Over the past four years of writing this column, I have espoused three main themes: free market economics, political restructuring and institutional reforms. I believe that Nigeria’s stability, progress and prosperity rest squarely on the three issues, and I have been relentlessly critical of President Buhari simply because he rejects those ideas. To the detriment of Nigeria’s progress and unity, Buhari has stubbornly run a socialist government, viscerally opposed political restructuring and paid lip service to institutional reforms. I couldn’t support his administration or his re-election in those circumstances.
But I warmed to Atiku Abubakar in the presidential election precisely because he laid out elaborate programmes of economic, political and institutional reforms, with a strong commitment to free market and political restructuring. I was not starry-eyed; I had some concerns about his personal reputation. But, for me, the big picture mattered more. If Atiku could implement his economic and political reform agenda and set Nigeria on the path to a true market economy and a true federal state, that would offset his alleged past misdeeds, which I hoped he wouldn’t repeat in office.
That was the same reason the highly-respected elder statemen, under the auspices of the Forum of Nigerian Leaders and Elders, gave for endorsing Atiku. They said he “demonstrated the deep understanding of the critical needs of the country at this time and possesses the capacity to proffer clear solutions in that respect”. I thought so too!
However, the election has now come and gone, and Buhari has been declared winner. Last week, I wrote that the huge irregularities in the election did not materially affect the result. Some readers wrote to me, saying that the irregularities “inflated” Buhari’s 15m votes. I wouldn’t disagree with that. The result defied all the predictions of a close race. How could Atiku, a prominent Fulani and former vice president, fail to give Buhari at least some competition in the North? Why was he walloped by Buhari in the North? Surely, the huge irregularities, particularly the abuse of incumbency power through militarisation, intimidation, disenfranchisement, vote-buying and outright rigging, must have inflated Buhari’s votes. It’s difficult to imagine that didn’t happen.
Yet, truth is, Buhari would still have defeated Atiku in the North, if by a smaller margin, and, given the abysmally low turnout in the South, Atiku’s strongholds, Buhari would still have won. Thus, my point about materiality stemmed from the fact that, under the doctrine of substantial performance and Nigerian electoral law, Buhari would still have won, despite the irregularities, because he would still have had more votes, even just 500,000, than Atiku!
But, that said, Atiku is perfectly right to challenge the result of the election in court. It enhances electoral democracy to expose and document electoral irregularities and frauds through the judicial process. But if Atiku doesn’t win the case, he should take consolation in three undeniable facts. First, he has helped to strengthen democracy in Nigeria by testing its limits; second, unlike Buhari, whose defeat would have caused massive bloodshed in the North, Atiku’s loss didn’t result in post-election violence; and third, through the vision that he articulated during the election, Atiku has set an agenda for retooling and transforming Nigeria that cannot be ignored. It’s the third element that’s my focus here.
Say what you like about Atiku, he presented a real choice and a real alternative in this year’s presidential election, even though, sadly, the election turned out to be a battle of personalities over ideas. But anyone who read Atiku’s manifesto, entitled “My plan to get Nigeria working again”, must commend him for the thoughts he put into diagnosing and proffering solutions to what he described as Nigeria’s “many economic and political structural fault lines”. In a country where policy analysis is weak, Atiku put a lot of intellectual effort in crafting the policy document.
Take the economy. The truth is that Nigeria can’t prosper and tackle poverty unless it becomes a market economy where the private sector flourishes and which foreign investors see as an attractive investment destination. Atiku recognised this, and set out a bold economic vision, based on stimulating private sector growth and attracting FDI through the deregulation and liberalisation of the economy. Atiku’s promises of privatisation, exchange rate flexibility, consolidation and simplification of business and investment regulations and“the lowest corporate income tax rate in Africa” would have made Nigeria one of the most business and investment friendly countries in the world, with significant economic benefits.
Today, the three fastest growing economies in the world are African – Ethiopia (8.5%), Rwanda (7.8%) and Ghana (7.6%). But they are also the most liberal and business-friendly economies in Africa. So, to prosper, Nigeria needs the market-based economic vision that Atiku set out, rather than the current dirigisme of government interventions and economic restrictions. Free market economics, not statism, is the path to Nigeria’s economic development. Atiku articulated that bold economic vision in the election.
But economic development rests on an enduring political settlement. Without political stability and social cohesion, there can’t be economic progress. And, here, again, Atiku set out a vision of political reform that would ensure Nigeria’s peaceful coexistence and stability. He promised to restructure Nigeria. In his manifesto, he recalled that “At independence, the various regions were growing at their own pace with the political and economic strategies that suited their individual peculiarities”, but regretted that, today, “Nigerian states have been reduced to parastatals of the federal government”. Thus, he promised to“decongest the exclusive and concurrent list in the Constitution”, and devolve powers, responsibilities and resources to Nigeria’s sub-units.
It is to Atiku’s credit that, although he knew that his radical free market ideas, such as the proposed privatisation of the leviathanic and opaque NNPC, and political restructuring were unpopular with vested interests, particularly in the North, his ethnic region, he still advocated them, despite the potential adverse electoral consequences. Of course, he did so because he honestly believed they were the solutions to Nigeria’s economic and political structural problems. Indeed, they are, and well-meaning Nigerians are saying so.
For instance, in his congratulatory message to Buhari, General Ibrahim Babangida, former military leader, advised him “to be creative in formulating policies that would improve the nation’s economy”, and “to heed to the yearnings of reasonable Nigerians for restructuring”. Of course, what Babangida, himself a believer in free market and political restructuring, implied was that Buhari should embrace Atiku’s economic and political visions.
Unfortunately, Buhari won’t heed Babangida’s advice. He has already promised a more-of-the-same approach in his second term, saying “We have laid the foundations and we are committed to seeing matters to the end”. In other words, he wants to build on the same foundations that destroyed Nigeria’s economy, impoverished Nigerians and divided the polity. Buhari recently said he would work harder this time around. “This is my lap, I will try to work harder”, he said. But working harder while pursuing the same failed policies reminds one of what Einstein said about doing the same thing and expecting different results. The truth is that Buhari doesn’t need to work harder; rather, he needs to work smarter by doing the right thing. That means adopting Atiku’s template for political and economic reforms.
To be sure, Atiku lost the election and, unfortunately, won’t get the chance to implement his laudable plan to get Nigeria working. But the ideas he set out are transformative and exactly what Nigeria needs to prosper. They will certainly not die or go away!
Olu Fasan
