Abubakar's economics

By

Levi Obijiofor

Listening to Vice President Atiku Abubakar explain why food prices have been on the rise in Nigeria, I thought there was something wrong with the secondary school teachers who taught me the fundamentals of elementary economics. Between Abubakar's economic theory of food supply and price rise and my secondary school teachers, someone's argument must be seriously flawed. And I think I know whose theories to believe. Now what do you make out of this rather incoherent statement by the Vice President? Explaining the high prices of foodstuff in the country, he told airport journalists in Port Harcourt: "In the first year, there was the jumbo wage increase and then there was plenty of food which was as a result of the good cropping season and output by our farmers. Now, after that the prices of commodities crashed. By the time the government realised this, commodities had crashed."

Forget about the lack of logic in that statement. Consider for the moment the fact that there is no direct relationship between the factors named by the Vice President. Evidence, scientific or anecdotal, does not suggest that a "Jumbo" wage increase in Nigeria, if ever there was such a thing (apart from the legendary Udoji Award of the 1970s), leads to increase in agricultural production. Indeed research results convey contrary information. And that is, even when loans are made available to small-scale farmers, they are usually invested in non-agricultural ventures. On this score, Abubakar got his economic premise and conclusion wrong.

The Vice President would have struck the right chord if he had argued that the good cropping season of last year (or 1999, if such a thing occurred in Nigeria) yielded massive food production. As for the logic underpinning the crash in commodity prices and the federal government's late reaction to the situation, only Abubakar can explain that logic. If world commodity prices were on the decline, there is absolutely nothing Abubakar and his government would do to halt the situation. It's that simple. For example, the value of Australian and Canadian dollars are often affected by the fluctuations in world commodity prices because the two countries are among world leaders in the production of commodity goods. When Abubakar spoke about the federal government's late awareness of falling commodity prices, he created the impression that Nigeria alone would have reverted the trend. That's not possible. As an oil-producing nation, Nigeria alone has not been able to determine world oil prices or production quota.

Ever since the federal government received an adverse vote of confidence from the Nigerian press for its failure to improve standards of living in the past two years, federal ministers have gone out on a campaign mission to convince everyone about the government's achievements. First came the man with an omnibus title. Information and National Orientation Minister Jerry Gana pulled the first punches last week in the undeclared face-off between the government and the press. Gana believes the Nigerian press needs an urgent ophthalmic surgery to improve its vision because the press is not seeing clearly and reporting properly what the government has achieved in the past two years. Gana is a dedicated servant of his master. His grouse is mostly based on the terminology used by the press to shoot down the government's charade about its outstanding performance. It is wrong, the visibly disturbed minister told reporters last week, for the Nigerian press to conclude that the federal government has achieved NOTHING in the past two years. A fairer assessment, the minister lectured his audience, would have been for the press to say the government has not achieved enough. But even the minister's choice of words is problematic. The notion of unsatisfactory performance would easily attract the retort: insufficient by what and whose standards.

Gana's misreading of the Nigerian press criticisms of the federal government is unfortunate. The consistent theme that emerged in most press analysis of the Obasanjo government is not that the government has achieved nothing but that the government's achievements were misplaced, misdirected and irrelevant to the needs of the people. The debate is not whether the government has achieved anything at all but whether the achievements were well directed. In essence, were the projects what the people needed? Were the projects aimed at solving the common problems of the people? Did the government concentrate on providing for the basic needs of the people?

The number of projects completed by any government is never a good measure or indicator of how that government has performed. What counts is the number of projects that have directly impacted the lives of the people. It is easy for a government to focus attention on irrelevant projects. Governments are judged not by the number of white elephant projects on the ground but by the relevance of those projects to the people's needs. Government's priority projects are usually influenced by the needs of the people. In true democratic societies, governments first assess what the people want and on the basis of the findings, proceed to provide those needs. Ministers and government officials are not appointed to impose their own values and needs on the people. Local communities determine what they want. Government listens and works out a program aimed at meeting the needs of the people. If a community does not need a football stadium and the government proceeds to build one, that "achievement" counts for nothing in the estimation of the local people. The stadium represents evidence of government's failure, a waste of resources and money and an index of the government's unwillingness to listen.

In all the press assessments of the federal government's performance in the past two years, three key words stood out - listen and learn -- and it seems to me that the ministers who are picking a fight with the press have failed to get the message. Jerry Gana identified energy and road construction as two visible areas where government has achieved miracles. This is hard to believe. Perhaps the minister recently returned from an overseas festival of energy providers. Energy problem remains intractable in Nigeria. Two years after the government came to office, NEPA continues to be a major source of embarrassment to the government and the people of Nigeria. President Obasanjo tried a reshuffling of ministers as a solution to NEPA but the problem only got worse. Nigerians in urban and rural centres are living in the dark, literally. And the Information Minister is talking about "achievements" in energy and road construction. The state of roads in the country, whether federal or state roads, is appalling.

In public relations practice, certain failures or disasters are simply indefensible. It is better to admit failure and earn public commendation for sincere admission rather than trying to spin water out of rocks. Gana cannot and should not bother trying to paint a rosy picture about the state of roads in Nigeria or the efficiency of the energy sector. Nigerians feel the impact and they know when truth is being traded for political rhetoric.