In
the fortnight so following Eid el-Adha, two incidents occurred that have
compelled me once more to write on Buharism,
this
time with a sense of urgency and near desperation. The first was an interview
that the former civilian Governor of
Kaduna
State, Alhaji Abdukadir Balarabe Musa gave Tell magazine, in which he
dismissed General Muhammadu Buhari
as
a fascist who, by virtue of that fact, was incapable of reforming Nigeria. In
this piece I will analyze this categorization
and
expatiate on the nature and implications of Buharism as fascism. I will for now
only note that when asked whom he
would
choose between Obasanjo and Buhari, the radical PRP governor could only hope
that "it does not come to that". In a
naïve,
somewhat amusing manner, he pretends away the reality that Nigerians today have
only one serious choice to make
for
all intents and purposes; and that choice is between Obasanjo, who by Balarabe
Musa’s own admission has betrayed his
supporters
and been a complete failure and disappointment on the one hand, and Buhari, who
according to Musa is a
fascist,
on the other hand. We have to choose, like it or not, between a failure and a
fascist. What choice must the
progressive
politician or analyst make? History, in throwing up the question, demands an
answer. Balarabe Musa’s refusal
to
make a choice was, as we shall see, telling in more than one respect.
The
second event was the receipt of a text message from my GSM provider breaking
the news that the PDP had conceded
10
ministerial posts and 30 ambassadorial posts to the AD in return for the latter’s
support for president Obasanjo’s second
term
bid. The AD is an ethnic party with support in only one of the six
geo-political "zones" in the country. Its overt
political
agenda is one of promoting the interests of the Yoruba elite and bourgeoisie at
all costs, including if necessary the
disintegration
of the nation and the unprincipled use of blackmail and cheap propaganda
against other constituent groups.
The
surprise to analysts is not that the AD, which had been implacably opposed to
the presidency of OBJ, (a "stooge" of
"mallams"),
is now supporting him. Yoruba politics from the days of Awolowo has never
transcended ethnic identity. The
real
surprise, rather, is that Nigerians in the PDP can in their right minds concede
10 ministries to a party controlling only
one
geo-political zone. Even presuming that only with AD support can OBJ win the
south-west, surely such an agreement
is
an invitation to anarchy and chaos. The 2003 election has suddenly become a
struggle for the survival of Nigeria and its
outcome
will determine whether or not Nigerians are to become subjects of colonialism
by one ethnic group. It is no longer
possible
to sit on the fence. Nigerians must ask themselves if this country can afford
an OBJ victory, and if the fascist
alternative
is not better than this alliance with a narrow ethnocentric agenda. I will now
turn to an analysis of Buharism as
fascism.
Fascism,
a term with roots in the politics of Italy under Mussolini (and then Germany
under Hitler), refers to an ideology
characterized
by extreme nationalism, extreme anti-communism, militarism and restrictions on
personal liberty. I have
elsewhere
made the point that Buharism, in its sense of being the ideology of the
military government headed by General
Buhari
after the overthrow of the second republic 1983, shared many common features
with fascism. The government was
a
right wing nationalist government that pursued bourgeois economic programs and
curtailed personal freedoms. I have
also
tried to explain the character of that government as a necessary corollary to
the conditions that necessitated its
emergence
(see my "Buharism - Economic Theory & Political Economy"; and
"Buharism Beyond Buhari", both published
by
the Daily Trust and available on the web). In this sense, Buhari was the
true successor to Murtala Mohammed. It
therefore
follows that one can only raise mild objections to Balarabe’s description of
Buhari as a fascist and one must
dismiss
all attempts to reduce this opinion to the vitriol of a politician who is yet
to forgive his unjust incarceration by
Buhari’s
administration. Yet a number of points must be made.
First,
in a constitutional democracy, personal liberties are guaranteed, and
protected, by the courts of law. An elected
president,
(Buhari or any other), cannot change this fact. Second, there are no communist
groups in Nigeria today. In
consequence,
what is left of Buharism is a fiercely nationalistic political ideology
combined with right wing social and
economic
policies. This is the alternative Nigerians have to a regime which for the past
four years has been characterized
by
sleaze and corruption (as reported by its own auditor-general); a comical
desperation to impress America and the
western
world; a seeming rush to sell off national assets at much less than fair value;
an open-door policy of import
liberalization
that has destroyed indigenous industry; an economic program lacking in fiscal
and monetary discipline that
has
led to high inflation, a heavy debt burden, diminished foreign reserves,
greater disparities in income distribution, and
the
consequent social insecurity and poverty. Between 1999 and 2001 Obasanjo’s
government spent over two trillion naira.
About
300 billion is said to have been spent by Chief Anenih on roads. The naira has
lost more than half its value against
major
currencies. The national debt at one point in OBJ’s term exceeded the
nominal GDP.Nigeria has defaulted on its
contracted
obligations to creditors and both the IMF and the World Bank have been most
critical of economic management.
The
point here is not that OBJ was the reason for all our problems. It is that he
has since assuming office simply
compounded
these problems and continued with business as usual. These are the facts of PDP
rule since 1999, and they are
more
important than the ethnicity or faith of OBJ. Most of those who supported OBJ
in 1999 did so not because of his
ethnic
and religious background, but because they believed he would introduce change
for the better. Now he has failed
and
we must not allow his ethnicity to be the decisive factor returning him to
power.
What
can we expect of Buharism, therefore, by extrapolating from its previous
policies and presuming Buhari’s faithful
adherence
to a coherent ideological framework?
We
would expect, given the record of Muhammadu Buhari in power, a policy of zero
tolerance for official sleaze
and
corruption in the Federal Government, as well as a definite and transparent
exercise aimed at stamping out
corruption
in other tiers of government.We know for a fact that the Buhari government not
only dealt with corrupt
politicians,
it took steps to discipline military officers involved in corruption. One of
Buhari’s military governors
was
removed as a result of business dealings his wife was involved in.
We
would expect a review of the policy of unrestricted import liberalization, and
the selective use of tariffs and
import
bans (or restrictions on eligible foreign exchange transactions) to protect
domestic industries and restrict the
profligate
spending of hard earned foreign currency. This was the policy pursued
rigorously by the Buhari
government
in 1984-85.
We
would expect privatization to continue but with three major differences from
the present form: First, those who
want
to buy national assets must pay a fair price for them. Second, no assets considered
of vital national interest
will
be sold. Finally, focus will be on empowering Nigerians and promoting the
interests of a domestic capitalist
class
rather than selling the nation’s assets to foreign interest groups.
We
would expect a shift in our foreign policy from the present lap-dog mentality
of seeking notice from the U.S.
and
G.7 countries to one of closer links to nations in Africa (e.g. South Africa)
and Asia (e.g. China, Malaysia,
Pakistan
and South Korea) whose experience in development can serve as a model. Unlike
OBJ who has spent one
year
of his presidency in the air with no results, a nationalist leader will stay
home longer and travel less. Buhari’s
government
policy was characterized by the popular TV advertisement of "Andrew"
who, tired of Nigeria, was
going
to "check out." Andrew was convinced by his friend to stay. "We
have no other country. Let us stay and save
it
together."
We
would expect a focus on an educational program that seeks transfer of skills
and technology and the
development
of indigenous human capital.
Buharism
should confront oil exploration companies and ensure that they pay for
environmental damage and
plough
a substantial portion of their profits into developing oil producing areas.
We
would expect a trimming of government and a reduction in recurrent expenditure
and overheads, greater fiscal
discipline
and tighter monetary policy to combat inflation.
We
would expect a focus on paying off our foreign debt and reducing the debt
overhang through negotiations based
on
patriotic interests and compliance with agreed terms. In particular, only bona
fide and verified debts will be honoured and paid. Buhari’s emphasis on
verifying debts and his commitment to paying same was a hallmark of his
administration.
Not to be ignored here is that the first Nigerian Head of State to ask for an
IMF standby facility was
General
Obasanjo after he succeeded Murtala Muhammad.
We
would expect a realistic acceptance of the precariousness of our position and a
prioritisation of our economic
projects.
Such white elephants as extravagant stadia and the ill-advised quest to host
soccer fiestas will take
secondary
position to rebuilding our dilapidated national infrastructure.
We
would expect a truly nationalist government that seeks to inculcate pride in
every Nigerian of his nationality
and
deals fairly with all ethnic and religious groups.
These
are ten points that flow logically from actual policies pursued by Muhammadu
Buhari when he was in power, which
set
in clear relief the bourgeois nationalist character of his government. The
policies will set Buhari against international
finance
capital, against domestic criminals, sundry contractors, commission agents and
drug barons, in other words against
those
who are responsible for the woes of Nigeria.
Yet
Buharism is not an ideal ideological construct from the perspective of
left-wing politics. The reason for this is to be
found
in the very nature of bourgeois economics. As noted by the Nobel winning
economist James Tobin in a 1970 essay,
"the
most difficult issues of political economy are those where goals of efficiency,
freedom of choice, and equality
compete.
It is hard enough to propose an intellectually defensible compromise among
them, even harder to find a
politically
viable compromise". My sense is that Balarabe Musa’s opposition to Buhari
is rooted in socialist principles, and
the
sound knowledge that a bourgeois nationalist government is not likely to pursue
populist or petit-bourgeois policies of
the
NEPU/PRP variety. This is a view I share. However I differ with Balarabe in
three fundamental respects.
First,
I recognize that the nation needs to produce first, before the output can be
distributed. Today the nation’s very
capacity
to produce is at great risk due to corruption, profligacy and irresponsible
economic management. If we need to
have
a bourgeois nationalist government to revive the economy and move us towards
self-sustaining growth and
development,
then we must support such a government in spite of our reservations.
Secondly,
Buhari, unlike Obasanjo, recognizes that the Americans and the British and
other foreign "advisers" always act
first
and foremost in their own national interests. This makes him a capitalist in
the mould of South Asian leaders like
Malaysia’s
Mahathir Muhammad. Precisely when the likes of Kalu Kalu, Olu Falae and Chu
Okongwu were busy
preaching
to Nigerians the benefits of globalisation, Mahathir was telling Malaysians and
the world that "the fact that
globalisation
has come does not mean we should just sit by and watch as the predators destroy
us." Again I have elsewhere
gone
into concrete analysis of Buhari’s economic programs, which made him the
essential enfant terrible with the IMF and
western
capital. I believe Buhari has what it takes for Nigeria to start moving towards
the Asian model, given the right
complement
of patriotic intellectuals.
Finally,
I believe left-wing politics and civil society will exert pressure on Buhari
and moderate some of the sharp pains of
bourgeois
economic programs. Buhari’s closest advisers will continue to be the right wing
elements with whom he is
known
to be in close association, but a democratic government of necessity and by
definition makes policy from a much
broader
opinion base than the kitchen cabinet if at all it intends to last. If
progressive elements support Buhari there
influence
in policy will be even more pronounced. For these reasons I find that the
shortcomings of Buharism are not fatal,
and
consider the Buhari option in 2003, as in 1983, a necessary, if difficult, step
in the path to national progress and
independence.
This
intervention will be incomplete without a discussion of the likely position of
Buharism on the implementation of
Shari’ah.
Right wing politicians the world over, from the Tory party in the UK and the
Republicans in the US to the centerright
Christian
Democratic parties of Europe tend to closely associate themselves with
institutional religion and promote
conservative
values. Buhari will be no different. The logic of his ideology is such as to
lead him towards supporting a
vigorous
role for the state in establishing moral standards. Indeed when he was in power
he pursued a "War against
Indiscipline"
(popularly called WAI) and set up WAI brigades which set out to compel
Nigerians to adopt certain standards
of
public conduct. It is not inconceivable that various hisbah groups may
begin to operate like WAI brigades and there
must
be vigilance to protect the citizenry from the excesses of zealots.
Having
said this, a commitment to one’s religion and religious values is not
synonymous with intolerance or disrespect for
other
faiths. We have seen many right wing governments in Europe who have shown great
respect and tolerance for other
religious
groups. Buhari’s famous speech for which he is labeled a fundamentalist is one
in which he called on Nigerian
Muslims
to vote into power good Muslims. Clearly, the implication here is a
sense of dissatisfaction with the conduct of
those
Muslims who have not been good representatives of their faith while in
office. No reasonable person would quarrel
with
this. Nigeria needs good Muslims and good Christians, good
Nigerians to run its affairs. Perhaps this explains why
one
of the most eloquent pieces written in defence of Buhari on this point came
from the Reverend Mathew Hassan Kukah.
Father
Kukah correctly understood that the point Buhari made was that Muslims had a
duty to elect into office those
persons
who would uphold the political values for which Islam stood, such as honesty,
justice and a true commitment to the
welfare
of the people. These are values Islam shares with Christianity and which are
expected in good Christians, and
indeed
a Buhari government is likely to be dominated by conservative elements of both
religions.
As
far as religion is concerned, therefore, it seems fairly evident that Buhari
remains a nationalist who will not compromise
his
commitment to national unity. Indeed his critics easily forget that his most
implacable opponents while in power were
Muslims.
Buhari led a coup d’etat against a fellow Muslim. He was the first to curtail
the number of pilgrims going to
Saudi
Arabia to conserve foreign exchange and he changed the national currency while
Muslims were on pilgrimage. He
also
had well advertised disputes with the late Sheikh Abubakar Gunmi and at one
time it was rumoured he had him
arrested.
When Buhari was overthrown many Nigerian Muslims in Saudi Arabia celebrated,
particularly those whose
benefactors
were either in detention or exile as a result of his government’s corrective
measures. The facts of history refute
the
charges of bigotry leveled against Buhari. The genuine concern in my view lies
in the point alluded to above, the extent
to
which Buhari will tolerate infringements on personal liberty by hisbah groups.
As in all societies ruled by right wing
governments,
defenders of freedom must be vigilant and ensure that the limits of state
authority are policed and personal
freedoms
preserved.
In
the final analysis, progressives must make a choice between four more years of
Obasanjo/Atiku on the one hand, and
Buhari
on the other. History demands of us that we make that choice and history will
judge us appropriately. As for me, I
have
made my choice. Buhari is not perfect, but he has my vote.
No comments:
Post a Comment