Ujujoan:

1. I was actually expecting it considering his antecedent. For a pastor, he was showing too much interest in politics!
2. The only thing I see wrong with his candidacy is him pitching tent with Buhari. If God wanted to use him, he would  have used him (into-to), not in the shadow of a criminal and a killer!  
3. My advise to him is to face politics and stop using religion to deceive people! If God called him to save Nigeria, he should face that one and stop pretending to be a man of God! If God called him to be a Pastor, he should concentrate on winning souls and not on being a political figure!

The God I serve is not a confused God.

I personally lost respect for him when he said God said OBJ will die and it NEVER happened. Seeking popularity with the name of God . . .  pity!  

1 >>> what do you opine as the best stance a clergyman should take (on political matters)? >>> would you prefer that he take the stance of a critic, a neutral observer or an active participator ? >>> if I forward the argument that in times past (in European history) it wasn't uncommon for priests to exert feudal power (which equates to political power today) what will be your comment ? >>> note that Europe was once a Christendom and that the pope exerted absolute power politically (up to the point of choosing and deposing of kings and noblemen)

2 >>> on your second point, my counter-argument is that, this might not be a well-articulated reason for opposing his candidacy >>> consider that in the Bible God has made commandments that are somewhat contradictory e.g telling Peter to eat unclean animals (Acts 10:13), telling Hosea to marry a LovePeddler (Hosea 1:2-4) >>> my question to you is this: Is it possible (keeping in mind my examples) that God can tell a Christian to run with a Muslim for any electoral post ? (if your answer is negative back it up with Bible passages) >>> feel free to answer any way you choose

3 >>> I think what you are trying to say here is that: he should have entered into politics from the onset, instead of deceiving people, and gaining cheap popularity, by becoming a pastor >>> am I correct ?

Ujujoan:

Why don't you save your fanatical gospel for someone who'll be impressed    

You see Bakare as a hero and a well accomplished pastor . . .  I don't! If that makes me any less of a 'noble lady' then so be it!

Honestly, I don't think you modern day Pentecostals know what Christianity is all about . . . when I think about you guys, I remember the scripture . . . 'they worship me with their lips but their hearts are far from me'  

I'm sorry, but for a 'pastor' to pitch tent with a known sharian activity, claiming he was sent by God . . .  is just a little bit too low for even someone like Bakare! There is no connection (whatsoever) b/w light and darkness. A man he publicly declared was part of the 'old' generation has suddenly become the hero appointed by God himself!

I stand to be corrected of course . . . We'll all be alive and see what will come out of his political ambition!    

I actually did not call you ignoble because you did not believe in what Bakare is doing, it was your manner of abusive words which I think no matter how intense an argument is, you should be calm to address issue and not person. We all learn and I can learn from you.

To your points- I can see you are a christian and knowledgeable about the scripture. Joseph was a deputy to Pharao, a king who worship Idols all the days of  his lives. Daniel and the hebrew boys were ministers in Babylon where the king served idols? When the Israelites were in slavery and suffering, God promoted Esther to be the wife of a king who does not worship Jehovah just save the israelites from destruction that could have befell them.

Peter had a dream to eat what he has known by the law of jehovah to be common and he refused and the same God told him not to call what he has sanctified as common.

My sister, if I am an ED in a bank and my MD is a Muslim, will that be fellowship with darkness?

Let me tell you what I know from the scripture, anytime the people of God (not necessarily christians) are in oppression, God usually promote one of His that serves him, but such person must be devoted to him and have a proven Character into government. He may just be there doing nothing as people can think but God will send a dream to a unbelieving King, that will trouble the king without solution. Then, the wisdom of God will now be made manifest in Government when his own  provides the needed solution. Note that from the scripture, the Kings may necessarily not convert to serve Jehovah but they will acknowledge God and the people of God will reap the benefits.

That could be why God is taking him to Government. I recommend if you will, LISTEN TO HIS MESSAGE ON THE LEADERSHIP STYLE OF JOSEPH,, he pointed out how Joseph used resource control and true federalism solved the famine problems in Egypt and when the Famine came, Israel the people of God had to go to egypt for help. God did not answer their prayers by raining food. The provision was in Egypt, and they had to go there.

As per Buhari, Do you remember the King who took Sarah to his bed because Abraham lied that sarah was his sister. When God appeared to him, that he is a dead man the king answered and said, "Will you also slay a righteous man, seeing that I did this in the integrity of my heart". Note that God did not argue that he was a righteous man, he said "I myself restrained you from sinning because of your integrity"

God can restrain a Sharian or Herbalist with Integrity. A Worshipper of him like Saul could not be restrained because of lack of integrity. I have taken time to explain this things to you.

If Buhari/Bakare looses, it has not confirmed that God has not spoken. It has only confirmed that we do not want integrity but will rather vote for corruption, lies and decadence in our society.

I advise you to be opened. Consider the misrule of the past. Remember the bad roads. Mass failure in WAEC, Inflation etc.

ABOVE ALL, LET US UPHOLD BAKARE IN PRAYERS THAT HE WILL BE A GOOD AMBASSADOR OF CHRIST IN GOVERNMENT. ELSE WE ALL WILL BE HYPOCRITES IF NIGERIA POLITICS IS SO DIRTY THAT THE GRACE OF JESUS CANNOT SUSTAIN ANYONE THERE.

@Ujujoan

Stop already, you're clinging at straw.

Uyi Iredia:

1 >>> what so you opine as the best stance a clergyman should take (on political matters)? >>> would you prefer that he take the stance of a critic, a neutral observer or an active participator ? >>> if I forward the argument that in times past (in European history) it wasn't uncommon for priests to exert feudal power (which equates to political power today) what will be your comment ? >>> note that Europe was once a Christendom and that the pope exerted absolute power politically (up to the point of choosing and deposing of kings and noblemen)

It's one thing to be a Christian-political force known for activism and another to camp with a political scoundrel in the name of change!

Is the implication of his joint candidacy with Buhari not clear to you?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but buy agreeing to run with Buhari, he's endorsing his candidacy . .  one that will most likely promote Sharian law . .  one that will most likely tilt towards dictatorship . .  one he was claimed was not ordained by God!   Like I said, correct me if I'm wrong!

I'm not completely against him contesting, but he's selling his soul to the Devil for a pot of porridge (for want of a better explanation)!  

SNG could have been a political party of it's own and he would gain support from people who believe in what he believes in . .  people who are truly out to save the country!

But apparently, he doesn't think it's strong enough to make an impact. Does he not trust God  

2 >>> on your second point my counter-argument is that this might not be a well-articulated reason for opposing his candidacy >>> consider that in the Bible God has made commandments that are somewhat contradictory e.g telling Peter to eat unclean animals (Acts 10:13), telling Hosea to marry a love-peddler (Hosea 1:2-4) >>> my question to you is this: Is it possible (keeping in mind my examples) that God can tell a Christian tonrun with a Muslim for anybelectoral post ? >>> feel free to answer any way you choose

Is that what he told you guys in church? That God wants to use him to convert Buhari    

Because in the end that's what really counts . . . Salvation for all!

3 >>> I think what you are trying to say here is that he should have entered into politics from the onset instead of deceiving people and gaining cheap popularity by becoming a pastor >>> am I correct ?

Absolutely!

He is delivery a lie that his tithe-paying mooorons will fall for.

[i]"God told him" [/i]me flipping arse!

dayokanu:

How come Joseph pitched his tent with a pagan like Pharaoh?

We saw Bakare going to Abuja to fight to install GEJ while the mumu was in Turaya's kitchen handing her Maggi and Palmoil

Where was GEJ when Bakare and co were fighting for Turai to give him "Freedom" from the kitchen after serving Thraya for 3 good years as a loyal "mumu-houseboy"

Ujujoan:

It's one thing to be a Christian-political force known for activism and another to camp with a political scoundrel in the name of change!

Is the implication of his joint candidacy with Buhari not clear to you?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but buy agreeing to run with Buhari, he's endorsing his candidacy . .  one that will most likely promote Sharian law . .  one that will most likely tilt towards dictatorship . .  one he was claimed was not ordained by God!   Like I said, correct me if I'm wrong!

I'm not completely against him contesting, but he's selling his soul to the Devil for a pot of porridge (for want of a better explanation)!  

SNG could have been a political party of it's own and he would gain support from people who believe in what he believes in . .  people who are truly out to save the country!

But apparently, he doesn't think it's strong enough to make an impact. Does he not trust God  

Is that what he told you guys in church? That God wants to use him to convert Buhari    

Because in the end that's what really counts . . . Salvation for all!


Absolutely!

My sister correct me if I am wrong, everything you know about Buhari being a Sharia Fanatics is what you were told.  When he was the military head of state, his vice Idiagbon was a muslim, he never pushed for sharia. All he needed to do then was just a decree, but he did not do it. He was a Governor, a president, GOC, PTF chairman and worked with both xtians and muslims without any record of victimising anyone based on religion sentinments.

Remember, Lamido Sanusi was accused of Islamizing Nigerian banks. All these ploys are basically lies to dent the image of a man like Buhari and anyone committed to do right things without maintaining the status quo.

Like you said, Bakare should have contested on his own using SNG platform but enough has been said that God can call his Children to be deputy to even an herbalist in Government but when the Chips are down, God will be glorify and all will see. God is not necessarily glorified by his son being president. He is when his will is done.

The wisdom of God is too much. BAKARE becomes a liar when he can only be accused of stealing public funds- God forbid. He has repeated it for years that his destiny and that of Nigeria are intertwined. He did not deceive people to enter politics. Life is in Phases and Church is not a building where people gather weekly to sing and pray. Church purpose is to affect the nations,

@ dayokanu, i really didn't want to post here again but due to ur last idiotic post here i come. U wanted gej to struggle with what he dnt knw will be the outcome or what he knew the consequences. There u will call him a power thirsty man abi?

Ujujoan:

It's one thing to be a Christian-political force known for activism and another to camp with a political scoundrel in the name of change!

Is the implication of his joint candidacy with Buhari not clear to you?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but buy agreeing to run with Buhari, he's endorsing his candidacy . .  one that will most likely promote Sharian law . .  one that will most likely tilt towards dictatorship . .  one he was claimed was not ordained by God!   Like I said, correct me if I'm wrong!

I'm not completely against him contesting, but he's selling his soul to the Devil for a pot of porridge (for want of a better explanation)!  

SNG could have been a political party of it's own and he would gain support from people who believe in what he believes in . .  people who are truly out to save the country!

But apparently, he doesn't think it's strong enough to make an impact. Does he not trust God  

I don't support his choice of Buhari AND his choice to enter into politics >>> and I simply do not know enough about Buhari to assess your claim that he will promote Sharia (like the infamous Senator Mohammed Yerima) >>> but my opinion on Buhari was solidified aged watching him in a presidential debate against Pat Utomi >>> he did relatively okay (although I preferred Pat's arguments) till the coordinator of the debate asked for Buhari's position on the Land Use act >>> Buhari had no answer ! but I applauded Pat's no-nonsense reply - to have it scrapped

Ujujoan:
Is that what he told you guys in church? That God wants to use him to convert Buhari    :\

Because in the end that's what really counts . . . Salvation for all!

what I 'm trying to say here is that God MIGHT have His hand in this >>> you know that popular opinion does not dictate God's will >>> but I must comment that it is one thing for God to tell him what to do and another thing for where Inqould cast my vote >>> GEJ or Ribadu (I will seal my choice after watching the pres debate)

another strange thing is my sister who is at home and still attends the church regularly had no idea of his acceptance till I told her >>> news sure takes time to travel (this is part why I like the net - u get it as it comes)

Ujujoan:
Absolutely!

okay ! but I do not agree >>> I have been in LRA since I was 8 and I can say (to the point of death) that I haven't seen a more down-to-earth pastor >>> besides any regular member of LRA knows that his ambition from the start (b4 his ministerial calling) was to be a lawyer, a businessman and then the president >>> he completed the first 2 and now it seems the 3rd is on the horizon (though I doubt it)

The Bible says, can two work together except they agree? Two strong characters can't work together for long. For a start, Bakare at best will be a spare tyre if ever they form the next government. Also, this is democracy, where there is always a reward for certain people. This WILL make Buhari and his VP to clash.  I forsee Bakare resigning in annoyance! Where will that leave Naija? Walahi, Buhari should have gone for a credible, less controversial Easterner.

someone made a passing comment on how Pastor Bakare will run his God's church (abeg I no talk say your church na Satan church) >>> my reply is that the church has run for months without his presence (especially when he goes on preaching/missionary tours outside the country and other engagements) >>> many LRA members are used to the preaching style of his seconds >>> personally, I kinda prefer the preaching style of one of them to his (usually short, simple and full of anecdotes)

a church that can't run without the presence of it's main overseer is in a bad position, really !

Guys look at all the strong solidarity and support . . . wasted on Bakare!

Don't worry, I'll be here to hold your hands when it all goes down!

Seriously, ignore me. I already gave my opinion . . . . the future will tell who's right!

Meanwhile, I'm off to have me a nice weekend! May God keep us all . . . Amen!

BUHARISM: Economic Theory and Political Economy



By Sanusi Lamido Sanusi

[LAGOS]

July 22,2002



I have followed with more than a little interest the many contributions of commentators on the surprising decision of General Muhammadu Buhari to jump into the murky waters of Nigerian politics. Most of the regular writers in the Trust stable have had something to say on this. The political adviser to a late general has transferred his services to a living one. My dear friend and prolific veterinary doctor, who like me is allegedly an ideologue of Fulani supremacy, has taken a leading emir to the cleaners based on information of suspect authenticity. Another friend has contributed an articulate piece, which for those in the know gives a bird’s eye view into the thinking within the IBB camp. A young northern Turk has made several interventions and given novel expressions to what I call the PTF connection. Some readers and writers alike have done Buhari incalculable damage by viewing his politics through the narrow prism of ethnicity and religion, risking the alienation of whole sections of the Nigerian polity without whose votes their candidate cannot succeed.



With one or two notable exceptions, the various positions for or against Buhari have focused on his personality and continued to reveal a certain aversion or disdain for deeper and more thorough analysis of his regime. The reality, as noted by Tolstoy, is that too often history is erroneously reduced to single individuals. By losing sight of the multiplicity of individuals, events, actions and inactions (deliberate or otherwise) that combine to produce a set of historical circumstances, the historian is able to create a mythical figure and turn him into an everlasting hero (like Lincoln) or a villain (like Hitler). The same is true of Buhari. There seems to be a dangerous trend of competition between two opposing camps aimed at glorifying him beyond his wildest dreams or demonizing him beyond all justifiable limits, through a selective reading of history and opportunistic attribution and misattribution of responsibility.



The discourse has been thus impoverished through personalization and we are no closer at the end of it than at the beginning to a divination of the exact locus or nexus of his administration in the flow of Nigerian history. This is what I seek to achieve in this intervention through an exposition of the theoretical underpinnings of the economic policy of Buharism and the necessary correlation between the economic decisions made and the concomitant legal and political superstructure.



Taxonomy

Let me begin by stating up front the principal thesis that I will propound. Within the schema of discourses on Nigerian history, the most accurate problematization of the Buhari government is one that views it strictly as a regime founded on the ideology of Bourgeois Nationalism. In this sense it was a true off-shoot of the regime of Murtala Mohammed. Buharism was a stage the logical outcome of whose machinations would have been a transcendence of what Marx called the stage of Primitive Accumulation in his Theories of Surplus Value. It was radical, not in the sense of being socialist or left wing, but in the sense of being a progressive move away from a political economy dominated by a parasitic and subservient elite to one in which a nationalist and productive class gains ascendancy. Buharism represented a two-way struggle: with Global capitalism (externally) and with its parasitic and unpatriotic agents and spokespersons (internally).



The struggle against global capital as represented by the unholy trinity of the IMF, the World Bank and multilateral “trade” organizations as well that against the entrenched domestic class of contractors, commission agents and corrupt public officers were vicious and thus required extreme measures. Draconian policies were a necessary component of this struggle for transformation and this has been the case with all such epochs in history. The Meiji restoration in Japan was not conducted in a liberal environment. The Industrial Revolution in Europe and the great economic progress of the empires were not attained in the same liberal atmosphere of the 21st Century. The “tiger economies” of Asia such as Taiwan, South Korea, Indonesia and Thailand are not exactly models of democratic freedom. To this extent Buharism was a despotic regime but its despotism was historically determined, necessitated by the historical task of dismantling the structures of dependency and launching the nation on to a path beyond primitive accumulation. At his best Buhari may have been a Bonaparte or a Bismarck. At his worst he may have been a Hitler or a Mussolini. In either case Buharism drawn to its logical conclusion would have provided the bedrock for a new society and its overthrow marked a relapse, a step backward into that era from which we sought escape and in which, sadly for all of us we remain embedded and enslaved. I will now proceed with an elaboration of Buharism as a manifestation of bourgeois economics and political economy.



The Economic Theory of Buharism

One of the greatest myths spun around Buharism was that it lacked a sound basis in economic theory. As evidence of this, the regime that succeeded Buhari employed the services of economic “gurus” of “international standard” as the architects of fiscal and monetary policy. These were IMF and World Bank economists like Dr. Chu Okongwu and Dr Kalu Idika Kalu, as well as Mr SAP himself, Chief Olu Falae (an economist trained at Yale). At the time Buhari’s Finance Minister, Dr Onaolapo Soleye (who was not a trained economist) was debating with the pro-IMF lobby and explaining why the naira would not be devalued I was teaching economics at the Ahmadu Bello University. I had no doubt in my mind that the position of Buharism was based on a sound understanding of neo-classical economics and that those who were pushing for devaluation either did not understand their subject or were acting deliberately as agents of international capital in its rampage against all barriers set up by sovereign states to protect the integrity of the domestic economy. I still believe some of the key economic policy experts of the IBB administration were economic saboteurs who should be tried for treason.



When the IMF recently owned up to “mistakes” in its policy prescriptions all patriotic economists saw it for what it was: A hypocritical statement of remorse after attaining set objectives. Let me explain, briefly, the economic theory underlying Buhari’s refusal to devalue the naira and then show how the policy merely served the interest of global capitalism and its domestic agents. This will be the principal building block of our taxonomy.

In brief, neo-classical theory holds that a country can, under certain conditions, expect to improve its Balance of Payments through devaluation of its currency. The IMF believed that given the pressure on the country’s foreign reserves and its adverse balance of payments situation Nigeria must devalue its currency. Buharism held otherwise and insisted that the conditions for improving Balance of Payments through devaluation did not exist and that there were alternate and superior approaches to the problem. Let me explain.



The first condition that must exist is that the price of every country’s export is denominated in its currency. If Nigeria’s exports are priced in naira and its imports from the US in dollars then, ceteris paribus, a devaluation of the naira makes imports dearer to Nigerians and makes Nigerian goods cheaper to Americans. This would then lead to an increase in the quantum of exports to the US and a reduction in the quantum of imports from there per unit of time. But while this is a necessary condition, it is not a sufficient one. For a positive change in the balance of payments the increase in the quantum of exports must be substantial enough to outweigh the revenue lost through a reduction in price. In other words the quantity exported must increase at a rate faster than the rate of decrease in its price. Similarly imports must fall faster than their price is increasing. Otherwise the nation may be devoting more of its wealth to importing less and receiving less of the wealth of foreigners for exporting more! In consequence, devaluation by a country whose exports and imports are not price elastic leads to the continued impoverishment of the nation vis a vis its trading partners. The second, and sufficient, condition is therefore that the combined price elasticity of demand for exports and imports must exceed unity.



The argument of Buharism, for which it was castigated by global capital and its domestic agents, was that these conditions did not exist clearly enough for Nigeria to take the gamble. First our major export, oil, was priced in dollars and the volume exported was determined ab initio by the quota set by OPEC, a cartel to which we belonged. Neither the price nor the volume of our exports would be affected by a devaluation of the naira. As for imports, indeed they would become dearer. However the manufacturing base depended on imported raw materials. Also many essential food items were imported. The demand for imports was therefore inelastic. We would end up spending more of our national income to import less, in the process fuelling inflation, creating excess capacity and unemployment, wiping out the production base of the real sector and causing hardship to the consumer through the erosion of real disposable incomes. Given the structural dislocations in income distribution in Nigeria the only groups who would benefit from devaluation were the rich parasites who had enough liquidity to continue with their conspicuous consumption, the large multi-national corporations with an unlimited access to loanable funds and the foreign “investor” who can now purchase our grossly cheapened and undervalued domestic assets.



In one stroke we would wipe out the middle class, destroy indigenous manufacturing, undervalue the national wealth and create inflation and unemployment. This is standard economic theory and it is exactly what happened to Nigeria after it went through the hands of our IMF economists under IBB. The decision not to devalue set Buharism on a collision course with those who wanted devaluation and would profit from it-namely global capitalism, the so-called “captains of industry” (an acronym for the errand boys of multinational corporations), the nouveaux-riches parasites who had naira and dollars waiting to be spent, the rump elements of feudalism and so on. Buharism therefore was a crisis in the dominant class, a fracturing of its members into a patriotic, nationalist group and a dependent, parasitic and corrupt one. It was not a struggle between classes but within the same class. A victory for Buharism would be a victory for the more progressive elements of the national bourgeoisie. Unfortunately the fifth columnists within the military establishment were allied to the backward and retrogressive elements and succeeded in defeating Buharism before it took firm root. But I digress.



Having decided not to devalue or to rush into privatization and liberalization Buharism still faced an economic crisis it must address. There was pressure on foreign reserves, mounting foreign debt and a Balance of Payments crisis. Clearly the demand for foreign exchange outstripped its supply. The government therefore adopted demand management measures. The basic principle was that we did not really need all that we imported and if we could ensure that our scarce foreign exchange was only allocated to what we really needed we would be able to pay our debts and lay the foundations for economic stability. But this line of action also has its drawbacks.



First, there are political costs to be borne in terms of opposition from those who feel unfairly excluded from the allocation process and who do not share the government’s sense of priorities. Muslims for example cursed Buhari’s government for restricting the number of pilgrims in order to conserve foreign exchange.



Second, in all attempts to manage demand through quotas and quantitative restrictions there is room for abuse because there is always the incentive of a premium to be earned through circumvention of due process. Import licenses become “hot cake” and the black market for foreign exchange highly lucrative. This policy can only succeed if backed by strong deterrent laws and strict and enforcible exchange rules. Again it is trite micro-economic theory that where price is fixed below equilibrium the market is only cleared through quotas and the potential exists for round tripping as there will be a minority willing and able to offer a very high price for the “artificially scarce” product. So again we see that the harsh exchange control and economic sabotage laws of Buharism were a necessary and logical fallout of its economic theory.

Conclusion



I have tried to show in this intervention what I consider to be the principal building blocks of the military government of Muhammadu Buhari and the logical connection between its ideology, its economic theory and the legal and political superstructure that characterized it. My objective is to raise the intellectual profile of discourse beyond its present focus on personalities by letting readers see the intricate links between disparate and seemingly unrelated aspects of that government, thus contextualizing the actions of Buharism in its specific historical and ideological milieu. I have tried to review its treatment of politicians as part of a general struggle against primitive accumulation and its harsh laws on exchange and economic crimes as a necessary fallout of economic policy options. Similarly its treatment of drug pushers reflected the patriotic zeal of a bourgeois nationalist establishment.



As happens in all such cases a number of innocent people become victims of draconian laws, such as a few honest leaders like Shehu Shagari and Balarabe Musa who were improperly detained. The reality however is that many of those claiming to be victims today were looters who deserved to go to jail but who would like to hide under the cover of a few glaring errors. The failure of key members of the Buhari administration to tender public and unreserved apology to those who may have been improperly detained has not helped matters in this regard.



This raises a question I have often been asked. Do I support Buhari’s decision to contest for the presidency of Nigeria? My answer is no. And I will explain.



First, I believe Buhari played a creditable role in a particular historical epoch but like Tolstoy and Marx I do not believe he can re-enact that role at will. Men do not make history exactly as they please but, as Marx wrote in the 18th Brumaire, “in circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past.” Muhammadu Buhari as a military general had more room for manoevre than he can ever hope for in Nigerian Politics.



Second, I am convinced that the situation of Nigeria and its elite today is worse than it was in 1983.Compared to the politicians who populate the PDP, ANPP and AD today, second republic politicians were angels. Buhari waged a battle against second republic politicians, but he is joining this generation. Anyone who rides a tiger ends up in its belly and one man cannot change the system from within. A number of those Buhari jailed for theft later became ministers and many of those who hold key offices in all tiers of government and the legislature were made by the very system he sought to destroy. My view is that Nigeria needs people like Buhari in politics but not to contest elections. Buhari should be in politics to develop Civil Society and strengthen the conscience of the nation. He should try to develop many Buharis who will continue to challenge the elements that have hijacked the nation.



Third, I do not think Nigerians today are ready for Buhari. Everywhere you turn you see thieves who have amassed wealth in the last four years, be they legislators, Local Government chairmen and councilors, or governors and ministers. But these are the heroes in their societies. They are the religious leaders and ethnic champions and Nigerians, especially northerners, will castigate and discredit anyone who challenges them. Unless we start by educating our people and changing their value system, people like Buhari will remain the victims of their own love for Nigeria.

Fourth, and on a lighter note, I am opposed to recycled material. In a nation of 120million people we can do better than restrict our leadership to a small group. I think Buhari, Babangida and yes Obasanjo should simply allow others try their hand instead of believing they have the monopoly of wisdom.



Having said all this let me conclude by saying that if Buhari gets a nomination he will have my vote (for what it is worth). I will vote for him not, like some have averred, because he is a northerner and a Muslim or because I think his candidacy is good for the north and Islam; I will vote for him not because I think he will make a good democrat or that he was not a dictator. I will vote for Buhari as a Nigerian for a leader who restored my pride and dignity and my belief in the motherland. I will vote for the man who made it undesirable for the “Andrews” to “check out” instead of staying to change Nigeria. I will vote for Buhari to say thank you for the world view of Buharism, a truly nationalist ideology for all Nigerians. I do not know if Buhari is still a nationalist or a closet bigot and fanatic, or if he was the spirit and not just the face of Buharism. My vote for him is not based on a divination of what he is or may be, but a celebration of what his government was and what it gave to the nation.



http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/articles/guest-articles/buharism-economic-theory-and-political-economy.html

My concern is that the Nigerian political water is MURKY and it is doubtful if anybody (PLUS INCLUDING PASTOR) can go into it and come out CLEAN. Not even a pastor! Even if Buhari/Bakare (call it the B & B combination) wins, I am more than double sure that Bakare will only be confined to the role of a second fiddle, irrelevant, powerless (remember the constitution has no major roles for the VP) and probably be 'forced' to play the 'Northern game' or become frustrated! CAN THIS BE GOD'S PLAN FOR HIS ANOINTED SERVANT?!!!!!

All this is confusion . If the trumpet makes an uncertain sound, how would the people prepare themselves for war?

So far, Bakare has been making uncertain, unclear sounds. Its worrying.

Its either God spoke in his ears or He didnt.

When Chris Okotie said God told him to run and that he would win, what was Bakare's reactions then?

He has reached a stage in ministry where he should only do what God whispers into his ears. He has(is supposed to have) gone beyond trial and error with God.

Everything in life is about purpose and destiny. Someone says he doesnt have to win and I ask , so what would be the purpose of all this at the end. What great lesson would it teach Christians and God lovers? Its not about him being a citizen that has a right to seek election into public office. It has gone beyond that.

So once again, has God spoken in his ears to do this?

Nsiman:

@ dayokanu, i really didn't want to post here again but due to your last idiotic post here i come. U wanted gej to struggle with what he dnt knw will be the outcome or what he knew the consequences. There u will call him a power thirsty man abi?

So GEJ couldnt fight to uphold the constitution he took a oath to defend?

The constitution says the VP should assume power when the President is incapacitated.

So that they wont call him power thirsty, he refused to defend a constitution he swore to defend?

It took a courageous Bakare to fight for his right when the mumucious fellow was tying apron and supplying salt and pepper in Turais kitchen.

Who needs that kind of mumu, otondo, anamo and puccy as president?

I have decided not to get the voter reg all because I hardly have the time to que for registration and I dont intend voting but with this combo I shall get my self registered by all means b4 the exercise ends tomorrow.Even though I am a xtain n a southerner, I will rather vote for Buhari than Uncle jo.politics should not be about religion or tribe. and for those that are insinuating that Buhari will implement sharia if elected,hw on earth is that possible under a democratic govt guided by the constitution let be realistic even when he was a military HOS he never contemplated that,why will he dare such as a democratically elected president.

i still dey laugh oooo
i guess after the elections he will quote a passage that says i dey laugh ooo, lol

really wen did god stop speaking to okotie and started speaking to bakare, if he wants to contest there is absolutely nothing wrong with it, every contestant will tell u they also heard from god and will quote verses to back their claim, please keep god out of this matter and work hard for ur election, all the best to u.

Unexpectedly lets assume that He and His Boss will Win the Election Maybe in Dream or reality. But if he looses HAAAAAA God Will surely Forgive

@nsiman, how dare you have the gut to called dayokanu an idio.t? Its nothing but sheer s.t.u.p.i.d.i.t.y. If i say ibos have no respect for elders now, you will start licking jarus d.i.c.k. He goat

ayubam:

BUHARISM: Economic Theory and Political Economy



By Sanusi Lamido Sanusi

[LAGOS]

July 22,2002



I have followed with more than a little interest the many contributions of commentators on the surprising decision of General Muhammadu Buhari to jump into the murky waters of Nigerian politics. Most of the regular writers in the Trust stable have had something to say on this. The political adviser to a late general has transferred his services to a living one. My dear friend and prolific veterinary doctor, who like me is allegedly an ideologue of Fulani supremacy, has taken a leading emir to the cleaners based on information of suspect authenticity. Another friend has contributed an articulate piece, which for those in the know gives a bird’s eye view into the thinking within the IBB camp. A young northern Turk has made several interventions and given novel expressions to what I call the PTF connection. Some readers and writers alike have done Buhari incalculable damage by viewing his politics through the narrow prism of ethnicity and religion, risking the alienation of whole sections of the Nigerian polity without whose votes their candidate cannot succeed.



With one or two notable exceptions, the various positions for or against Buhari have focused on his personality and continued to reveal a certain aversion or disdain for deeper and more thorough analysis of his regime. The reality, as noted by Tolstoy, is that too often history is erroneously reduced to single individuals. By losing sight of the multiplicity of individuals, events, actions and inactions (deliberate or otherwise) that combine to produce a set of historical circumstances, the historian is able to create a mythical figure and turn him into an everlasting hero (like Lincoln) or a villain (like Hitler). The same is true of Buhari. There seems to be a dangerous trend of competition between two opposing camps aimed at glorifying him beyond his wildest dreams or demonizing him beyond all justifiable limits, through a selective reading of history and opportunistic attribution and misattribution of responsibility.



The discourse has been thus impoverished through personalization and we are no closer at the end of it than at the beginning to a divination of the exact locus or nexus of his administration in the flow of Nigerian history. This is what I seek to achieve in this intervention through an exposition of the theoretical underpinnings of the economic policy of Buharism and the necessary correlation between the economic decisions made and the concomitant legal and political superstructure.



Taxonomy

Let me begin by stating up front the principal thesis that I will propound. Within the schema of discourses on Nigerian history, the most accurate problematization of the Buhari government is one that views it strictly as a regime founded on the ideology of Bourgeois Nationalism. In this sense it was a true off-shoot of the regime of Murtala Mohammed. Buharism was a stage the logical outcome of whose machinations would have been a transcendence of what Marx called the stage of Primitive Accumulation in his Theories of Surplus Value. It was radical, not in the sense of being socialist or left wing, but in the sense of being a progressive move away from a political economy dominated by a parasitic and subservient elite to one in which a nationalist and productive class gains ascendancy. Buharism represented a two-way struggle: with Global capitalism (externally) and with its parasitic and unpatriotic agents and spokespersons (internally).



The struggle against global capital as represented by the unholy trinity of the IMF, the World Bank and multilateral “trade” organizations as well that against the entrenched domestic class of contractors, commission agents and corrupt public officers were vicious and thus required extreme measures. Draconian policies were a necessary component of this struggle for transformation and this has been the case with all such epochs in history. The Meiji restoration in Japan was not conducted in a liberal environment. The Industrial Revolution in Europe and the great economic progress of the empires were not attained in the same liberal atmosphere of the 21st Century. The “tiger economies” of Asia such as Taiwan, South Korea, Indonesia and Thailand are not exactly models of democratic freedom. To this extent Buharism was a despotic regime but its despotism was historically determined, necessitated by the historical task of dismantling the structures of dependency and launching the nation on to a path beyond primitive accumulation. At his best Buhari may have been a Bonaparte or a Bismarck. At his worst he may have been a Hitler or a Mussolini. In either case Buharism drawn to its logical conclusion would have provided the bedrock for a new society and its overthrow marked a relapse, a step backward into that era from which we sought escape and in which, sadly for all of us we remain embedded and enslaved. I will now proceed with an elaboration of Buharism as a manifestation of bourgeois economics and political economy.



The Economic Theory of Buharism

One of the greatest myths spun around Buharism was that it lacked a sound basis in economic theory. As evidence of this, the regime that succeeded Buhari employed the services of economic “gurus” of “international standard” as the architects of fiscal and monetary policy. These were IMF and World Bank economists like Dr. Chu Okongwu and Dr Kalu Idika Kalu, as well as Mr SAP himself, Chief Olu Falae (an economist trained at Yale). At the time Buhari’s Finance Minister, Dr Onaolapo Soleye (who was not a trained economist) was debating with the pro-IMF lobby and explaining why the naira would not be devalued I was teaching economics at the Ahmadu Bello University. I had no doubt in my mind that the position of Buharism was based on a sound understanding of neo-classical economics and that those who were pushing for devaluation either did not understand their subject or were acting deliberately as agents of international capital in its rampage against all barriers set up by sovereign states to protect the integrity of the domestic economy. I still believe some of the key economic policy experts of the IBB administration were economic saboteurs who should be tried for treason.



When the IMF recently owned up to “mistakes” in its policy prescriptions all patriotic economists saw it for what it was: A hypocritical statement of remorse after attaining set objectives. Let me explain, briefly, the economic theory underlying Buhari’s refusal to devalue the naira and then show how the policy merely served the interest of global capitalism and its domestic agents. This will be the principal building block of our taxonomy.

In brief, neo-classical theory holds that a country can, under certain conditions, expect to improve its Balance of Payments through devaluation of its currency. The IMF believed that given the pressure on the country’s foreign reserves and its adverse balance of payments situation Nigeria must devalue its currency. Buharism held otherwise and insisted that the conditions for improving Balance of Payments through devaluation did not exist and that there were alternate and superior approaches to the problem. Let me explain.



The first condition that must exist is that the price of every country’s export is denominated in its currency. If Nigeria’s exports are priced in naira and its imports from the US in dollars then, ceteris paribus, a devaluation of the naira makes imports dearer to Nigerians and makes Nigerian goods cheaper to Americans. This would then lead to an increase in the quantum of exports to the US and a reduction in the quantum of imports from there per unit of time. But while this is a necessary condition, it is not a sufficient one. For a positive change in the balance of payments the increase in the quantum of exports must be substantial enough to outweigh the revenue lost through a reduction in price. In other words the quantity exported must increase at a rate faster than the rate of decrease in its price. Similarly imports must fall faster than their price is increasing. Otherwise the nation may be devoting more of its wealth to importing less and receiving less of the wealth of foreigners for exporting more! In consequence, devaluation by a country whose exports and imports are not price elastic leads to the continued impoverishment of the nation vis a vis its trading partners. The second, and sufficient, condition is therefore that the combined price elasticity of demand for exports and imports must exceed unity.



The argument of Buharism, for which it was castigated by global capital and its domestic agents, was that these conditions did not exist clearly enough for Nigeria to take the gamble. First our major export, oil, was priced in dollars and the volume exported was determined ab initio by the quota set by OPEC, a cartel to which we belonged. Neither the price nor the volume of our exports would be affected by a devaluation of the naira. As for imports, indeed they would become dearer. However the manufacturing base depended on imported raw materials. Also many essential food items were imported. The demand for imports was therefore inelastic. We would end up spending more of our national income to import less, in the process fuelling inflation, creating excess capacity and unemployment, wiping out the production base of the real sector and causing hardship to the consumer through the erosion of real disposable incomes. Given the structural dislocations in income distribution in Nigeria the only groups who would benefit from devaluation were the rich parasites who had enough liquidity to continue with their conspicuous consumption, the large multi-national corporations with an unlimited access to loanable funds and the foreign “investor” who can now purchase our grossly cheapened and undervalued domestic assets.



In one stroke we would wipe out the middle class, destroy indigenous manufacturing, undervalue the national wealth and create inflation and unemployment. This is standard economic theory and it is exactly what happened to Nigeria after it went through the hands of our IMF economists under IBB. The decision not to devalue set Buharism on a collision course with those who wanted devaluation and would profit from it-namely global capitalism, the so-called “captains of industry” (an acronym for the errand boys of multinational corporations), the nouveaux-riches parasites who had naira and dollars waiting to be spent, the rump elements of feudalism and so on. Buharism therefore was a crisis in the dominant class, a fracturing of its members into a patriotic, nationalist group and a dependent, parasitic and corrupt one. It was not a struggle between classes but within the same class. A victory for Buharism would be a victory for the more progressive elements of the national bourgeoisie. Unfortunately the fifth columnists within the military establishment were allied to the backward and retrogressive elements and succeeded in defeating Buharism before it took firm root. But I digress.



Having decided not to devalue or to rush into privatization and liberalization Buharism still faced an economic crisis it must address. There was pressure on foreign reserves, mounting foreign debt and a Balance of Payments crisis. Clearly the demand for foreign exchange outstripped its supply. The government therefore adopted demand management measures. The basic principle was that we did not really need all that we imported and if we could ensure that our scarce foreign exchange was only allocated to what we really needed we would be able to pay our debts and lay the foundations for economic stability. But this line of action also has its drawbacks.



First, there are political costs to be borne in terms of opposition from those who feel unfairly excluded from the allocation process and who do not share the government’s sense of priorities. Muslims for example cursed Buhari’s government for restricting the number of pilgrims in order to conserve foreign exchange.



Second, in all attempts to manage demand through quotas and quantitative restrictions there is room for abuse because there is always the incentive of a premium to be earned through circumvention of due process. Import licenses become “hot cake” and the black market for foreign exchange highly lucrative. This policy can only succeed if backed by strong deterrent laws and strict and enforcible exchange rules. Again it is trite micro-economic theory that where price is fixed below equilibrium the market is only cleared through quotas and the potential exists for round tripping as there will be a minority willing and able to offer a very high price for the “artificially scarce” product. So again we see that the harsh exchange control and economic sabotage laws of Buharism were a necessary and logical fallout of its economic theory.

Conclusion



I have tried to show in this intervention what I consider to be the principal building blocks of the military government of Muhammadu Buhari and the logical connection between its ideology, its economic theory and the legal and political superstructure that characterized it. My objective is to raise the intellectual profile of discourse beyond its present focus on personalities by letting readers see the intricate links between disparate and seemingly unrelated aspects of that government, thus contextualizing the actions of Buharism in its specific historical and ideological milieu. I have tried to review its treatment of politicians as part of a general struggle against primitive accumulation and its harsh laws on exchange and economic crimes as a necessary fallout of economic policy options. Similarly its treatment of drug pushers reflected the patriotic zeal of a bourgeois nationalist establishment.



As happens in all such cases a number of innocent people become victims of draconian laws, such as a few honest leaders like Shehu Shagari and Balarabe Musa who were improperly detained. The reality however is that many of those claiming to be victims today were looters who deserved to go to jail but who would like to hide under the cover of a few glaring errors. The failure of key members of the Buhari administration to tender public and unreserved apology to those who may have been improperly detained has not helped matters in this regard.



This raises a question I have often been asked. Do I support Buhari’s decision to contest for the presidency of Nigeria? My answer is no. And I will explain.



First, I believe Buhari played a creditable role in a particular historical epoch but like Tolstoy and Marx I do not believe he can re-enact that role at will. Men do not make history exactly as they please but, as Marx wrote in the 18th Brumaire, “in circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past.” Muhammadu Buhari as a military general had more room for manoevre than he can ever hope for in Nigerian Politics.



Second, I am convinced that the situation of Nigeria and its elite today is worse than it was in 1983.Compared to the politicians who populate the PDP, ANPP and AD today, second republic politicians were angels. Buhari waged a battle against second republic politicians, but he is joining this generation. Anyone who rides a tiger ends up in its belly and one man cannot change the system from within. A number of those Buhari jailed for theft later became ministers and many of those who hold key offices in all tiers of government and the legislature were made by the very system he sought to destroy. My view is that Nigeria needs people like Buhari in politics but not to contest elections. Buhari should be in politics to develop Civil Society and strengthen the conscience of the nation. He should try to develop many Buharis who will continue to challenge the elements that have hijacked the nation.



Third, I do not think Nigerians today are ready for Buhari. Everywhere you turn you see thieves who have amassed wealth in the last four years, be they legislators, Local Government chairmen and councilors, or governors and ministers. But these are the heroes in their societies. They are the religious leaders and ethnic champions and Nigerians, especially northerners, will castigate and discredit anyone who challenges them. Unless we start by educating our people and changing their value system, people like Buhari will remain the victims of their own love for Nigeria.

Fourth, and on a lighter note, I am opposed to recycled material. In a nation of 120million people we can do better than restrict our leadership to a small group. I think Buhari, Babangida and yes Obasanjo should simply allow others try their hand instead of believing they have the monopoly of wisdom.



Having said all this let me conclude by saying that if Buhari gets a nomination he will have my vote (for what it is worth). I will vote for him not, like some have averred, because he is a northerner and a Muslim or because I think his candidacy is good for the north and Islam; I will vote for him not because I think he will make a good democrat or that he was not a dictator. I will vote for Buhari as a Nigerian for a leader who restored my pride and dignity and my belief in the motherland. I will vote for the man who made it undesirable for the “Andrews” to “check out” instead of staying to change Nigeria. I will vote for Buhari to say thank you for the world view of Buharism, a truly nationalist ideology for all Nigerians. I do not know if Buhari is still a nationalist or a closet bigot and fanatic, or if he was the spirit and not just the face of Buharism. My vote for him is not based on a divination of what he is or may be, but a celebration of what his government was and what it gave to the nation.



http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/articles/guest-articles/buharism-economic-theory-and-political-economy.html

you need to open a thread for this piece bro, don't hide it here.

all this can only happen in Nigeria, where people don't respect other people's feeling and decision. tell me is it a crime for a pastor or an Imam or what ever to contest ?  we seem to know to much, and yet we are not moving anywhere as a nation. we seem to know how to speak against another people yet we are sitting down on our on and off internet connection  condemning someone that has decided to come out in the public to run for a post.

I wish him all the best in his political career!

One day Nigerians will make God resign o! Imagine someone going into politics in a secular state and announcing that God told him to do so. The man cannot even put a couple of words to explain why he is running, instead he panders to people religious fears.
There is just so much mediocrity from opposition parties that they might as well give up contesting the elections. Its just ridiculous.

I said it and I think the MOG heard me clearly. . .he shud contest for any seat at all under any platform at all. If he wins, he shud right d observed wrongs in our dear country and if he loses, he shud try again. He shud not just keep living d life of a sit-at-home critic. . .Heaven helps those who sincerely help themselves.

Can you imagine this man!God have mercy on me.

We now know all the bribe cry was an attempt to score cheap political point, Bakare go soon shiiiittt for church.

Beaf:

One day Nigerians will make God resign o! Imagine someone going into politics in a secular state and announcing that God told him to do so. The man cannot even put a couple of words to explain why he is running, instead he panders to people religious fears.
There is just so much mediocrity from opposition parties that they might as well give up contesting the elections. Its just ridiculous.

There's no peace for the wicked, you keep running from me ever since i asked you questions on GEJ, may you keep running ooo

I am waiting for the day we all as Nigerians will wake up to the fact that religion is a way of control,be it the mind ,spirit or otherwise of individual or a collection of people.We has to stop believing most of the so called pastors that runs around in that country ,please fellow Nigerian do some research about your religion be it xtianity or islam .
Pastor chris has stoped ranting now is another Mr Bakare, people that got rich on the "blood of the masses".
I beg to deviate a bit, if either of this religion never made it through to us what would we have done with our believes?If we were not born into christian or Islamic homes what would have been our religion?Has anyone of us ever thought of that?Lets think outside the box for just a moment and see that what we believe in has gone a long way to change our perspective of things and sense of reasoning.
I will boldly tell whoever wishes to listen that what we have been told or preached is far from the truth which has been altered over centuries to back up the writer(s) motives , to control.

remimartin:

I am waiting for the day we all as Nigerians will wake up to the fact that religion is a way of control,be it the mind ,spirit or otherwise of individual or a collection of people.We has to stop believing most of the so called pastors that runs around in that country ,please fellow Nigerian do some research about your religion be it xtianity or islam .
Pastor chris has stoped ranting now is another Mr Bakare, people that got rich on the "blood of the masses".
I beg to deviate a bit, if either of this religion never made it through to us what would we have done with our believes?If we were not born into christian or Islamic homes what would have been our religion?Has anyone of us ever thought of that?Lets think outside the box for just a moment and see that what we believe in has gone a long way to change our perspective of things and sense of reasoning.
I will boldly tell whoever wishes to listen that what we have been told or preached is far from the truth which has been altered over centuries to back up the writer(s) motives , to control.

Meaningless.

ayubam its going to take you some years to get to where i am coming from with all due respect.

Ujujoan (f)
Home
Posts: 6359



Are you still confused   

Meanwhile, I can't wait to hear what 'God' will say when the lose! 

Yeah, I get what you are trying to infer there but the man didn't really say GOD TOLD HIM TO RUN WITH BUHARI. That was the journalists own conclusion there, and quite understandable.