When economic activities are abruptly disrupted, things do not just stagnate, they degenerate. We saw it around this time last year when Nigeria was locked up in the cesspool of economic breakdown following the unilateral removal of oil subsidy by the presidency. As the darkness of politically fun-filled 2011 cleared from the horizon, Nigerians woke up expecting that the breaking of the first day of the year that supposed to have been politically disinterested one would represent a step forward and offer realizable economic hopes. That was never to be as President Goodluck Jonathan dashed it up in what has become one of the most infamous speeches of history.It was unlikely that a president who rose to power from popular vote would in a matter of seven months push history aside with economic arguments that were outrageous, discriminatory and harmful to citizens who lived in a socio-politically charged period. The president had come to his decision on the conflicting advice of his economic team that a nation ought to subsidize production and not consumption and that deregulation is the panacea for corrupt oil sector. By paying subsidy on every liter of fuel consumed by Nigerians the president had thought he was performing double malfunctions-paying into the pockets of oil cabals and doing much for citizens who do not deserve it.
Corruption in the oil sector? Agreed! But economic logic neither permits 100 per cent stimulus nor austerity if a country’s economy is not to melt nor citizens pay through their noses. The economic austerity contained in subsidy removal policy was more than 150 per cent. People had expected Mr. President to demonstrate his political will in confronting the oil cabals instead of adopting escapist method. If government lacks the will power to clean up such mess it is unlikely that such cowardice will not manifest in implementing any programme geared towards reinvesting and transferring the oil subsidy. Today, not much is heard about subsidy reinvestment programme.
Nigerians generally lack sense of history. They easily get used to hardship and get lost to injustice and promises. In the past Nigerian presidents had cashed in on our collective amnesia. Former president Obasanjo had in his 1999 inaugural speech recalled sacrifices Nigerians have been told to make by various administrations and as such solicited same. He, however, assured Nigerians that the only difference would be that in the past, sacrifices were made with nothing to show for it but in his time the result would be clear for all to see. True to his prediction, we saw the result in decayed sectors left in the hands of chronically sick Alhaji who realizing the burden of nation building gave up the ghost.
President Jonathan has better chances of becoming an action president. His name-Goodluck-combined with his youthful exuberances and the manner of his ascendancy to power ought to have robbed of on our national aspiration. Unfortunately, he has remained a talkative. It has become customary for him to mount the stage and reel out promises and policies. We see it whenever Boko Haram strikes, when flood devastates, when there is road and air mishap, and when other natural disasters occur. Ruben Abati is always ready with to-whom-it-may-concern condolence message to the victims. At the tick of the condolence are usually promises by the government to fish out individuals or agencies responsible and find lasting solution to the crisis.
Typical of him, President Goodluck had in his New Year message claimed that Nigeria looks set for better performance in public infrastructure which will include power sector, security, education and transportation (roads construction, railways and airports development) among other critical sectors of the economy. His words: “let me assure all Nigerians that 2013 will be better for us than 2012 in all aspects of the nation’s history. The new year will be better in terms of job and wealth creation and improved security, among others”.
He was sure of not translating his promises to reality because of what he called ‘tedious processes’ which according to him vindicates doubts being expressed about his government ability by critics. This seems to show that Goodluck team believes that promise is statecraft; and even if it were, Goodluck’s promises are usually loose, with no clarity of purpose, no genuine commitment, and no concrete policy on how to follow them up.
‘What, for instance, is the evidence that the intractable conundrum of the power sector will improve any time soon, or the insecurity in the land will be contained or the transportation system, especially our roads that have become death-traps will be tackled? The standard of education has continued to fall. Indeed, there is little or nothing on ground to justify the President’s optimism.’ That was how a critic tabloid dismissed Mr. President Christmas message.
For Mr. President to squander public trust and expectation with oratory he does not have is the greatest undoing of a leader. Leadership is about responsibility and responsiveness to expectations and delivering on promises. Promises are fantasies and mere slogans until and unless they become tangible things that can impact positively on the lives of the people. History disproves making promises if they cannot be fulfilled. And the urgent burden of national expectations demands that should promises be made, they ought to be well thought through.
Talk is cheap. Goodluck’s Transformation Agenda is a talk. The power sector which is the c-fiber of national economy leaps far behind its targeted mega watts for 2012 despite huge investment in the sector. Small scale businesses such as barbing salons have continued to run on generating set, a proof that many big commercial concerns are operating 24 hours on generators.
For two years, Goodluck has been drawing lines in the sand. He has reacted more than he acted. To articulate a comprehensive programme of action that can lift the country out of the present doldrums and malaise, he must make his promises coherent. That is to say he must walk the talk.
