*Blame policy inconsistent on absence of philosophical foundation
Dike Onwuamaeze
Barely eight days to Nigeria’s presidential election, the Institute of Governance and Economic Transformation (IGET) has analysed the manifestoes of leading presidential candidates and came out with a verdict that the failure to anchor economic policy on clear philosophical foundation was the major reason for policy inconsistency and underdevelopment in Nigeria.
The IGET stated this in its assessment of the strength and weakness of the manifestoes of four major presidential candidates vying for the presidential election on February 25.
The presidential candidates are Senator Bola Ahmed Tinubu of All Progressive Congress (APC); Alhaji Atiku Abubakar of Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP); Mr. Peter Obi of Labour Party (LP) and Mr. Rabiu Musa Kwankwanso of the New Nigeria People Party (NNPP).
The IGET made this known in its February 2023 publication titled, “Nigeria Election 2023: A Comparison and Brief Assessment of the Economic Agendas of Leading Presidential Candidates,” which was authored by former Deputy Governor of Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Professor Kingsley Moghalu and Mr. Damian Kalu Ude.
It stated that the, “general weakness observed in most of the candidates’ policy documents were the omission of clear philosophical statement or vision on which their plans are anchored.
“The failure to anchor economic policy in Nigeria on a philosophical foundation is a major reason for inconsistency of policy and thus the inability to achieve, let alone sustain, long-term success in economic growth that lifts millions out of poverty.
“Economies that are clearly philosophically anchored, while retaining an element of pragmatism, tend to achieve structural economic transformation better and faster.”
IGET stated that economics alone was inadequate to develop any society as factors such as values and belief systems mattered and influence societies and their governments’ broader approach to governance, including economic management.
They claimed that Tinubu, in his manifesto, believed in a very strong role for the state in a manner that, “directs the economy without prejudice to the importance of the private sector. He is therefore a “command capitalist” or a social progressive.”
The institute also stated that Atiku, “believes strongly in the marketplace as the creator of national wealth. He is not a fan of the big (and, presumably, inefficient) state, and is therefore a believer in market capitalism.”
Commenting on Obi’s manifesto, the institute noted that while remaining clearly, “a believer in markets as the engine of wealth creation,” Obi emphasised “the importance of the downtrodden citizen, trade unions, civil society, and women.
“He, therefore, believes in ‘stakeholder capitalism.’ This philosophical leaning will likely pay strong attention to achieving inclusive economic growth that carries different stakeholders along.”
IGET also asserted that while Kwankwaso strongly believed in family-oriented, poverty eradication approaches to the economy, he strongly favoured, “the education of girls, while nevertheless recognising the importance of business and the market economy. He is therefore also a stakeholder capitalist.”
The authors of the IGET’s report also highlighted the strengths and weakness of the presidential candidates’ manifatoes.
For Tinubu, they stated that his strong points in his manifesto included its revenue generation model that would expand taxation base without necessarily raising taxes.
“Other strong points included Tinubu’s commitment to make savings from the removal of oil and foreign exchange subsidies by floating the naira,” the added.
According to them, Tinubus’s “clear National Industrial Policy, if successfully executed, will improve the structural foundation of the economy, and make the economy more competitive.”
They, however, pointed out that Tinubu’s “support for deficit spending is a major potential pitfall. While it might theoretically have benefits such as triggering higher levels of GDP growth, and has been the norm in many industrialised countries, it is problematic in a developing country such as Nigeria because it will likely deepen Nigeria’s debt crisis (including illegal Ways and Means Advances by the Central Bank to the FG), cause more inflation, and will not yet be supported by strong, diversified revenue streams including an efficient taxation system which is still absent in Nigeria. It could shut out productivity-led growth that Nigeria is yet to attain in the first place.”
Commenting on Atiku’s manifesto, the IGET saw strength in his quest to restructure Nigeria constitutionally to a more workable federal structure, which if achieved, would address the structural factors that have inhibited Nigeria’s economic transformation.
The institute stated that Atiku’s “market-driven economy, private-sector transformation of power sector and privatisation of ports, if transparently achieved, will renew economic confidence and growth.
“PPPs could potentially create significant fiscal savings for the federal government that could be invested in social infrastructure.”
But IGET warned that any haste by Atiku in, “proposing constitutional restructuring, and even hastily submitting an Executive Bill to the National Assembly, runs the risk of rejection by vested interests considering representational imbalances in the NASS.”
The institute further highlighted that, “a predominantly market-led economy requires transparency, accountability, and the rule of law for true, inclusive capitalist economist growth. It will be important to avoid crony capitalism, in which corporate elites make all the money through state patronage, while poverty levels in the wider society remain high.”
Furthermore, IGET noted that Obi’s, “proposal of hourly-wage jobs is transformational, if successfully implemented. It will improve the flexibility and productivity of labour – the most important component of inclusive growth that can create decent incomes for millions of Nigerians.
“Emphasis on human capital, without prejudice to physical infrastructure, is the foundation for human development. This has been mainly ignored in Nigeria, where investment in social infrastructure such as education and healthcare have been extremely low relative to spending on physical infrastructure.”
It also added that Obi’s commitment to, “fight corruption and reduce the cost of governance would go to the heart of what has led to Nigeria’s industrial scale corruption and waste in the public sector, which has left political leaders focused only on self-enrichment and denied ordinary Nigerians development.”
It, however, emphasised that, “manifestos in themselves cannot solve this problem, no matter how elegant, if the mindset to truly fight corruption is not evident in a verifiable manner. Nigeria has lost trillions of dollars through corruption and waste in the public sector.”
IGET further noted that the strength of Kwankwaso’s plan was in its, “clear identification of the government ministries and departments that determine the economy’s performance and a clear statement of intent regarding the required calibre of managers is a sign of effective governance potential.
“Strong and clear focus on steps to take for education reform; the proposed Ministry of Higher Education and Human Capital could potentially yield a greater focus and achievement in education reform.”
It, however, observed some possible pitfalls in Kwankwaso’s manifesto.
“A target of 15,000 to 20,000 megawatts of electricity by 2027 does not appear to be at the required level of ambition to power the Nigerian economy.”
