Nigeria: A broke or broken economy? (2)

The benefits of not informing our potential investors that we are broke far outweigh telling them that we are, especially when Nigeria is actually not broke but only trying to mend a broken economy.

When President Buhari views the concern that he is de-marketing Nigeria with his “Nigeria is broke” rhetoric in the context of the analogy above, he won’t feel as scandalized as he was when he responded to the allegation in a recent speech.

In other words, rather than taking it personally, the political jab from opposition PDP that he is de-marketing Nigeria should be seen from the point of view of his political opponents capitalizing on an indiscretion, which does not deserve being responded to openly, as he has done, since it is mere politics of the opposition trying to ruffle feathers.

For the records, former President Olusegun Obasanjo was pilloried for saying he was appointing advisers but will not be bound to take their advice. By the same token, Goodluck Jonathan, the immediate past president, was also infamous for saying stealing is not corruption just to play down the issue of corruption under his watch. And so also has President Buhari been pooh-poohed for saying ministers are noisemakers as it is civil servants that do the real administrative job of governance to deflate the argument that the delay in forming a cabinet was impacting negatively on the economy.

Such glib remarks are made at moments of indiscretion and twisted out of context to score cheap political points and it is my considered opinion that they are mere puns and should not be defended like they are articles of faith.

In my assessment of President Buhari from a distance, he appears like a leader who is open to ideas but needs convincing evidence and well-marshalled persuasive case to sway him. Two significant comments by Mr President attest to the above assumption.

The first is when he was vying for office and made a comment during his Chatham House presentation in February that the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 persuaded him that dictatorship has no place in modern-day governance, hence he decided to become, as it were, a born-again democrat. The second is when he had assumed office as president in May and he pointed out (when the debate on fuel subsidy removal was raging) that he was yet to be convinced about the efficacy of removing the fuel subsidy without hurting the masses.

With NNPC GMD, Ibe Kachikwu, promising to sift the cost of the graft embedded in the process of delivering subsidy to determine the actual cost and weighing same against the probable negative effect on the hoi-polloi, sooner or later President Buhari may make an informed decision to remove or not remove the financially debilitating fuel subsidy. In like manner, Mr President probably needs to be persuaded that his talk about Nigeria being broke is counterproductive and an ill-wind that blows Nigeria no good, but as the saying goes, who will bell the cat?

I have heard that Mr President is a voracious reader so he is abreast of the yearning of the masses through the mass media, but does he brainstorm with his advisers to see all sides of issues or he makes his decision based on nominal and residual knowledge?

At this juncture, let me crave readers’ indulgence by citing some practical examples currently trending to buttress my point about why it is improper to de-market Nigeria. Take the recent unfortunate crash of Russian airline Metro Jet over the Sinai in Egypt. While the UK and USA, intent on protecting their citizens (about one million Brits) who enjoy vacationing in the Egyptian resort in Sharm El-Sheik, are speculating that the crash might have been caused by a bomb on board the aircraft to prevent their citizens from further adventuring that way, Russia, whose citizens are in the majority of those who perished in the crash, are opposed to the UK and US position because it might trigger unrest back home if the Russians believe that the bomb was a reprisal action against Russia which had injected itself into the Syrian war by bombing ISIS positions. Similarly, Egypt, which would lose tourist income (about 20 percent of GDP) if the threat and terrorism activities are confirmed in the tourist haven, is denying and rejecting the suspicion of a bomb blast as the cause of the crash so that tourists won’t stop coming.

Sooner or later, the truth would be revealed by the experts investigating the accident after they unlock and decode information in the ‘black box’ but before then, sovereign denials would have helped douse the tension in Russia and the anxiety of potential tourists to Egypt. Such is the importance of the doctrine of self-preservation which incidentally is a law of nature.

Another example is reflected in the application of the rules in international law and diplomacy. Sovereignties do not enforce international laws as seriously as they do domestic laws for the simple reason of self-preservation. Take climate change, human rights and trade/commerce at international levels. The superpowers like the USA, Russia, China, UK, France, Germany and, recently, Iran are never in harmony on international issues because of selfish interests. That’s why not all of them signed off on the protocol after a climate conference held in Rio, Brazil a few decades ago to address climate change. According to their national interest they accented or dissented, that’s why their agreement to enforce carbon tax to deter carbon emission that leads to ozone layer depletion has been largely ignored.

Another conference on climate change is afoot in Paris, France beginning from end of November and you can bet that no common agreement reached would be implemented wholesomely.

Magnus Onyibe