Nigeria 53: The journey so far
A
journey of 53 years in the life of a man is quite a journey. In the
life of a nation, the same journey-years differ in both import and
dimension. There is a common denominator though: both are journeys. And
both lend themselves to assessment in the light of the nature of the
road travelled, the terrain characteristics, the environment, the other
companions of the road, the influences of similar journey experiences by
both peers in other climes, and those that had been through such
journeys earlier. I believe therefore, I am being invited to embark upon
a historical excursion.
In the sixth year of our journey, the
revelry and reverie that pervaded the Caravan in which we travelled were
interrupted with a shocking staccato of machine gun-shots from some
impatient, self-proclaimed saviours, who ambushed our vehicle and
murdered our travelling pioneer captains and pilots. We veered off the
main road, headed for an abyss, but saved by boulders of men of
principles and conviction, as well as our young soldiers of courage. A
salvage mission of brain brawl and brawn saw us after a bloody civil war
back to the highway in the Caravan once again, but all jolted out of
our initial day-dreaming to a new horizon with new perceptions and
perspectives. We, no doubt resolved to continue the journey in the same
Caravan, riddled with bullet-holes that served to remind us all, that
the journey was going to be a tough adventure, and no picnic.
An adventure that would affect and shape our destiny, relationship and status among the comity of nations; a venturesome journey which would demand from each one of us, the best of our steely qualities, our sweat, tears and even blood thereafter, things never remained the same again.
There were, ever since that intrusion inspired by misjudgments, alternate changes of guards: the intemperate interlopers who derailed our train in the first few years of our journey and to a lesser degree, their successors though more level headed, made it appear as if the artful, steady land trip which our first captains of ship of travel could be an easy political air journey in which, trusting their gun-backed egoistic self-confidence, they could fly with little navigational aids or even a modicum of thorough reading and understanding of the nation’s political, governance and even social flight path. The delirious allures of the power from the barrel of the gun was so intoxicating that the Napoleonic psychology’ of l’etat c’est moi, made them fly us through all manner of sky conditions, with the telling consequences of unpleasant, bumpy, and rough rides still affecting us. Once in the cockpit however our young rulers discovered that flying our nation’s political plane was more than the” seemingly exciting virtual reality aviation’ training test-flights.
This is far from suggesting that we do not have development goals to which we can, with pride, lay proprietarily claims. We do have them, and though’ not unseldomly often crafted with the behind-the-scenes support of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), I must stress with all candour that the intellectual resources which furnaced those goals and objectives, have been thoroughbred Nigerian. And, all along, we have always had well-defined objectives.
We earnestly imbibed the spirit of planning and came out with successive National Development Plans. The First National Development Plan spanned a period of six years, 1962 1968, with a public sector capital expenditure of N2.2 billion. The civil war years caused a suspension of the spirit, but it quickly returned at the end of 40 utilities. The Second National Development Plan, 1970 1975 succeeded the First, with public capital expenditure programmes of N3.27 billion.
The Third National Development Plan’s comparative size was N26.7 billion, from 1975. 1980 (subsequently revised to N32.85 billion). The Fourth National Development Plan, 1981 85, gulped N70.5 billion in public sector capital - investments. And as far as I know, that was the last concerted effort at a formal and serious economic planning. The spirit of planning, though seemed never dead at that point, became impaired.
I am aware, that the annual budgets there appeared to carry on with the strategy of planning but the nation seemed to have turned its back on the vehicle of development that propelled Malaysia, in particular, to its enviable position.
The objectives of the various Development Plan were quite laudable and are still very relevant (perhaps, now more so than they were 25 years ago): our capital budgets run into trillions of naira annually; And our annual ritual of budget cycles that are but glorified shopping lists lack the needed perspectives and depth to address the objectives and bring them fruition. The 1999 Constitution especially Chapter II, the “Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy” captures most of the objectives of the National Development Plans of the ’60s, ’70, and the ‘80s. The economic, political, social and other objectives are well-spelt out in the Constitution. Very sadly, the nation is more in the breach of most of those objectives than in their observance. Somehow, it strikes me that the task of drawing up our goal and objectives is more or less a show of exercise (no doubt, of great academic merit), than an exercise for down-to-earth application. I am still trying to convince myself as to why that Chapter II should be in the Constitution the way it is: except, perhaps for the merit of adding six more pages to the nation’s prime document!
An adventure that would affect and shape our destiny, relationship and status among the comity of nations; a venturesome journey which would demand from each one of us, the best of our steely qualities, our sweat, tears and even blood thereafter, things never remained the same again.
There were, ever since that intrusion inspired by misjudgments, alternate changes of guards: the intemperate interlopers who derailed our train in the first few years of our journey and to a lesser degree, their successors though more level headed, made it appear as if the artful, steady land trip which our first captains of ship of travel could be an easy political air journey in which, trusting their gun-backed egoistic self-confidence, they could fly with little navigational aids or even a modicum of thorough reading and understanding of the nation’s political, governance and even social flight path. The delirious allures of the power from the barrel of the gun was so intoxicating that the Napoleonic psychology’ of l’etat c’est moi, made them fly us through all manner of sky conditions, with the telling consequences of unpleasant, bumpy, and rough rides still affecting us. Once in the cockpit however our young rulers discovered that flying our nation’s political plane was more than the” seemingly exciting virtual reality aviation’ training test-flights.
This is far from suggesting that we do not have development goals to which we can, with pride, lay proprietarily claims. We do have them, and though’ not unseldomly often crafted with the behind-the-scenes support of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), I must stress with all candour that the intellectual resources which furnaced those goals and objectives, have been thoroughbred Nigerian. And, all along, we have always had well-defined objectives.
We earnestly imbibed the spirit of planning and came out with successive National Development Plans. The First National Development Plan spanned a period of six years, 1962 1968, with a public sector capital expenditure of N2.2 billion. The civil war years caused a suspension of the spirit, but it quickly returned at the end of 40 utilities. The Second National Development Plan, 1970 1975 succeeded the First, with public capital expenditure programmes of N3.27 billion.
The Third National Development Plan’s comparative size was N26.7 billion, from 1975. 1980 (subsequently revised to N32.85 billion). The Fourth National Development Plan, 1981 85, gulped N70.5 billion in public sector capital - investments. And as far as I know, that was the last concerted effort at a formal and serious economic planning. The spirit of planning, though seemed never dead at that point, became impaired.
I am aware, that the annual budgets there appeared to carry on with the strategy of planning but the nation seemed to have turned its back on the vehicle of development that propelled Malaysia, in particular, to its enviable position.
The objectives of the various Development Plan were quite laudable and are still very relevant (perhaps, now more so than they were 25 years ago): our capital budgets run into trillions of naira annually; And our annual ritual of budget cycles that are but glorified shopping lists lack the needed perspectives and depth to address the objectives and bring them fruition. The 1999 Constitution especially Chapter II, the “Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy” captures most of the objectives of the National Development Plans of the ’60s, ’70, and the ‘80s. The economic, political, social and other objectives are well-spelt out in the Constitution. Very sadly, the nation is more in the breach of most of those objectives than in their observance. Somehow, it strikes me that the task of drawing up our goal and objectives is more or less a show of exercise (no doubt, of great academic merit), than an exercise for down-to-earth application. I am still trying to convince myself as to why that Chapter II should be in the Constitution the way it is: except, perhaps for the merit of adding six more pages to the nation’s prime document!
Interestingly; Malaysia which started
its journey about the same time with us, has similar National
Development Plan cycles as we had. Malaysia’s First National Development
Plan spanned the period 1965-1969 (ours, you recall was 1962-1968).
When we were having our 4th National Development Plan of 1981-1985,
Malaysia too had its 4th one in exactly the same period. Currently, that
country is in the last year of its Ninth Development Plan, 2006-2010.
We have, of course jettisoned ours, and forgotten the art and discipline
of planning. Any wonder then, that I strongly believe, it would take us
another 50 years to catch up with Malaysia. Why not, they have had a
much faster journey than we ever had; and when we stopped our walking
and rested, they stepped up their great trek. We had a Vision 2010,
which was stillborn; they had Vision 2010, from 2001-2010, carefully and
fully implemented. We are now having a Vision 20:2020; the Malaysians
are working hard on their Vision 2020, quietly; to take off from 2011 to
2020.
Why are the Malaysians so blessed, and we so blemished in our development success story? We both started our journey with the basic simplified economic development equation:
(i) Malaysian’s development equation = a+b+c=M
(ii) Nigeria’s development equation = a+b+c=N
Where a = political independence
b = resources, natural and financial
c = quality human resource capital.
Such that M = N. And soon after we both started the journey; M > N. (M is greater than N) Why? Perhaps, Malaysia introduced a mystery factor, m, into its development equation, such that M became a + b + c + m = Successful Malaysia.
Hence Nigeria’s a + b + c is less than < a + b + c + m. Perhaps we have to look for this mystery factor, and add it to Nigeria’s development equation. But, what is this factor? What is its coefficient? Our nation’s academia must come to the rescue, with practical, applicable, productive answers.
And we must move fast to get the answers, even if they maybe interim results. Otherwise, our Vision 20:2020 which is being touted as our salvage vehicle, may lead us to no promised land. As beautiful, comprehensive, and seemingly visionary as we are promised vision 20:2020 would be, it may be no more than a refurbished vehicle that would ply the same roads which has made our people so frustrated. For instance, the first 20 (to pull Nigeria up into the top 20 economies of the World) of the 20:2020 is a very tall order. Serious planning and realistic vision must not be reduced to sloganeering. Vision 20:2020, by its very name is a slogan. We seem to be uncritically enamoured to concepts: Vision, Mission Statements, Synergy etc, all becloud the’ practical orientation which realistic parish whether short-term, medium term or longterm, require. The power of ideas are not in the sophistry or obfuscation in which they are presented. The power of ideas lies in their clarity, unpretentious presentation, applicability and relevance. Our elites of all shades’ (bureaucratic, commercial, political etc seem to love to produce government reports, with all sophistication and sophistry: this is a courtship of confusion and obfuscation which serves little end.
And finally, in our search for the m factor, we” must critically re-visit the old grounds covered, with a new perspective and great honesty. We must for instance, re-assess the blame-game approach to pinpointing a problem or finding solutions. It has become a national pastime, even if not a culture, for most of us to put the blame for our failures on someone else, even when we are glaringly part of the problem: the ordinary citizens blame the elites for their sorrowful conditions; the elites blame the leaders; the leaders (and who are these people?) blame the elites and advisers; the elites blame the ordinary citizens for being uncritical in their decisions on politics and politicians, and so on, in an endless holier-than-thou buck-passing.
Why are the Malaysians so blessed, and we so blemished in our development success story? We both started our journey with the basic simplified economic development equation:
(i) Malaysian’s development equation = a+b+c=M
(ii) Nigeria’s development equation = a+b+c=N
Where a = political independence
b = resources, natural and financial
c = quality human resource capital.
Such that M = N. And soon after we both started the journey; M > N. (M is greater than N) Why? Perhaps, Malaysia introduced a mystery factor, m, into its development equation, such that M became a + b + c + m = Successful Malaysia.
Hence Nigeria’s a + b + c is less than < a + b + c + m. Perhaps we have to look for this mystery factor, and add it to Nigeria’s development equation. But, what is this factor? What is its coefficient? Our nation’s academia must come to the rescue, with practical, applicable, productive answers.
And we must move fast to get the answers, even if they maybe interim results. Otherwise, our Vision 20:2020 which is being touted as our salvage vehicle, may lead us to no promised land. As beautiful, comprehensive, and seemingly visionary as we are promised vision 20:2020 would be, it may be no more than a refurbished vehicle that would ply the same roads which has made our people so frustrated. For instance, the first 20 (to pull Nigeria up into the top 20 economies of the World) of the 20:2020 is a very tall order. Serious planning and realistic vision must not be reduced to sloganeering. Vision 20:2020, by its very name is a slogan. We seem to be uncritically enamoured to concepts: Vision, Mission Statements, Synergy etc, all becloud the’ practical orientation which realistic parish whether short-term, medium term or longterm, require. The power of ideas are not in the sophistry or obfuscation in which they are presented. The power of ideas lies in their clarity, unpretentious presentation, applicability and relevance. Our elites of all shades’ (bureaucratic, commercial, political etc seem to love to produce government reports, with all sophistication and sophistry: this is a courtship of confusion and obfuscation which serves little end.
And finally, in our search for the m factor, we” must critically re-visit the old grounds covered, with a new perspective and great honesty. We must for instance, re-assess the blame-game approach to pinpointing a problem or finding solutions. It has become a national pastime, even if not a culture, for most of us to put the blame for our failures on someone else, even when we are glaringly part of the problem: the ordinary citizens blame the elites for their sorrowful conditions; the elites blame the leaders; the leaders (and who are these people?) blame the elites and advisers; the elites blame the ordinary citizens for being uncritical in their decisions on politics and politicians, and so on, in an endless holier-than-thou buck-passing.
No comments:
Post a Comment