Open Letter to President Olusegun Obasanjo on the National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy(NEEDS)
By
Yusufu Bala Usman, Ph.D.
President Olusegun Obasanjo,
State House,
Aso Rock,
Sir,
ARE YOU
SERIOUS ABOUT NEEDS,
MR PRESIDENT?
Mr President, are
you serious about NEEDS? Are you serious about putting in place a National
Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy, which you will diligently pursue
in the next three years to uplift our country’s economy? Or, are you just trying
to use this NEEDS to bamboozle Nigerians, and dupe the rest of the world?
2. Deception has
been part of your military training. It has been part of your battlefield
experiences. As a successful battlefield commander, you know how to signal that
you are deploying your troops westwards, while you are actually deploying them
eastwards, or you are just staying put. You know how to indicate that you are
going to retreat, while you are actually going to attack. Is all this NEEDS just
a part of such a manoeuvre? Is it just a smokescreen? Is it just a camouflage?
Or, is it a serious attempt at putting in place, what you sincerely be-lieve to
be, a coherent and comprehensive way forward for the badly battered economy of
our country?
3. In your speech
at the launching of NEEDS, at what was called the National Stakeholders
Consultations, on
4. Obviously, no
one can, responsibly, govern a country, give leadership to a com-munity, or,
even serve as the head of a family, without having a plan for the future. This
country has been ruled, for over twenty years, without a national development
plan. That is, since
5. So, when I heard
that you are going to come out with a strategy for national economic
development, for a medium-term of three years, which involves the state and
local governments, I thought that at last we are getting somewhere. I really
looked forward to its coming out, and did not care whether it actually came from
you, or, only in – care of you, from the Paris Club, the IMF, the World Bank,
the WTO, Mr Soros, or even from George.W.Bush.
6. But, when I
obtained and studied the document formally setting out of this proposed strategy
for national economic em-powerment and development, which you launched in Abuja,
on the 15th of March, 2004,and which officials of the Presidency and the
National Planning Commission have been sending out asking for comments and
suggestions, I was really surprised, by its contents and presentation. I was
baffled by the claims about its ‘ownership’ and endorsements on page 5, that:
“Although NEEDS is
essentially a federal government programme, it is fully owned by Nigerians. The
President and his cabinet fully endorse the programme; the National Assembly and
the National Economic Council (NEC), which comprises all the 36 governors of the
states, have also en-dorsed the programme. Various private sector stakeholders,
NGOs and Civil Society organisations have also endorsed the NEEDS.”
That is why I am
writing this letter to you. For, if, as Nigerians we already fully own this
programme, and it has already received the endorsement from all the organs of
government with the constitutional authority to formulate and implement it, and
from the private sector and civil society organisations, why all this running
around by your officials to arrange consultations over it, all over the country,
and in such great hurry? That is why I want to find out if you really, and
seriously, intend to use this NEEDS to uplift the economy of this country, or if
you are just using it as an exercise in deception, as a manoeuvre and as a
camouflage. These, naturally come to you from your training and experience as a
seasoned military officer. I am asking this question for these and some other
very simple reasons.
7. And the other
reasons are, that you have held high public office in this country for thirty
seven years, in military and civilian capacities. You have served as the Head of
State, and Commander –in – Chief of the Armed Forces of our country, twice, for
nine of these thirty seven years. You have attended, in your governmental and
non governmental capacities, more, national, African, and international, policy
– making meetings, than all the other ten Nigerian Heads of State put together.
You should know all there is to know about public policy formulation, including
the standards of contents, articulation, and presentation, expected of policy
documents, even at the drafting stage.
8. You must have,
before endorsing it, read, the 172 page document, titled,
9. You cannot fail to have noticed that this draft document fails to propose any
strategy for national economic empowerment and development. It contains no
strategy, no coherent plan of action which to endorse, launch and hold nation
wide consultations upon. It is a bundle of confusion in its conceptualisations,
use of data and organisation. Its language is turgid, it is written in a verbose
style and filled with platitudes, cliches and repetitions. You must have seen
all this. So, why did you not, after reading it, before endorsing it, send it
back and ask for a serious and competent draft by the numerous economic and
policymaking experts in your Economic Team and in the various ministries of your
government?
10. In the first
place, this document is incoherent, inconsistent, and often downright incorrect,
in its use of key concepts, including its central concept of ‘strategy’ and the
core concepts of, ‘policy’, ‘programme’, ‘instrument’, ‘goals’, ‘targets’ and
‘principles.’ This has resulted in pervasive confusion, all over the document,
between, for example, the objectives to be attained, the general and specific
measures to be taken to attain them, and the devices and organs to be used to
implement these measures. When a government cannot distinguish between its
objectives, the measures to take to attain these objectives, and the devices to
use to implement these measures, then obviously its actions will be confused and
convoluted.
11. Secondly, the
appraisal of the economic and social conditions and trends in Nigeria, and
affecting Nigeria, at the starting point of the implementation of the strategy,
is not realistic, it is incomplete, in parts evasive; and is so muddled up. It
is not even clear whether take off point of this strategy is 1999, or whether it
is 2004. Thirdly, the objectives, goals and targets of the strategy, are arrived
at in an arbitrary fashion, without logically and systematically, deriving them
from the projected changes in existing economic trends, as a result of the
pursuit of the strategy, and the distinctive way this strategy should harness
resources and enhance capacities.
12. Fourthly, the
types of linkages between the various sectors of the economy, which are specific
to it, at its present level of development, which are crucial in determining
whether the economy retards, stagnates, or grows, are virtually ignored, and
each sector is treated as if it stands on its own, facing, what is called,
global competition. The feedback cycles and the intersectoral dynamics of the
economy, crucial for take-off and sustained growth are not even recognised.
Fifthly, the specific means by which the three tiers of government should work
together for the achievement of agreed and defined targets in each sector and
subsector of the economy are not specified, only asserted in the most
generalised way, in spite of the great prominence given to the false claim that,
this NEEDS is the first attempt to coordinate the economic policies of the three
tiers of government in this country.
13. Let us take
these five major flaws in this draft document one – by – one, starting with the
incorrect, incoherent and inconsistent use of key concepts, including the
central concept of “strategy”. Since this document is supposed to be a proposal
for a national economic empowerment and development strategy, it has to, first
and foremost, be based on a correct, coherent, and consistent conception of what
is meant by “strategy”. It also has to be based on correct, coherent and
consistent conceptions of other key concepts, which operationalise strategy,
such as, policy, programme, and instrument. But, this is not the case. On the
pages, where “strategy” features, or “strategies” are listed, strategy is
incorrectly conceived as meaning, a particular line of action, or particular
policies and programmes, which, even a first year undergraduate knows, it is
not. To confound matters further, policies, programmes, and instruments, are
used as if they mean the same thing and most often are all reduced to woolly and
amorphous statements of intentions. The extent of vagueness and generalisation
is made worse by the way the documents avoids proposing specific and definite
objectives for each sector, sub-sector, and each sphere of government activity,
and instead hides behind the wishy-washy terms of “policy thrusts” and “policy
directions” and “programme thrusts”. We even find on page 35 the meaningless
term, “policy strategies.” What on earth can this mean? What on earth does it
mean, for example, to list, on page 35, as “policy strategies/instruments”, the
reforms of, the budget process, the reforms of taxation, and the reforms of the
procurement process? Are these policies? Are these strategies? Are they
instruments? Or, are they all these three lumped together?
14. Let us be very
clear as to what the terms, which are so much confused in this document mean. A
strategy, for example, is not the same thing as a policy. A strategy is a plan
for the pursuit of a coordinated range of policies, specifically directed at the
attainment of clearly defined objectives, over the whole of a specific sphere of
action, within a particular period of time. It is different and distinct from
policies, programmes, objectives, goals, and targets, or the instruments for
attaining these. A policy is a planned course of action for the attainment of
definite objectives in a specific sphere of action. A programme, on the other
hand, is a series of specific measures planned for the implementation of the
whole, or part of a policy, within a particular time frame. While an instrument,
in this context, is a device, an organ, and a means, for the implementation of
policy. These constitute components of strategy. Strategy is broader and
operates at higher levels of planning and action, determining and subjecting all
policies, all programmes, and all instruments to the attainment of its
objectives.
15. There is
nowhere, in the whole of this document, where a national economic empowerment
and development strategy for
16. Yet, in the
introduction to Chapter Eight, the chapter titled, “Specific Sectoral
Strategies”, it is stated in the first paragraph, on the first page of the
chapter, that is page 75, that, sectoral strategies have not yet been formulated
but are being developed. This is quite categorically stated, in the following
words:
“The Federal
Government ministries, their state counterparts and the private sector
stakeholders are in the process of developing sector-wide strategies for each of
the sectors. These sector strategies will emphasise national coordination with
clearly delineated roles and responsibilities for each of the tiers of
government, the private sector and other stakeholders. These sector strategies,
together with the sector projects, will form a necessary annex to the NEEDS
document”.
This is, however,
flatly contradicted just below, on the same page, in the fourth paragraph, where
it is stated that:
“ It is in this context that the various sector strategies are couched, first by
identifying some of the peculiar sector specific issues, policy imperatives and
then the selected strategies.”
Which is which? Are
the sector strategies yet to be developed? Or have they already been developed?
If they have not been developed, then what are these items listed as
“strategies” for seven of the core sectors of the economy, on pages 69, 73,
77-78, 79-80, 86-88,101-103, and 103-104?
17. The confusion,
and the state of mental disarray, exhibited in this document, which you endorsed
and launched, come out more clearly, when we examine these so-called
“strategies” for these seven sectors of the economy. For the transport sector we
have, on page 68-69:
“Strategies”
Review existing
legislation and institutional framework and provide incentives for private
sector participation in inland waterways and other sectors
Create a window for
funding the aviation industry to ensure modernization and safety standards
through the Bank of Industry
Transform the
Nigerian Railways through rehabilitation and modernization
Commercialize the
non-real assets of the railways as a source of raising funds to finance a viable
and efficient railway transportation network with private participation
Provide Road
Maintenance Agency sufficient capacity to undertake rehabilitation and
maintenance of federal roads.”
Here we have five “strategies” proposed for the transport sector, none of which
is a strategy, a policy, or a programme. Mr. President, how can a military
officer of your training, rank and experience, and a Head of State and President
for nine years, of one of the most populous countries in the world, who is
expected to know what strategy, is, in military and civil matters, endorse the
adequate funding of the Road Maintenance Agency as a strategy? Is this not what
every Federal Government is obliged to do under the relevant laws of this
country?
18. Surprisingly,
no “strategies” are set out for what is called “The Power Sector” (Electricity
Supply), treated on pages 69 – 72. What explains this very significant omission?
This sector has received the highest allocation of Federal Government capital
expenditure since 1999, and still does. And in many states, rural
electrification is also a significant item in the capital budget. So how can
there be no “strategies” for its development, when it is basic to almost all
other sectors? Is it because this high level of expenditure is being sunk into
electricity supply without any policies and strategy?
19.On page 72-73
the “strategies” for the water supply sector are set out as:
“Strategies”
To achieve government’s policy objectives, the following strategies would be
adopted:
Develop and
implement a system of quality assurance consistent with WHO standards especially
the completion of hydro geological mapping of the country and the establishment
of water quality laboratories;
20. On pages 76-78,
the “strategies” for
the agricultural sector are set out as follows:
“Strategies”
To achieve these targets, the following strategies will be employed
1 Vigorous
implementation of the Presidential Initiatives on Cassava, Rice, Vegetable oil,
sugar, livestock, tree crops and cereals. Under this initiative, Nigeria hopes
to generate as much as N3 billion annually from the export of agricultural
products.
2 Taking advantage
of the various concessionary arrangements within the WTO, EUACP, and the AGOA,
NEPAD and the huge market in the West African Region sub region
3 Strengthening of
agricultural research and revitalization of the agricultural training and
streamlining the extension delivery system including the involvement of
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and opinion leaders in extension delivery
through capacity building and promotion of improved technologies that are
appropriate to the needs of farmers
4 A review of the
agricultural input supply and distribution system with a view to developing
effective and sustainable private sectorb led input supply and distribution
system.
5 Promotion of
integrated rural development involving agricultural and non-agricultural
activities and including the provision of physical infrastructure such as feeder
roads, rural water supply, rural communications etc.
6 Encouraging
states to develop projects of model rural communities and farm settlement
adequately provided with feeder roads, boreholes, vocational training, simple
farm tools and equipment, alternative energy source and communication centres
for a wholesome life to reduce rural-urban drift
7 Adequate
capitalization of the Nigerian Agricultural, Cooperative and Rural Development
Bank (NACRDB) to provide soft agricultural credit and rural finance; the NACRDB
has been restructured and its mandate expanded to include full financial
intermediation
8 Refurbishment of
the eight functional silo complexes and phased completion of the remaining ones
to improve and in-crease the capacity of the food reserve programme as a step to
food security. These would be leased out to farmers either on individual or
group basis
9 Promotion of
joint venture private sector managed multi commodity development and marketing
companies to guarantee remunerative prices for farmers, stabilize consumer
prices and provide alternative market for farm produce through
buyer-of-last-resort mechanism
10 Promotion of all
season farming through rain fed and irrigated farming with emphasis on fadama
agriculture as well as implementation of the programme for the massive
production of tree crop seedlings.”
21. On pages 78-80,
the “strategies” for the manufacturing sector are set out as follows:
In order to
turnaround the dwindling fortunes of the manufacturing (including SMEs) sector,
government’s focus in this sector would be guided by the following measures:
(i). Removal of
infrastructural constraints on SMEs and expedite action on establishment of the
clusters and industrial parks. These critical ingredients to increasing the
participation of the private sector will be targeted at “growth poles.”
(ii) Provision of
appropriate institutional support: undertaking studies aimed at attracting
foreign investors, scanning, overseas markets and monitoring developments that
have implications for the sector. SMEDAN will be provided with appropriate
infrastructure and executive capacity, and in collaboration with the relevant
agencies at the State and Local Government levels, play the role of promoter,
facilitator and coordinator of all SME policies of government.
(iii) Strengthen
the Bank of Industry and other such special purpose finance institutions NEXIM,
NARCDB, etc to perform their statutory roles (especially the provision of
concessional loans, credit guarantee schemes) and enlarge scope to include large
manufacturing companies
(iv) Strengthening
the legal and institutional framework for the operation of micro finance
institutions including streamlining of the operational guidelines and tax
incentives for SMEs. This will include explicit recognition of the informal
sector and the resolution of the constraints to implementation of the SMIEIS and
design of special incentives targeted at investors who would wholly specialize
in exporting to foreign markets.
(v) Review and
implement a codified tax and incentives structure reform (including providing
for necessary trade-offs) that supports an export oriented manufacturing sector
and encourages large businesses to foster growth of SMEs in their value and
supply chain.
(iv) Provide
targeted incentives (like tax deductibility) for science, technology, and
research and development spending.
(v) Coordinate and
Facilitate, in collaboration with the relevant agencies of the other tiers of
government, the implementation of an effective competitive industrialization
strategy
(vi) Promotion of
joint ventures and provision of incentives to facilitate flow of FDI in
partnership with existing SMEs
(vii)
Implementation of a Government procurement policy that patronizes locally
produced goods and services, especially of SMEs
(viii) Promote the
production of quality goods and services in Nigeria to facilitate a competitive
export oriented manufacturing sector”.
22. On pages 86-88,
the “strategies” for the oil and gas sector are set out as:
Design and
facilitate, in collaboration with the private sector, the implementation of a
national oil and gas policy as well as a national gas grid system
23. On pages
101-102, the “strategies” for the education sector are set out as:
Under NEEDS,
education (especially basic education) is considered the key bridge to the
future. Half of Nigeria’s population are children. Thus, education is a key
instrument to empower the children to take charge of their lives in the future.
In this regard, the strategy will aim at the empowerment of the citizenry to
acquire skills and knowledge that would prepare them for the world of work. In
order to achieve this, it will address the following crucial issues:
Under NEEDS, government recognizes the critical importance of Universities and
tertiary institutions for high quality manpower development, especially in the
context of increasingly technologically driven world economy. Government also
recognizes the challenges facing these institutions which range from inadequate
funding and facilities, some curricula that are illstructured to meet the
challenges of national need, inadequate and inappropriate staffing (especially
at the lecturership cadres), cultism and lower moral and academic standards
among students. Currently, higher institutions in Nigeria depend almost
exclusively on subventions from government. The bulk of the Federal Government
spending on education goes to the tertiary institutions, while state governments
spend at least 20 percent of their budget on education--- mostly primary and
secondary education. Almost total dependence on the Government for funding
higher education is neither practical nor sustainable. There is therefore a need
for fundamental reforms of the higher education system in Nigeria. The strategy
for reforms include:
`24. On pages 103-104, the “strategies” for the health sector are set out, as
follows:
Creation and/or strengthening mechanisms for:
(i) Checking the transmission of polio virus by end of 2004;
(ii) the early detection, diagnosis and response to epidemics;
(iii) rapid and sustainable increase in routine immunization coverage.
Strengthening existing programmes/initiatives for the elimination/eradication of
specific diseases, e.g., Guinea worm.
Provision of a minimum package of health services to all Nigerians as an
integral part of the poverty reduction strategy.
Development and implementation of a mechanism for measuring the performance of
tertiary health institutions.
Development and implementation of a strategy to improve health workers’
attitude, morale and commitment.
Establishment of a reliable system for the supply of quality drugs and medical
materials to health facilities.
Strengthening NAFDAC to perform its regulatory functions.
Development and implementation of a strategy to increase consumers’ knowledge
and awareness of their personal obligations and rights to better health.
Development and implementation of a strategy to enhance community participation
in the provision and financing of health services.
Using the results of the study on private health sector as evidence for
formulating policy for the promotion of public private partnership in health
care provision and financing.
Development and implementation of a framework for enhancing effective
coordination of development partners.
In addition to the foregoing, other elements of the health sector reform program
will include:
Increase in antenatal, postnatal and family planning services and outlets to
reduce maternal and infant mortality from the present 704/100,000 and 77/1000
respectively
Intensification of the campaign for the eradication of harmful traditional
practices such as female genital mutilation and child marriage. Already, several
State governments have passed the necessary legislations, and many more are in
the process of doing the same.”
25. What, Mr. President, are we to make of a document, purporting to set out a
strategy for the way forward for Nigeria, which does not set out what this
strategy should be? A document which in one page, states that the strategies for
the various sectors of the economy have not yet been worked out, but are being
developed with the State Governments and the private sector, and then goes ahead
to list, in other pages what it calls “ strategies” for most of the major
sectors? And when we examine the items it sets out as “strategies”, we find that
they are not strategies, but mere lists of intentions, and even some targets,
most of which are yet to be formulated into coherent and definite government
policies, from which concrete programmes can be derived for implementation. Yet
these are listed as strategies in an official Nigerian Government document of
this status, which you, yourself endorsed and launched!
26. As if this exhibition of shoddy thinking is not bad enough for the country,
and disgraceful to its image all over the world, you have, on pages 28-29 of
this document, passages, which indicate that, in this official Nigerian
Government document, launched by the President of this country himself, to map
out the way forward for the country, in the next three years, the level of
thinking is so low, that, there is exhibited a failure to even understand, and
correctly use, the elementary concept of “principles”. On page 28, after quoting
parts of chapter two of the Constitution, which provides for the Fundamental
Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy, the document concludes, as
follows:
“In other words, the Constitution clearly stipulates that public policy must be
directed to balance the objectives of efficiency, effectiveness, and equity in
order to ensure a broad based poverty reducing growth and development strategy,
the dividends of which will be distributed fairly among all classes. The NEEDS
is based upon these principles. It is the strategy aimed at achieving the
directive principles of state policy. Its focus is wealth creation, employment
generation, poverty reduction, corruption elimination and general value
reorientation.
Three other principles that underpin the NEEDS are:
An incentive structure that rewards and celebrates private enterprise,
entrepreneurial spirit and excellence; and
New forms of Partnership among all stakeholders in the economy to promote
prosperity--- among all arms of government; Federal, state and Local; public
private; civil society and the International Community; and indeed all
stakeholders.
A public service that delivers prompt and quality service to the people”.
Mr. President, how can principles be achieved? Principles are abided by, and
followed, but cannot be achieved. What are achieved are, objectives, goals and
targets, which are derived from principles, like those set out in chapter two of
our Constitution. Listing the so-called three other principles of NEEDS, to
round off, only further exhibits the basic ignorance in this document on the
future of our country, about what principles are. An incentive structure, no
matter what it rewards, cannot be a principle, it is a means for the achievement
of certain objectives. New forms of stakeholder partnership, and a public
service, which delivers services, are also not principles, but means for the
achievement of certain objectives.
27. In addition to the confusion in this document over key concepts of policy
making and policyimplementation, the appraisal of the economic and social
conditions and trends in Nigeria, and affecting Nigeria, at the starting point
of the implementation of the strategy, is not realistic, and is evasive. It is
not even clear whether the take-off point of this strategy is 1999, or 2004.
How, for example, can a serious proposal for the way forward for the Nigerian
economy, give three different figures for its present level of manufacturing
capacity utilisation? On page 5 of this document the level of manufacturing
capacity utilisation is given as 60%. On page 13, it is given as 53%, and on
page 26, it is given as 50%! Which one of these is correct?
28. But, even more seriously, no general appraisal of existing conditions in the
country is given in the main body of the document. The only attempt at making an
appraisal comes on page 5, which is the first page of the executive summary. We
cannot find in the chapters what passages this is summarising. So, what we have,
appears to be pre-emptive claims of achievements by your government in the last
five years, given in a summary fashion apparently to brook no doubting and no
argument. But Mr. President, most of these claims, set out on page 5, when they
are closely examined, do not add up to actual indicators of any measure of
progress towards national economic empowerment and development.
29. The doubling of the size of the police force, for example, is more an
indicator of national economic retardation than of economic development. It is
one of your government’s reactions to the worsening insecurity and violent
crimes, largely due to the intensification of economic and social dispossession,
dispowerment, and alienation, of the majority of the people of this country,
including the overwhelming majority of the youth and retired military, police
and other paramilitary personnel. In any case, if, as you recently said, in
public, this April, many of the new police recruits are armed robbers, how can
this doubling of the police be empowering anybody, or developing anybody but
criminals?
30. As for the claims that electricity generation has doubled, it may, or, it
may not have; no mention is made anywhere as to the source of this. But, over
large parts of this country the distribution and supply of this electricity
remains epileptic, not just to households, but to waterworks and other
utilities, to industries, and to educational and health institutions. So,
electricity generation, on its own, is neither here nor there.
31. The claim in this document, echoing what your public relations officials and
media agents have been harping on, that there has been a “telecommunications
revolution”, as a result of your policies since 1999, is comforting propaganda
for you, but cannot be the basis of serious long-term policy making for a nation
with our bitter experience with telecommunications, which you are very familiar
with. While the sevenfold increase in telephone lines in 1999-2003, has relieved
the frustrations inflicted on Nigerians by the former regime of a single
parastatal monopoly, embodied in NITEL, the cost of the lines and the exorbitant
charges has placed it beyond the regular reach of tens of millions of Nigerian
small scale manufacturers, food processors, traders, vendors, salesmen,
livestock rearers, fishermen and artisans, who need this handy and mobile means
of communications for their productive enterprises and not just for,
socialising, gossiping and for show-off. Moreover, the country, is heading back
to repeat what it went through before, with a telecommunication services, but,
without even the rudiments of a telecommunications equipments industry. The
sector, now coming into the grip of a cartel, will not only remain a virtual
black hole for capital flight; crippling capital investment in the rest of the
economy, but the telecommunications services will remain exorbitant. As the
equipment ages, and very little invested, in a domestic telecommunication
equipments industry and in the updating and modernisation of the operating
systems, low quality services, and breakdowns of the networks will become
endemic. The spare parts importation syndrome will cripple the networks and
facilitate capital flight. The euphoria about “telecommunications revolution”
will turn into a nightmare, unless the government, in a planned and decisive
way, ensures the development of sustainable, domestic, telecommunications,
computer and other electronics industries.
32. As for the claims that in the last few years there have been rapid
agricultural growth, in this country, this is not substantiated. The FAO’s
purported estimate, which is cited here, that agricultural production almost
doubled between 2002 and 2003, registering a growth of 7%, is highly
questionable. The FAO has no means of finding this out on its own. Only the
Federal Office of Statistics has the organisation to conduct the required
agricultural survey and provide a usable estimate. That agency, so crucial for
any eco-nomic development, has been crippled, by successive regimes, since the
early 1980s. Up to today, it has been getting barely enough allocation to pay
salaries, and cannot even afford stationeries. As for the groundnut pyramids
reappearing, it is not stated where in the North, these are to be found, so that
this can be checked. These claims over agriculture, and over rapidly declining
unemployment, 3.5 million new jobs since 1999, and over income levels, are
questionable. The FOS, which is explicitly cited as a source for far less
contestable data on pages 6 and 96-97, is not cited to substantiate these far
reaching and questionable claims.
33. Perhaps the most serious shortcoming of the appraisal of existing economic
conditions of this country, in this document, is over the fiscal operations of
the Federal, Government, particularly its evasions over your own conduct, as
President, at this decisive level of the operations of our economy. In the
executive summary, on pages 5-6 of this document, NEEDS is suppose to
consolidate the achievements of the last four years (1999-2003) and:
“...builds on the progress made during the transitional phase of the new
democratic dispensation (1999-2003)...Already, most aspects of the agenda are
being implemented, or the enabling legislation being awaited or arrangements
already advanced to commence implementation.”
But the decisive level in terms of the government’s role in the economy is the
level of the fiscal operations of the three tiers of government. On page 34,
this document recognises the centrality of these fiscal operations in
determining the macro-economic framework in the country, and acknowledges how
bad the fiscal performance of the federal, state and local governments has been
over the last five years, 1999-2003, stating that:
“In Nigeria, fiscal policy is the most important instrument of macroeconomic
management. Therefore, reforms at this level are critical for overall macro
economic consistency... Currently, all tiers of government spend far more than
they earn and cumulatively, deficits over the past five years alone stand at
over N1 trillion. This does not include arrears of pensions and gratuities and
debt to local contractors. With a foreign debt of about $31 billion as at
2001/02 fiscal year (for a $45 billion economy), all tiers of government spend
huge proportion of current revenue in debt servicing and interest payments.”
This is very evasive, because, the virtual doubling of the federal budget
deficit since you came to office, has been key to the disastrous fiscal
performance of the governments of this country since 1999. To put it directly,
what reform, carried out in the so-called transition phase of the new democratic
dispensation caused the Federal Government to collect, in 2002, double the
revenue it collected in 1998, and at the same time double its domestic public
debt? The repayment of the principal and interest of foreign debt by the Federal
Government in 1999-2003 was insignificant in the deficit it incurred. Therefore,
Mr. President if you are committed to a reform agenda as you claim to be and
have embodied this agenda in NEEDS, why do you endorse the pretence that this
reform has been going on since 1999, when the official records reveal that far
from your improving the fiscal operations of the government, since 1999, you
made them worse. That is another reason why I am asking you if you are serious
about this NEEDS.
34. It is also difficult to believe that you are serious about NEEDS when its
objectives, goals and targets, are arrived at in an arbitrary fashion, without
logically and systematically, deriving them from the projected changes in
existing economic trends, as a result of the pursuit of the strategy, and the
distinctive way this strategy should harness resources and enhance capacities.
On page 14, for example, roads rehabilitation, maintenance and new roads are all
lumped together. The targets for 2004, are 3,500kms; for 2005, 3,500kms; for
2006, 4,000 kms; and for 2007, 4,000 kms. What are these targets derived from?
In 1999, the mission statement you gave to the Federal Ministry of Works was to
rehabilitate 5,000 kms annually, leaving aside maintenance and new roads
construction. There is now a whole federal agency for federal roads and a petrol
tax to fund its work, why can you not give specific targets for each category of
work, and set out to do more than what you said you wanted done in 1999. Lumping
together, new roads construction, rehabilitation and maintenance calls into
question the seriousness of these targets.
35. How do you arrive at the target of 3 billion dollars export of cassava and
related products by 2007? What is this target derived from? Is it derived from
the vigorous implementation of the Presidential Initiative on Cassava? Nigeria
was producing about 33 million metric tonnes of cassava, annually, by the time
you took office in 1999. Most of that was for domestic consumption. How much
more do we need to produce to satisfy domestic consumption of it as a staple
food, and for industrial use, and still have billions of dollars worth left to
export? How does a Presidential Initiative rapidly expand crop production and
open foreign markets. Or, are you, by 2007, going to use your initiative to get
other Heads of States, and their security men and entourages, at these
international conferences and retreats you frequent so often, to learn to love
to eat huge quantities of eba and amala so that this target will be attained?
36. Another reason why it is difficult to take this NEEDS seriously, is that the
linkages between the various sectors of the economy, which are specific to it,
at its present level of development, and which are crucial in determining
whether the economy retards, stagnates, or grows, are virtually ignored, and
each sector is treated as if it stands on its own, facing global competition.
Even when on page 75, at the beginning of the chapter on specific sectoral
strategies, a passing nod was made in the direction of inter – sectoral
linkages, this crucial issue was swallowed up by what the document calls
“cross-cutting issues”, as this passage brings out:
“Given the self reinforcing and interdependent nature of the different sectors
of the economy, it is obvious that for each priority sector, achieving the
objective of creating a responsive, modern and globally competitive economy,
will address the following cross-cutting issues which are restated for emphasis
as they are considered critical to the effective growth and development of the
private sector:
It is significant that none of the four agricultural sector targets of NEEDS, on
page 77, have anything to do with providing raw materials for Nigerian
manufacturing industries, including agro-allied and the food and beverages
industries. This linkage with manufacturing also does not at all feature in the
list of the “strategies” set out for this sector. Enhancing the technological
capacity of the manufacturing sector, through credit, tax incentives and
research and development, to specifically provide tools, equipment, ploughs,
pumps and other modern implements for wet and dry season agriculture, does not
feature at all on pages 78-80, where the manufacturing sector is treated. Food
processing and agro-allied industries, which provide the fastest and most
sustainable means of expanding employment and skills, and reducing poverty, are
not even referred to. Biotechnological research and its application in
agriculture and manufacturing, built on tapping our rich biological resources do
not feature, here, or under the education and health sectors. How can such a
document be taken as a serious effort to propose a strategy for national
economic empowerment and development, when the linkage between agriculture and
industry, the backbones of the economy, and the pillars for its modernisation,
are treated in such a shallow and shortsighted way?
37. Finally, the specific means by which the three tiers of government should
work together for the achievement of agreed and defined targets, in each sector
and sub-sector of the economy, are not specified, only asserted in the most
generalised way. The false claim that this NEEDS is the first attempt to
coordinate the economic policies of the three tiers of government in this
country, has blocked out the recognition that inter-governmental coordination of
national development plan formulation and monitoring, has been one of the
biggest tasks of planning in this country, since the 1946 Ten Year Development
Plan. As a result this heavy task of national coordination is treated in a
haphazard manner in this exercise. Although the 36 State Governments are said to
have accepted this NEEDS, since August 2003, none has produced its State
Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (SEEDS), or appears to have
featured it in their 2004 budget pronouncements. The local governments specific
inputs do not even feature in this document. Even at the Federal Government
level, it is not clear how the National Assembly, which vets the budget, and can
refuse to pass whatever you send to them, as they are doing right now, is going
to make its input. The interests its members have shown in programmes and
projects specifically allocated to each constituency and each senatorial zone,
do not appear to have been taken into account. This passage, from page 17,
brings out, in the usual turgid language of the document, that this NEEDS cannot
be taken as a serious effort to put in place a coordinated national economic
strategy to take the country forward:
“This is the Volume ONE of the preliminary draft--- as a working document--- for
comments and sug-gestions only. It is expected that after the six week
nation-wide consultations and debates on the draft document, it will be
substantially revised as comments and contributions are received from
stakeholders and Government officials. The Volume will also be subjected to
serious editorial work. Volume Two of the NEEDS document is the Implementation
Guide. For each reform element, Volume Two details the matrices of objectives,
specific targets, implementation timelines, responsible agencies, etc. This is
to guide monitoring and evaluation. This Volume One specifies the broad
strategic thrusts, targets and instruments. As it were, it charts the overall
direction of change, the destination and how to get there...Furthermore, NEEDS
provides a framework for a nationally coordinated programme of action (including
the Federal, state and local governments). Most of what is articulated here
refers to the planned actions by the Federal Government. However, given that the
Federal Government only controls about half of the consolidated public sector
spending, effective coordination among the tiers of government in the federation
is the key for success. Federal programmes alone without the states and local
governments would amount to attempting to clap with one hand. We need the other
hand (states and local governments) to make the desired impacts on the economy.
This need for coordination was recognized very early on in the development of
NEEDS. Through the statutory organs for inter-governmental coordination
(National Economic Council, National Council for Development Planning, and the
Joint Planning Board), the state governments have not only endorsed the thrusts
of NEEDS but also committed to developing their respective state economic
empowerment and development strategy (SEEDS). The states also agreed on a
minimum set of priorities which each state government must reflect in its SEEDS
namely, agriculture, small and medium enterprises (SMEs), infrastructure
especially roads rehabilitation and maintenance, and public finance reforms and
transparency. The National Planning Commission is collaborating with the donor
agencies to provide technical assistance to the States in the development of
their SEEDS as a necessary complement to the NEEDS. The NPC is organizing
training workshops for the states in the six geopolitical zones of the country
(using the ‘Guidance Manual’ it prepared) on the preparation, monitoring and
evaluation of state plans....Some of the major thrusts of NEEDS are already
reflected in the 2004 budget proposals currently before the National Assembly.
The key sectors to deliver the ‘basic needs’ (for poverty reduction) --- health,
education, electricity, roads, water—have received the highest priority in
resource allocation (about 60% of total capital budget).
38. If this is not an admission that very little has been done to get the
necessary inputs needed to put together a reasonable nationally coordinated
economic strategy document, then what is? The impression, which you Mr.
President and your officials give, that there is a strategy already formulated
is further, exposed by this passage cited above. It confirms the need to ask you
the question of what all this exercise, which you are hurrying over, is about.
Are you serious about this NEEDS, Mr. President? Or, are you just trying to
bamboozle us, using your training and experience in camouflage and deception?
39. But, even if you are serious about NEEDS, as you claim to be, the fact of
the matter is that, in spite of all you say about a home-grown strategy, you and
your officials, have swallowed, hook-line-and-sinker, the IMF/World Bank dogma,
that, only a private sector led economy can grow and develop in the world today.
The repetitive assertion about the leading role of the private sector in this
document reads like a ritual chant, to invoke the favour of some idols or of
God. There is nothing thoughtful, rational and scientific about it. It has
certainly nothing to do with the realities of the Nigerian economy and the
capacities and aspirations of the Nigerian people.
40. In any case, “ a private sector led development strategy”, is a
contradiction in terms, and does not make any logical and operational sense.
This is because, the free market, which governs this private sector, can have no
strategy, as a market, if it remains a free market. As a market, it only has
entrepreneurial freedom; the freedom of the entrepreneur obeying the market
forces of demand and supply. It is only these free, private, corporate, and
individual, entrepreneurs that can have a strategy. But, the private sector, as
a whole, constituting the market, cannot have a strategy for development, or,
for nondevelopment, for a country, or, for any community, district, province or,
any state. It can only have a strategy for making profits, and for the public
relations and political actions necessary to protect, enhance and whitewash its
profits.
41. Therefore, if one of the goals of NEEDS is to “empower the market”, then you
can forget about any national development and empowerment strategy for the
country. The Nigerian public services will be there to serve the various
combinations of private entrepreneurs operating in the country, each with its
own profitmaking strategy, and shall not serve the public, thus throwing
democracy, public accountability, and even national sovereignty, out of the
window.
42. The examples of Malaysia, Singapore and Ghana, illustrate so clearly how
much delusion informs the document’s notion of a private sector led development
strategy. Ghana is no economic success story under its free market development
strategy enforced since the early 1980s. In fact, Ghana, and its cedi, often
serves as a warning and a lesson for those who want to take their countries, and
their currencies, along that path.
43. But Malaysia, under the government of Mathahir Muhammad, has achieved a
significant measure of economic growth. Singapore, under the government of Lee
Kuan Yu, and his successors, firmly kept along the direction chartered under
him, has also done so. Patriotic Governments in these two countries, established
and nurtured committed public services, which, formulated, and authoritatively
implemented, their successful, capitalist, national development plans. These
government – led, capitalist, development strategies, like those of Japan, South
Korea, even, Germany and France, and the Scandinavian countries, took skilful
advantage of the market and of domestic and foreign private entrepreneurs,
giving these chances to compete and make profits and take some of this out, but
without allowing them to call the shots and divert their countries away from the
pursuit of long-term national objectives. In fact, Malaysia set a world record
in the competent management of its external finances, during the Asian financial
crisis in 1996-97, from the way it, patriotically, and astutely, handled its
capital accounts, against all the pressures of the IMF, the World Bank and their
American and European masters. The private sector in Malaysia, which has grown
up rapidly, far from leading the country’s national development strategy, has
followed the government’s national development plan and largely supported and
cheered its stout insistence of standing up in front and shouldering the
economic responsibility for the destiny of the country, and not running to hide
behind the skirts of private entrepreneurs, foreign and domestic, as you are
trying to do.
44. You, Mr. President has become so deluded by the panacea of private
enterprise, that it is too late in the day for you to start learning the lessons
of the real, as distinct from, the mythical, history of economic development in
various parts of the world. But, for goodness sake, get your officials to
produce policy documents, which do not make our country the laughing stock of
the world.
45. Whatever you decide to do, or not to do, you will never escape the judgement
of history, and this is not something, which can be packaged and paid for by
your public relations officials. In spite of the praises you have been getting
in the media about your stewardship in 1976-1979, some of the most distinguished
scholars whose writings will carry weight over the centuries, have, interpreted
the evidence about your regime’s economic policies in that period differently.
An example is one of the most eminent economists of his generation, the late Dr
Pius Okigbo. In his 1983 paper, presented in Zaria, titled, Economic Planning in
Nigeria Since 1960, Pius Okigbo, debunked the praise singing about your running
of the economy and concluded that:
“The last three years of the military administration, 1976-1979, were
characterised by a charade of incoherent, inconsistent and illthought out
policies, often superficially wellmotivated, but often so wrong in ultimate
objectives.”
46. In the case of NEEDS, the incoherence and inconsistency is pervasive and
obvious. Some of its intentions may be well motivated, but the objectives, the
policies are confused and a strategy is completely lacking. If you are serious
about NEEDS, then do something to get your officials to come out with meaningful
and serious proposals, even if it means implementing it yourself, for only two
years. But, if it is only a means of deception, and you are not serious about
it, as a means of salvaging and developing our economy, then get ready to face
the music, sooner, or later.