A few years ago, I wrote a piece titled “Osinbajo: The acceptable face of a lame government” (BusinessDay, September 3, 2018). I argued that Vice President Yemi Osinbajo’s decisive and go-getting approach put President Muhammadu Buhari in the shade, with his aloof and laid-back leadership style. This was against the backdrop of Osinbajo’s sterling performance during the two periods he was acting president.
In 2017 and 2018, Professor Osinbajo was acting president while President Buhari was on medical vacations. He proved his mettle, taking several key decisions that Buhari had adamantly refused to take. Osinbajo’s performance was hailed at home and abroad. David Pilling, Africa Editor of the Financial Times, said he “injected real energy into policy-making”, and a BBC Africa journalist, Ishaf Khalid, called him “Nigeria’s favourite leader”.
During Buhari’s first term, Nigerians, and the international community, more or less, wished for the president to go on long vacations and for Osinbajo to become acting president so that some critical policy decisions could be made. Buhari’s presence at home seemed like an obstacle to progress. If not so, why did it always take Osinbajo, as acting president, to take steps to address some of the critical things that Buhari deliberately left unaddressed when at home? The only plausible answer is that Buhari or the cabal around him opposed those decisions or that he was utterly indecisive, and it took his absence to get things done!
The truth is that foreign governments, investors and, indeed, media believe that Osinbajo is a lone-reformer, or leader of a small group of reformers, in the Buhari government; but that he and his cohort face stiff resistance from more powerful anti-reform forces, and do not always have President Buhari’s ear or enjoy his support for radical or structural reforms.
The vice-president’s reputation as a technocratic reformer was hugely boosted recently when he publicly disagreed with the central bank’s ban on cryptocurrencies, saying: “We must act with knowledge and not fear.” He went on to say that the digital currencies disruption will only make “room for efficiency and progress.” Protectionists will never use the language of disruptive technology or what Joseph Schumpeter called “creative disruption.” So, when the vice president said digital currency “disruption” could lead to “efficiency”, you know his instincts are more in favour of openness than restrictions.
Professor John Williamson, the renowned economist, describes two types of economy. One is “a dirigiste, statist, mercantilist closed economy, rendered unstable by populist macroeconomic policies.” The other is “an open, relatively stable economy using competitive markets to allocate resources.”
Godwin Emefiele, the Central Bank governor, is, based on his rhetoric and actions, a strong believer in the first type of economy, the statist and protectionist type. He recently defended Nigeria’s trade restrictions by saying they are designed to “protect domestic industries.” Furthermore, he strongly opposes the liberalisation of the foreign exchange market, despite calls by economic experts for a single market-based exchange rate to revive the vanishing investor confidence.
By contrast, Vice President Osinbajo seems to subscribe to the second type of economy, the more open, market-determined type. This makes him a technocrat, who, in the economic context, is defined as someone who “uses professional and technical skills in government to create and manage an economic system that will further the general good.”
The key test of technocracy is that the institutions and policies it engenders must “further the general good” or increase welfare. Given insights from normative economics and, indeed, positive economics that competitive markets and an open trade policy increase welfare, it follows that real technocrats must support market-based reforms and policies.
So, Professor Osinbajo is a technocrat or, as the economists Jose Dominquez and Richard Feinberg put it, a “technopol”, that is, technocrats in positions of political responsibility who attempt to promote economic reforms. Indeed, Osinbajo demonstrated his technocratic and reformist credentials with the dogged way he pursued the government’s Ease of Doing Business agenda together with Dr Okechukwu Enelamah, Buhari’s first-term minister of industry, trade and investment, arguably the most technocratic and able minister in that cabinet. Their efforts led to Nigeria rising 39 places in the World Bank’s Doing Business Index.
But, despite all this, Osinbajo is a technocratic reformer without real authority. This is because under Nigeria’s executive presidency, the vice president functions almost entirely at the behest of the president. He derives his executive powers from delegations from the president and, thus, is only as effective as the president wants or allows him to be.
Foreign governments, investors and, indeed, media believe that Osinbajo is a lone-reformer, or leader of a small group of reformers, in the Buhari government
The Constitution puts it unequivocally. Section 5 says, “Executive powers of the Federation” are “vested in the President.” Section 148 then says that the President “may, in his discretion”, assign any state responsibility to the Vice President or any Minister.
Clearly, the above provisions also mean that the president may, “in his discretion”, not assign any state responsibility to the vice president. Although the president cannot sack the vice president because they both ran on a joint ticket, he can render him idle. We saw this during President Olusegun Obasanjo’s second term when he fell out with his vice-president, Atiku Abubakar, and stripped him of virtually all state responsibilities, making him almost redundant. Atiku was just collecting salaries and allowances as vice-president but, essentially, doing nothing!
The vice president’s only constitutional role, apart from being a “spare tyre” or serving as “Acting President” during the president’s absence, is as chairman of the National Economic Council, NEC, comprising state governors and the central bank governor. But the NEC’s role is only “to advise” the President on economic matters. So, the vice-president’s executive powers are at the president’s discretion; thus, he is only as effective as the president allows.
That said, Vice President Osinbajo has a cordial relationship with President Buhari and enjoys a wider scope of responsibility than former vice presidents enjoyed. But if, indeed, he is a technocratic reformer, he has clearly not persuaded the president to implement structural economic and institutional reforms, not to mention political reforms.
Despite the constitutional provisions mentioned above, a president who has little understanding of technical economic issues can chose to select a team of competent technocrats and delegate enough authority to them to allow radical economic reforms. To some extent Obasanjo did that, but President Buhari hates technocracy and radical reforms with a passion; he is a system-maintainer, not a transformational leader!
In the seminal book, The Political Economy of Policy Reform, edited by Professor Williamson, the authors highlight the conditions for successful radical economic reforms. For space constraints, let’s consider four of them.
1. The existence in government of a team of economists (i.e., technocrats) with a common, coherent view of what needed to be done and commanding the instruments of concentrated executive authority.
2. The presence at the top of a political leader (i.e., president) with a vision of history.
3. The existence of a comprehensive programme for transformation of the economy and a rapid timetable for implementation.
4. The will and ability to bypass vested interests.
Now, which of the above exists in Nigeria today? Absolutely none! There is no economic team with a coherent view of what institutions and policies will further the common good. Even if there is, it doesn’t command the instruments of concentrated executive authority. There is no comprehensive programme for transforming Nigeria’s economy. The so-called Economic Recovery and Growth Plan (ERGP) failed woefully. And the president lacks vision; can’t bypass vested interests.
Sadly, Professor Osinbajo is a technocratic-reformer without authority, who’s simply playing along with the politics. For instance, he’s mouthing Buhari’s utter vacuity of “creating 100m jobs to end poverty.” Yet, he should know that this won’t happen without radical economic reforms, without robust private-sector growth. Technocracy without authority is a product of Nigeria’s all-powerful executive presidency!
Happy Easter everyone!
