One witty quote describes politics as the “art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.” Those who came up with the above aphorism may not have had President Bola Ahmed Tinubu in mind. But the Nigerian leader, it would seem has all through much of his political career thrived on the strategy of looking for and leveraging on all sorts of political and economic troubles. In the dark and sanguinary of military adventurism in the political space, Tinubu looked for trouble by staring the military top brass straight in the eyes.
He let them know that the reasonable annulment of the June 12, 1993, Presidential election was unacceptable to the Nigerian people. His efforts in making that point and reversing the annulment, earned him several years in exile. From there he galvanized a group of activists under the platform of the National Democratic Coalition (NADECO) for the feisty, and often dangerous struggle, which contributed to and culminated in the return of democracy in 1999. Tinubu returned with democracy in 1999 and was elected governor of Lagos State in 1999. On that pedestal, he staked a claim to the Nigerian Presidency in a campaign, which was defined as an all-out effort to fulfil his lifetime ambition. Soundbites, in the campaign trail such as “emi lo kan,” apparently suggested self, rather than the public good as the key driver of his presidential project.
In the build up to the 2023 general elections, Tinubu gaffe-garnished strategy received unflattering scrutiny from opponents and critics alike. The reluctance to attend debates and engage in exchanges on policy positions led to derisive buzz talk of “a town hall, different from…” Thanks to an opposition, which chose to head into the election largely fragmented, and hopelessly divided, the Tinubu Presidency was born. Next month, the nascent Tinubu Presidency would be one year old. In that time, there will be a big battle of narratives between the President’s image handlers and those who would boldly argue that his presidency has been an unmitigated disaster. Notwithstanding the outcome of those narrative catfights between the President’s minders and the opposition figures, there can be no mistaken the fact that the President’s policies have generated more than enough troubles for a heavily troubled country. In the one year of the Tinubu Presidency, Nigerians have felt the excruciating pains of his signature policies.
ALSO READ: The $6.2 Million Fraud And Boss Mustapha’s Testimony
The very first sign that it would be a presidency minted by self-inflicted troubles is the haphazard manner with which the removal of fuel subsidy was announced. In the eyes of Nigerians who are not feeding fat on the national till like most government officials, the president’s “subsidy is gone” declaration was nothing, but a declaration of an all-out economic war against the Nigerian people. Several respected commentators were quick to point out how even more economically advanced countries put a cap on energy prices. The reason is that if energy prices go haywire, there will be multiplier effects on the economy in terms of cost of living. There is therefore consensus across the broad spectrum of labor and civil society that the removal of petrol subsidy was a harsh, draconian and an unthinking pronouncement, which did not take into cognizance the intrinsic connection between fuel price and wider drivers of inflationary pressures. Little wonder, prices skyrocketed through the roof, and the major preoccupation of the government became how to tame the runaway inflation, which worsened the grinding poverty and deprivation in the land.
As predicted, the outcome of the “subsidy is gone” declaration is the massive cost-push inflation, which has had serious implications for the economic wellbeing of Nigerians. Although President Tinubu’s similarly damaging experimentation, which took the shape of free-floating of the Naira has now been tweaked, concerns remain that the gains of the national currency against the United States Dollar and other international currency, are not driven by production and better earnings for the Nigerian treasury. The recent killing of soldiers and scores of civilians in Okuama community in Delta, has returned the oil-bearing Niger-Delta to a familiar past of restiveness. If not quickly addressed and brought under control, the implications for Nigeria’s fragile oil export and by implication its revenue source, are better imagined. There remains the elephant in the room; the crude oil theft, which happens on an industrial scale.
As such, while the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) has been able to quickly adjust towards creating some stability in the forex market, close observers have drawn attention to the issue of sustainability. As it has been observed, the ultimate solution to the problem of the free-falling Naira, is for Nigeria to produce and earn forex. Those in this school of thought are of the considered position that so long as oil theft, and the sparse diversification of the economy remain the dominant reality, the Naira will not, and cannot eventually sustain its momentum. This cautionary perspective to the Tinubu supporters is critical. They are already trumpeting the comeback of the Naira and they would have to come to terms with the fact that the management of the economy is a marathon, not a sprint. While the President can take some credit for ensuring the national currency regains its lost footing, his signatures in the economic realm have been laced with too many pocket aches for already drained and impoverished Nigerians.
However, as Nigerians with their near-infinite capacity to adjust to harsh policies tried to come to terms with the pains occasioned by the removal of petrol subsidy and the floating of the currency, another painful economic pill was forced down their throats. This came in the form of the hike in electricity tariffs for customers in the so-called Band A. It is pertinent to stress that although President Tinubu on page 31 of his Renewed Hope policy document, made it clear that his government “will further enable DisCos to charge cost-reflective tariffs for electricity supply,” the opposition, the media and civil society, did not engage him on what exactly he meant. With the hike, Nigerians in other “bands” as categorized by the Nigeria Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC), know that the hammer of higher electricity prices would eventually fall on them. Nonetheless, the most galling aspect of the policy of electricity “banding” is how it discriminates against some consumers and allows the exploitation of Nigerians by the distribution companies. The banding approach gives no clearly defined performance indicator for the Discos to follow. Little wonder, there has been a groundswell of grassroots voices kicking against it.
ALSO READ: Incarceration of Sowore And What It Says About Nigeria’s Failing State
There can be no mistaken the fact that the Tinubu administration threw Nigerian electricity consumers under the bus and left them at the mercy of the electricity companies to squeeze as they please. Firstly, there no robust mechanism to monitor what the distribution companies are doing, how they are billing customers and to what extent they are charging for what is consumed in line with the various bands. Also, with a substantial number of unmetered electricity users, who may be described as “band-less,” there is no objective way of measuring their consumption. What it means is a clear coast for the electricity company to fleece both metered and unmetered customers. Immediately after the band system was announced, NERC fined the Abuja Electricity Distribution Company (AEDC). The regulator has however become quiet in the face of a multitude of infractions. It is so because it simply does not have the capacity to monitor and sanction the Discos. For instance, even if the absurdity of the band system is to be interrogated, the outcomes are illogical. If a consumer in band A who is entitled to 20-24hours of electricity does not get up to those hours, is the customer still supposed to pay same tariff? If not, how is the electricity company to resolve that? Is it to take the customer out of that band? These are among the many critical questions that the government has failed to answer.
As such, within that long and tortuous first year of what should be his first term of Tinubu’s four years, the Nigerian electorate, if ever it does, should be learning vital lessons. One such incredibly significant point is the fact that democratic elections should be driven, primarily by important governance issues. Such issues, which should focus on upholding the welfare and wellbeing of “we the people,” should be painstakingly discussed. The perspectives, opinions and insights of all candidates in the elections should be clear. As a corollary, the electorate should thereafter cast their votes based on which of the candidates has convinced it that he or she has the intellectual and managerial capacity to address those specific problem, using the right diagnosis and approaches.
There is no doubt that this cyclical process promotes effective governance, citizens participation, and by extension, democratic accountability. A situation where a politician bludgeons his/her way into office without the electorate having a clear understanding of his/her policy positions, makes post-election governance outcomes a pain in the necks of “we the people”. As for those who insist they are “standing” on a mandate, which started by delivering to citizens severe hardship and the gnashing of teeth, it is hoped are truly “standing” well and in good economic health.
