Obasanjo error of judgment

Obasanjo's error of judgment

In soccer as in any other football-related sport, players who consistently shoot to the gallery are condemned to lose. Shooting to the gallery is an expression reserved for players who prefer to impress the audience rather than win, particularly players who adore fanciful and entertaining soccer rather than playing according to the winning strategies worked out by their coaches and team managers. When soccer players shoot to the gallery, they risk the ire of their coach, the outrage of their supporters and condemnation from their professional colleagues. Shooting to the gallery is never a good strategy in the playing field or outside of it.

With or without soccer experience, President Obasanjo's management style and his public response to issues of national significance portray him as a leader who loves to play to the gallery. And when a national leader plays to the gallery, he takes his case to the wrong audience. President Obasanjo and his ministers have been consistent in shooting to the gallery. Assessing a leader's performance based on cheers from members of the gallery is always problematic. The gullible audience applauds when you are wrong and also when you're right.

President Obasanjo's exasperation over the intractable problem of fuel scarcity in Nigeria was recorded recently when he stated publicly that he could not understand why fuel scarcity has persisted despite everything the government has thrown in to solve the problem. Obasanjo's statement is a reflection of the extent of presidential fatigue over the problem. But a strong leader never quits because a problem has become intractable. The mark of a good leader is the ability to remain strong and committed even in the face of daunting national problems. Unfortunately, we haven't seen much of this trait in Nigerian leaders, past or present.

When Obasanjo on Monday this week took his government's case for deregulation of the oil sector to senior military officers at the Nigerian Defence Academy, he made a serious error of judgment. That action highlighted two character flaws in Obasanjo. The nation was told in no uncertain terms that President Obasanjo still possesses the mentality of a former military leader who has absolute contempt for the civilian population. Obasanjo's action also provided unimpeachable evidence that the President prefers to align forces with the military rather than with the civilian population that gave him the majority vote in the last election. There is nothing absolutely wrong about where, when and how a president chooses to address an issue of national significance such as the controversy-riddled debate on deregulation of the oil sector. No matter how the President's spin doctors turn the argument, the most appropriate audience for such a debate is certainly not a military defence academy. Prices of petroleum products affect every Nigerian and not the military alone. Every Nigerian wants to hear the government's case for deregulation before the labour movement goes to town to discredit the government. Once the Nigeria Labour Congress galvanises public support against deregulation, it would be hard for the government to gain the ears of ordinary Nigerians.

Presenting the case for deregulation at a military academy is like shooting to the gallery. The military is the wrong audience. President Obasanjo is the fanciful player who often acts contrary to what is in the script. The President likes to be applauded and he knows that at the defence academy, he would be guaranteed support for deregulation based only on the philosophy of esprit de corps. Senior military officers are well paid and do not necessarily feel the same degree of hardship as ordinary Nigerians. But winning the smiles of senior military officers may not be sufficient to keep the President in power during the next election. It seems that Obasanjo the former soldier has forgotten how hard it is to interpret the mood of the military or to rely on their solidarity to remain in office. When military officers support a leader they smile. When they oppose a leader they also smile. There lies the problem for Obasanjo. The cheers he received at the military academy may not be genuine afterall. With apology to William Shakespeare, there is no easy way to read the plots being constructed by these men through their shining faces. The President ought to have presented his case to the nation through the proper channel of communication. A nation-wide radio and television broadcast would have earned Obasanjo and his government some sympathetic ears among the general public. Now that he has taken his case to the military, Obasanjo risks being abandoned and isolated by his natural constituency ñ the common people who voted him into office.

A closer analysis of the case made by Obasanjo for deregulation of the oil sector makes pathetic reading. There are two outstanding issues raised by Obasanjo in his speech which highlights the senselessness of the government's arguments. The government's first argument is that it has raised the national minimum wage to the point where it is now double what it used to be one year ago. It seems to be the government's view that if workers received more pay than they used to, workers have no right to complain if the government decides to raise prices of petroleum products. The weakness in this argument is the assumption that there is a uniform minimum wage in Nigeria or the assumption that state and federal public servants now receive the same minimum wage. It is not true and any attempt to argue in this line is simply an attempt by government to deceive the public.

Nigerian workers are smarter than the government has cared to credit them with. Even if, for argument's sake, we believe that state and federal civil servants receive the same minimum wage, is it appropriate and morally right for the government to take away what it has granted workers by deregulating the oil sector? Perhaps Obasanjo needs to understand one point: the rise in minimum wage has in no way cushioned the impact of the high cost of living and double-digit inflation in Nigeria. Many families on the so-called minimum wage are barely managing to survive every month. It is a measure of government's insensitivity for Obasanjo to remind workers of their minimum wage when that minimum wage has not been able to meet the minimum cost of living per month for an average family.

What the minimum wage argument overlooks is the fact that there are many unemployed Nigerians who are not even on the minimum wage. And there are no welfare benefits to assist the unemployed in the society. How does the government expect the unemployed to survive the impact of deregulation which, we must not forget, will most certainly lead to spiraling increases in the cost of virtually all items sold in Nigeria?

The second senseless argument by the Obasanjo government is that, as a majority of Nigerians have so far been paying high oil prices especially during the periods of scarcity, they should be able to meet the expected rise that would follow deregulation. A government should always listen to the concerns of the people and weigh those concerns against the reality of the economic situation. Deregulation might appeal to the government's revenue wizards at the moment but the government must not strangulate Nigerians through deregulation simply to deny fuel hoarders their oxygen of existence. You cannot punish a nation for the transgressions of a corrupt minority. Government must find solutions for the intractable fuel scarcity in Nigeria. Deregulation will not provide an immediate one-off solution.