problems that previous governments often preferred to defer.

However, good economics does not automatically translate into good politics or social welfare. The removal of fuel subsidy and exchange-rate liberalisation triggered immediate inflationary consequences. Transportation costs rose sharply. Food prices escalated. Production expenses increased. Household purchasing power weakened considerably. While economists often describe such outcomes as adjustment costs, ordinary citizens experience them as hardship. This distinction matters because citizens judge governments less by economic theory than by everyday realities. The IMF’s observation that over sixty percent of Nigerians now live in poverty should therefore not be dismissed as anti-government criticism. Rather, it should be seen as a warning that economic reform must be accompanied by effective social cushioning mechanisms.

To its credit, the Federal Government has attempted to mitigate the impact of reforms through several intervention programmes. The Student Loan Scheme under NELFUND represents one of the most ambitious educational financing initiatives in Nigeria’s history. Supporting over one million students and disbursing more than N184 billion in tuition and upkeep allowances is no insignificant achievement. For many young Nigerians, access to higher education would have become increasingly difficult without such support. Similarly, the expansion of conditional cash transfers, consumer credit facilities, and grant schemes demonstrates recognition that vulnerable citizens require assistance during periods of economic transition. The government’s removal of Nigeria from the FATF grey list is another notable accomplishment. Beyond its technical significance, it signals improved compliance with international financial standards and enhances Nigeria’s attractiveness to investors. These achievements deserve acknowledgement.

Yet, the government’s burden of proof extends beyond programme outputs and statistical milestones. The average citizen wants to know whether food has become more affordable, whether jobs are more available, whether electricity supply has improved, whether insecurity is receding, and whether personal economic prospects are brighter than they were three years ago.

On these questions, public perceptions remain mixed. This is where the IMF report becomes particularly instructive.

The Fund is essentially cautioning against equating macroeconomic stabilisation with social progress. An economy may be improving on paper while many citizens continue to experience hardship. Indeed, history offers numerous examples of countries that achieved fiscal and monetary stability without immediately reducing poverty. The relationship between macroeconomic reforms and improved living standards is rarely instantaneous. Economic restructuring often requires time before benefits become broadly distributed. The challenge for governments is maintaining public confidence during that waiting period. This is perhaps the most delicate aspect of Nigeria’s current situation.

The Federal Government argues that the country is moving “from fragility toward firmer footing.” The IMF agrees that the footing is firmer but warns that millions remain trapped in difficult conditions. Both positions can simultaneously be true. The real policy challenge lies in bridging the gap between economic stabilisation and social welfare. This gap is especially visible in the area of food security. According to the IMF, more than 27 million Nigerians experienced food insecurity in 2025. This statistic should concern policymakers irrespective of political affiliations. Food insecurity is not merely a humanitarian issue. It is a developmental challenge, a security concern, and a governance test. A nation where millions struggle to access adequate nutrition faces constraints on educational attainment, labour productivity, health outcomes, and social stability.

The causes are multifaceted. Climate-related disruptions, insecurity in farming communities, rising transportation costs, inflationary pressures, and structural inefficiencies within agricultural value chains all contribute to the problem. Addressing food insecurity, therefore, requires more than emergency interventions. It demands sustained investment in agriculture, rural infrastructure, storage facilities, security, mechanisation, and access to affordable financing. The issue of insecurity also remains central.

The Federal Government is justified in highlighting progress made by security agencies against terrorists, bandits, kidnappers, and other criminal groups. Recent military operations have yielded notable successes in several theatres. However, insecurity continues to exact a heavy toll on communities and economic activity. The IMF rightly identifies insecurity as a risk not only to citizens but also to economic growth itself. Investors hesitate where insecurity thrives. Farmers abandon fields when threatened by violence. Commercial activities decline in unstable environments. Consequently, security and economic reform cannot be treated as separate policy domains. They are mutually reinforcing. The government’s success in economic transformation will ultimately depend in part on its success in restoring safety and confidence across affected regions.

Also, while the IMF acknowledged that recent reforms have strengthened macroeconomic stability and enhanced economic resilience, it also sounded a note of caution regarding the Federal Government’s proposed $5 billion borrowing arrangement with the First Abu Dhabi Bank of the United Arab Emirates under a Total Return Swap (TRS) financing structure. According to the IMF, the structure may contain hidden vulnerabilities, particularly where adverse market movements trigger additional liabilities through margin calls arising from currency depreciation or declines in the value of underlying assets. Coming from an institution that simultaneously commends the government’s reform efforts, the warning deserves careful consideration rather than outright dismissal. The IMF’s caution goes beyond a single transaction; it speaks to the broader imperative of transparency, accountability, and prudent debt management. As the administration seeks to reassure Nigerians of ‘firmer footing,’ it must equally demonstrate that the foundations of that future prosperity are not being financed through arrangements whose risks could ultimately outweigh their benefits. Sustainable development requires not only bold reforms and strategic investments but also a debt management framework that inspires confidence among citizens, investors, and development partners alike.

Another dimension that deserves serious consideration in evaluating the administration’s reform programme is the issue of public borrowing and the nation’s mounting debt profile. While the Federal Government has vigorously defended its economic reforms by pointing to positive GDP growth, improved fiscal revenues, expanded social intervention programmes, and renewed investor confidence, the scale of borrowing undertaken since May 2023 has inevitably raised questions about sustainability. The real issue is not whether government should borrow, but whether the borrowing is prudent, productive, transparent, and capable of generating returns sufficient to justify the obligations being accumulated on behalf of present and future generations.

This is where the debt conversation intersects with the concerns raised by the IMF regarding poverty and social welfare. If economic reforms are yielding positive macroeconomic outcomes, as both the IMF and the Federal Government acknowledge, citizens naturally expect to see corresponding improvements in their living conditions. Yet, despite unprecedented borrowing and extensive reform measures, millions of Nigerians continue to grapple with rising living costs, food insecurity, unemployment, and declining purchasing power. Borrowings become more difficult to defend when citizens struggle to identify tangible improvements commensurate with the scale of the debt being incurred.

As Nigeria approaches another electoral cycle, the administration’s challenge will be to demonstrate convincingly that the growing debt burden represents an investment in future prosperity rather than an obligation that future generations will inherit without corresponding developmental gains. Ultimately, the sustainability of the reform agenda may be judged as much by the quality of outcomes produced by borrowed funds as by the economic indicators that currently inspire official optimism. Senator Akume’s assertion that the administration is prepared to be judged by evidence is a welcome democratic principle. Democracies thrive when governments willingly subject their records to public scrutiny. The evidence, however, presents a nuanced picture. On one side are positive macroeconomic indices. On the flip side are poor microeconomic indices as well.

Neither side of the ledger should be ignored. Supporters of the administration should resist the temptation to dismiss legitimate concerns about hardship simply because reforms are generating positive macroeconomic indicators. Conversely, critics should acknowledge that some reforms were necessary and that certain economic improvements are genuine rather than imagined. The objective assessment lies somewhere between celebration and condemnation. Democracy itself provides the framework for such balanced evaluation. Democracy Day is not merely an occasion for commemorating the sacrifices of Chief M.K.O. Abiola and other pro-democracy activists. It is also a reminder that democratic governance derives legitimacy from accountability. Accountability requires honesty about both achievements and shortcomings.

The Federal Government deserves credit for undertaking difficult reforms and for demonstrating a willingness to present measurable indicators of progress. Equally, it must recognize that citizens evaluate government performance through the lens of everyday experience. The IMF report serves as an important reminder that economic success cannot be measured solely by GDP growth, fiscal reforms, or international endorsements. Essentially, it must be reflected in improved living conditions. The challenge before the administration is therefore clear: convert macroeconomic gains into household-level relief. Reforms must become results that ordinary Nigerians can see, feel, and sustain. The government’s contention that Nigeria is moving in the right direction may well be correct. But direction alone is not enough. Citizens are equally concerned about speed, destination, and whether the journey is improving their lives. The IMF’s warning and the Federal Government’s optimism should not be viewed as competing narratives. Rather, they should be seen as complementary perspectives that, taken together, offer a fuller understanding of Nigeria’s present condition. One speaks of foundations being laid. The other reminds us that many people are still waiting for the house to become habitable.

In the final analysis, sustainable development requires not only bold reforms and strategic investments but also a debt management framework that inspires confidence among citizens, investors, and development partners alike. The true test of the Renewed Hope Agenda will not simply be whether reforms survive. It will be whether the benefits of those reforms become sufficiently visible, inclusive, and sustainable to justify the sacrifices Nigerians have made along the way. That remains the burden of proof before the government and the promise that citizens are entitled to expect from democracy.

.Agbedo, a professor of Linguistics, University of Nigeria Nsukka, Fellow of Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study, is a public affairs analyst.