As Hurricane Buhari continues to blow, let me present for your reading pleasure 3 solid articles written by no less a person that Sanusi Lamido Sanusi on Buhari in the run-up to 2003 presidential elections

BUHARISM: Economic Theory and Political Economy

By

Sanusi Lamido Sanusi

[LAGOS]

July 22,2002

(All views are strictly personal)

lamidos@hotmail.com



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.gamji.com/sanusi/sanusi26.htm

BUHARISM BEYOND BUHARI: A Response to Mohammed Haruna
By

SANUSI LAMIDO SANUSI
Sept 2002

When I chose the sub-title "economic theory and political economy" for my essay on Buharism, it was with a clear purpose in mind. "Political Economy or Economics", wrote Alfred Marshall a very long time ago in his Principles of Economics, "is a study of mankind in the ordinary business of life." Although the definition has been considerably narrowed, it seems to me evident that no one who delves into this area can pretend to be a neutral and impartial observer, since every one has a position in the scheme of things and everyone has an explicit or implicit interest in what happens to mankind. Indeed I have never written on a matter about which I am indifferent, for to do so is an exercise in futility. As I wrote in one of my earlier articles, language is a moral medium and writing is a means of education and exhortation aimed at inviting the reader to act for his freedom and liberate first his consciousness, then his person, from the obscurantist cloak of myths, superstitions and outright fallacies invoked by those responsible for his state of alienation. This theme runs in the writings of several intellectuals, from Marx and Trotsky, to Sartre, Chomsky and Eco. My intervention was not the contribution of an impartial arbiter but, as stated clearly in the piece, an attempt to unveil the "exact locus or nexus" of the Buhari administration in "the ebb and flow of Nigerian history". To this extent, that is to the extent of stating that I am not a neutral party as far as Buharism is concerned, my friend Mohammed Haruna is dead right in his rebuttal titled "Sanusi Lamido Sanusi and Buharism". Beyond that, however, he seems to have made a number of unsubstantiated logical leaps, which need to be pointed out as part of the process of moving the discourse forward.




The principal error is to confuse my clear partiality in favour of Buharism with a glorification of Buhari the man. The economic principles and the political ideology underpinning the Buhari government transcend Muhammadu Buhari and they formed the kernel of my paper. It is the sad element in Mohammed’s rebuttal that precisely when he addressed himself to the substance of my paper, the economic theory and political economy of Buharism, he ran into logical conundrums that left one silently bemused at what is best described as a most eloquent articulation of incoherence in economic matters. Take for instance the following statements: "Nigeria, Sanusi would argue, quite rightly, has since taken its bitter pill of devaluation, but seems to be getting worse, not better. Devaluation, therefore could not possibly be the correct prescription. But then the problem with social behaviour is that it is impossible to predict with certainty for the simple reason that too many variables are involved…." My initial reaction is to wonder if Mohammed read my paper. The point was clearly made therein that this issue had nothing to do with the unpredictability of social behaviour. The results of devaluation in an economy with the characteristics of the Nigerian economy were a foregone conclusion. I have discussed the theory at length and shown that we knew, ab initio, that things would get worse. After Buhari was overthrown, for those who remember well, economists like Dr Ibrahim Ayagi (who braved opposition given his post as the Chief Executive of Chase Merchant Bank), Professor Eskor Toyo, Professor Sam Aluko, Professor Ikenna Nzimiro and Dr Bade Onimode, as well as radical intellectuals like Dr Bala Usman, Dr Yusuf Bangura, Dr Claude Ake etc. were vocal in their opposition to the so-called "IMF conditionalities." Founded on this fallacy of unpredictability is also Mohammed’s assertion that "there are… economists who are no less patriotic than Buhari who would support the contrary position that although devaluation may be a bitter medicine, it is inevitable for…Nigeria, which produces little of what it consumes." Were this statement not coming from a writer for whom I have the most profound respect, I would have dismissed it as the unserious ranting of a demagogue. What, pray, is patriotic in prescribing an economic policy that is bound to condemn the majority of the populace to great poverty and hardship, with the only "positive" effect of handing the economy over to foreigners and creating a very small clique of the super rich? The only rational understanding of this statement is to say that patriotism in this context has not been defined. Perhaps Mohammed means that these economists are as patriotic in their loyalty to the United States, the IMF, the World Bank and Multinational Corporations as the Ayagis and Bala Usmans are to Nigeria. But even more objectionable, given the implicit insult to their intelligence, is the insinuation that those who say devaluation was bad for Nigeria did so simply because it was "good for the IMF or the World Bank". We rejected IMF conditionalities because they were bad for Nigeria and for Nigerians. Those who supported them did so because they favoured international capital and a small clique whose interest they represented. Behind the sophisticated theorisation was a naked, violent struggle for "market share" with consequences for the creation of wealth and affluence, as well as their concentration or diffusion among countries and among individuals, institutions and groups within each country.




The final direct response to Mohammed is on his argument that we have had good dictatorships and bad ones and that we could therefore not define the likely direction Nigeria would take had Buharism been pursued to its logical conclusion. This argument is dangerous and it suggests that the article on Buharism had supported despotism for its own sake, rather than acknowledge it as a negative, if sometimes necessary corollary to certain policies in specific contexts. To bring in the likes of Mobutu (Haruna may well have added Abacha) as examples is mischievous when dealing with an administration that spent its short life punishing those involved in precisely the kind of looting that these tyrants were guilty of. Contrary to Mohammed’s assertion, I do not have an "apparent blind faith in Buharism with no questions asked." In what remains of this intervention, I will substantiate this proposition.




The first point I will make is that even though Buharism rejected the "big bang" approach of what was known as "the Washington consensus" (the IMF, the World Bank and the US Treasury) it did not pursue a regime of fixed exchange rates (another false item in Mohammed’s paper). It argued for a gradual process that would maximise the benefits and minimise the costs of managing a severe economic crisis. Indeed the exchange rate between 1984 and late 1985 depreciated in a gradual, controlled manner. The question now is this: Which, between the gradualist approach to deregulation, liberalisation and privatisation on the one hand and the big-bang approach would have taken Nigeria down the same path as the "Asian tigers"? I call to witness Joseph Stiglitz, winner of the Nobel prize for economics in 2001 and until January 2000 Chief Economist at the World Bank. I will quote at length, because of its lucidity, a passage from a book he published this year, Globalization and its Discontents (p. 92):




"There were problems in the way the Asian economies developed, but overall, the governments had devised a strategy that worked….which had but one item in common with Washington consensus policies- the importance of macrostability. As in the Washington Consensus (hereafter WC- my abbreviation, not Stiglitz’s) trade was important but the emphasis was on promoting exports, not removing impediments to imports. Trade was eventually liberalized but only gradually as new jobs were created in the export industries. While the WC…emphasized rapid financial and capital market liberalisation, the East Asian countries liberalised only gradually….While the WC….emphasized privatisation, government at the national and local levels helped create efficient enterprises that played a key role in the success of several of the countries. In the WC view, industrial policies in which governments try to shape the future direction of the economy are a mistake. But the East Asian governments took that as one of their central responsibilities….While the WC policies paid little attention to inequality, the East Asian countries did, believing that (this was) important for maintaining social cohesion, and that social cohesion was necessary to provide a climate favourable to investment and growth…Most broadly, while the WC emphasized a minimalist role for government, in East Asia, governments helped shape and direct markets."




Thus while it is fair to compare Nigeria under Buhari to Singapore under Lee or Indonesia under Sukarno, it is those governments that came after him that are comparable to Zaire under Mobutu or Indonesia under Suharto. The issue is not the fact of authoritanianism, but authoritanianism in pursuit of what? The parallel drawn by Mohammed is a mischievous attempt at reducing all dictatorships to one common denominator, thus creating a false moral equivalence between one regime and the next.




There is a second line of argument that will reveal to us the true nature of the Harunaesque "patriotism". Events since 1985, not just in Nigeria but also in other nations, have shown that those who stood firm against the Washington Consensus were the true patriots everywhere. When the British financial markets were deregulated in 1986 under Thatcher this was presented as their opportunity to "compete and win in the global market". By the close of the century the last of the UK’s major financial players was in foreign hands. Mohammed Haruna should read a book, The Death of Gentlemanly Capitalism, written by Philip Augar, one of the City’s top brokers, for an analysis of how this happened. It is not for nothing that from Washington to Prague to Nice to Quebec to Gothenberg and to Genoa the anti-globalization movement has staged protests and engaged in violent riots. In her book, The Silent Takeover: Global capitalism and the Death of Democracy, Cambridge don Noreena Hertz makes the following frightening revelation: " Propelled by government policies of privatisation, deregulation and trade liberalisation… in the past twenty years a power shift has taken place. The hundred largest multinational corporations now control about 20% of global foreign assets; fifty-one of the hundred biggest economies in the world are now corporations. Only fourty-nine are nation-states. The sales of General Motors and Ford are greater than the GDP of the whole of sub-Saharan Africa; the assets of IBM, BP and General Electric outstrip the economic capabilities of most small nations; and Wal-Mart, the US supermarket retailer, has higher revenues than most Central and Eastern European states including Poland, the Czech Republic, Ukraine, Hungary and Slovakia." (p. In other words we have all become "banana republics", courtesy of our "patriotic" economists.




At the heart of the problem is the emergence, in Africa, of a crop of "intellectuals" who are the heirs to the old colonised minds. These are not just persons with a bougeoisified intellect. They have lost all originality in thinking and all critical ability because their minds have become standardised and commodified by the ideology of the market. Everywhere you turn you see them preaching the beauty of the market, of efficiency, liberalisation, private sector and privatisation, deregulation etc. They do not ask how we can stop public sector corruption or make government more efficient and accountable. These anomalies are presented as necessary to all government and used as a pretext to strip the people of owned assets. One of the world’s foremost fund managers, George Soros, wrote this about markets in his latest book, Globalization: "Markets are amoral: they allow people to act in accordance with their interests but they pass no moral judgement on the interests themselves. Yet society cannot function without some distinction between right and wrong". This simple truth, now resounding from the very heart of global capital, is still not present in our discourse.




Let me illustrate with a simple example I used often in my teaching days. The economist tells us that the price of food, for example, should be determined by the forces of demand and supply. The "equilibrium price is that at which demand and supply are equated and the market is cleared. This is the market’s much touted "efficiency" and any other price comes with problems. This is taught as part of "positive economics", a mythical discipline that pretends to be value-free social science. What the economist does not tell us is the following: The segment of the demand curve below and to the right of its intersection with the supply curve represents millions of poor consumers who are priced out of the market because they cannot afford to pay the "equilibrium price". Also, the entire segment of the supply curve above and to the right of the intersection represents thousands of poor farmers who are priced out of the market because they cannot afford to produce food and sell at that price. For a consumer to be in the market he must afford the market price. For a producer to sell his crops profitably he must have economy of scale. A subsidy in this market, say on fertilizers, will lower the production cost of farmers and allow some more into the market, increase the quantity supplied, reduce the price and bring in more poor consumers. But the economist will tell you: "Subsidies are bad." The Harunaesque economist, that is. In the US and Europe the governments are spending billions of dollars in subsidy to agriculture, keeping farmers in business and making food cheap. In Nigeria our patriots tell us subsidies are bad. The US only recently introduced heavy import tariffs to protect the inefficient domestic steel industry and save jobs, in flagrant disregard of all the principles and agreements on trade liberalisation. In Nigeria, based on the advice of patriotic economists we have in the 2002 budget proposed a reduction in the excise duty on beer from the meagre 40k to 20k. The duty was reduced about a year ago from 60k to 40k.




The emergence of the powerful corporation and the market as the dominant elements in the world political economy was the result of deliberate policies pursued with ruthless single-mindedness. Milton Friedman, the main intellectual force behind the Reagan-Thatcher policy of supply side economist has organized and published many of his populist articles under the exotic title The Lexus and the Olive Tree. He not only preaches the virtues of globalisation, he prescribed the rules by which all countries wishing to participate in the global economy should be bound, including sanctions on nations that vote for the wrong governments: Investors will "stampede away" and "stock markets crash". A close reading of an interesting book by Thomas Frank, One Market under God will give the reader an insight into the ideological fountainhead of the Harunaesque patriots.




In conclusion, the economist J.K. Galbraith once wrote that there is no economic theory that cannot be explained in intelligible English to the non-economist. The greatest economists have always asked themselves: How does economics affect my people? Friedman has succeeded as an ideologue of the corporation and a patriotic American. In the early 20th century, what became known as Keynesian Economics was actually anticipated and implemented in Sweden even before the publication of his General Theory. A group of economists, starting with Wicksell and continuing through the likes of Gunnar Myrdal, Bertil Ohlin, Erik Lindahl. Erik Lundberg and Dag Hammarskjold challenged Say’s Law and helped create the first welfare state in the capitalist world. These economists, according to Galbraith in his A History of Economics had one thing in common: "With a knowledge of the relevant theory and a strong resistance to its constraints, they all addressed themselves to the practical problems of the Swedish economy, society and polity."




Ultimately, this is the yardstick for defining a patriot. Buharism was, in its time, a patriotic ideology. But as a world-view, it goes beyond Buhari the man and his political ambitions. I dare say Buhari’s (and any leader’s) relevance, should be determined by reference to Buharism and his commitment to it. We should, finally, state that Mohammed Haruna has given us the best possible conclusion, He wrote:" Now that he has intervened with the right emphasis on the issues rather than on the personalities involved, hopefully the debate, not just about Buhari’s entry in politics but the debate about the coming elections will move away from who the key actors are to what they can do to eliminate the country’s poverty and its divisions." I rest my case.



BUHARISM BEYOND BUHARI: A Response to Mohammed Haruna

By

SANUSI LAMIDO SANUSI

When I chose the sub-title "economic theory and political economy" for my essay on Buharism, it was with a clear purpose in mind. "Political Economy or Economics", wrote Alfred Marshall a very long time ago in his Principles of Economics, "is a study of mankind in the ordinary business of life." Although the definition has been considerably narrowed, it seems to me evident that no one who delves into this area can pretend to be a neutral and impartial observer, since every one has a position in the scheme of things and everyone has an explicit or implicit interest in what happens to mankind. Indeed I have never written on a matter about which I am indifferent, for to do so is an exercise in futility. As I wrote in one of my earlier articles, language is a moral medium and writing is a means of education and exhortation aimed at inviting the reader to act for his freedom and liberate first his consciousness, then his person, from the obscurantist cloak of myths, superstitions and outright fallacies invoked by those responsible for his state of alienation. This theme runs in the writings of several intellectuals, from Marx and Trotsky, to Sartre, Chomsky and Eco. My intervention was not the contribution of an impartial arbiter but, as stated clearly in the piece, an attempt to unveil the "exact locus or nexus" of the Buhari administration in "the ebb and flow of Nigerian history". To this extent, that is to the extent of stating that I am not a neutral party as far as Buharism is concerned, my friend Mohammed Haruna is dead right in his rebuttal titled "Sanusi Lamido Sanusi and Buharism". Beyond that, however, he seems to have made a number of unsubstantiated logical leaps, which need to be pointed out as part of the process of moving the discourse forward.




The principal error is to confuse my clear partiality in favour of Buharism with a glorification of Buhari the man. The economic principles and the political ideology underpinning the Buhari government transcend Muhammadu Buhari and they formed the kernel of my paper. It is the sad element in Mohammed’s rebuttal that precisely when he addressed himself to the substance of my paper, the economic theory and political economy of Buharism, he ran into logical conundrums that left one silently bemused at what is best described as a most eloquent articulation of incoherence in economic matters. Take for instance the following statements: "Nigeria, Sanusi would argue, quite rightly, has since taken its bitter pill of devaluation, but seems to be getting worse, not better. Devaluation, therefore could not possibly be the correct prescription. But then the problem with social behaviour is that it is impossible to predict with certainty for the simple reason that too many variables are involved…." My initial reaction is to wonder if Mohammed read my paper. The point was clearly made therein that this issue had nothing to do with the unpredictability of social behaviour. The results of devaluation in an economy with the characteristics of the Nigerian economy were a foregone conclusion. I have discussed the theory at length and shown that we knew, ab initio, that things would get worse. After Buhari was overthrown, for those who remember well, economists like Dr Ibrahim Ayagi (who braved opposition given his post as the Chief Executive of Chase Merchant Bank), Professor Eskor Toyo, Professor Sam Aluko, Professor Ikenna Nzimiro and Dr Bade Onimode, as well as radical intellectuals like Dr Bala Usman, Dr Yusuf Bangura, Dr Claude Ake etc. were vocal in their opposition to the so-called "IMF conditionalities." Founded on this fallacy of unpredictability is also Mohammed’s assertion that "there are… economists who are no less patriotic than Buhari who would support the contrary position that although devaluation may be a bitter medicine, it is inevitable for…Nigeria, which produces little of what it consumes." Were this statement not coming from a writer for whom I have the most profound respect, I would have dismissed it as the unserious ranting of a demagogue. What, pray, is patriotic in prescribing an economic policy that is bound to condemn the majority of the populace to great poverty and hardship, with the only "positive" effect of handing the economy over to foreigners and creating a very small clique of the super rich? The only rational understanding of this statement is to say that patriotism in this context has not been defined. Perhaps Mohammed means that these economists are as patriotic in their loyalty to the United States, the IMF, the World Bank and Multinational Corporations as the Ayagis and Bala Usmans are to Nigeria. But even more objectionable, given the implicit insult to their intelligence, is the insinuation that those who say devaluation was bad for Nigeria did so simply because it was "good for the IMF or the World Bank". We rejected IMF conditionalities because they were bad for Nigeria and for Nigerians. Those who supported them did so because they favoured international capital and a small clique whose interest they represented. Behind the sophisticated theorisation was a naked, violent struggle for "market share" with consequences for the creation of wealth and affluence, as well as their concentration or diffusion among countries and among individuals, institutions and groups within each country.




The final direct response to Mohammed is on his argument that we have had good dictatorships and bad ones and that we could therefore not define the likely direction Nigeria would take had Buharism been pursued to its logical conclusion. This argument is dangerous and it suggests that the article on Buharism had supported despotism for its own sake, rather than acknowledge it as a negative, if sometimes necessary corollary to certain policies in specific contexts. To bring in the likes of Mobutu (Haruna may well have added Abacha) as examples is mischievous when dealing with an administration that spent its short life punishing those involved in precisely the kind of looting that these tyrants were guilty of. Contrary to Mohammed’s assertion, I do not have an "apparent blind faith in Buharism with no questions asked." In what remains of this intervention, I will substantiate this proposition.




The first point I will make is that even though Buharism rejected the "big bang" approach of what was known as "the Washington consensus" (the IMF, the World Bank and the US Treasury) it did not pursue a regime of fixed exchange rates (another false item in Mohammed’s paper). It argued for a gradual process that would maximise the benefits and minimise the costs of managing a severe economic crisis. Indeed the exchange rate between 1984 and late 1985 depreciated in a gradual, controlled manner. The question now is this: Which, between the gradualist approach to deregulation, liberalisation and privatisation on the one hand and the big-bang approach would have taken Nigeria down the same path as the "Asian tigers"? I call to witness Joseph Stiglitz, winner of the Nobel prize for economics in 2001 and until January 2000 Chief Economist at the World Bank. I will quote at length, because of its lucidity, a passage from a book he published this year, Globalization and its Discontents (p. 92):




"There were problems in the way the Asian economies developed, but overall, the governments had devised a strategy that worked….which had but one item in common with Washington consensus policies- the importance of macrostability. As in the Washington Consensus (hereafter WC- my abbreviation, not Stiglitz’s) trade was important but the emphasis was on promoting exports, not removing impediments to imports. Trade was eventually liberalized but only gradually as new jobs were created in the export industries. While the WC…emphasized rapid financial and capital market liberalisation, the East Asian countries liberalised only gradually….While the WC….emphasized privatisation, government at the national and local levels helped create efficient enterprises that played a key role in the success of several of the countries. In the WC view, industrial policies in which governments try to shape the future direction of the economy are a mistake. But the East Asian governments took that as one of their central responsibilities….While the WC policies paid little attention to inequality, the East Asian countries did, believing that (this was) important for maintaining social cohesion, and that social cohesion was necessary to provide a climate favourable to investment and growth…Most broadly, while the WC emphasized a minimalist role for government, in East Asia, governments helped shape and direct markets."




Thus while it is fair to compare Nigeria under Buhari to Singapore under Lee or Indonesia under Sukarno, it is those governments that came after him that are comparable to Zaire under Mobutu or Indonesia under Suharto. The issue is not the fact of authoritanianism, but authoritanianism in pursuit of what? The parallel drawn by Mohammed is a mischievous attempt at reducing all dictatorships to one common denominator, thus creating a false moral equivalence between one regime and the next.




There is a second line of argument that will reveal to us the true nature of the Harunaesque "patriotism". Events since 1985, not just in Nigeria but also in other nations, have shown that those who stood firm against the Washington Consensus were the true patriots everywhere. When the British financial markets were deregulated in 1986 under Thatcher this was presented as their opportunity to "compete and win in the global market". By the close of the century the last of the UK’s major financial players was in foreign hands. Mohammed Haruna should read a book, The Death of Gentlemanly Capitalism, written by Philip Augar, one of the City’s top brokers, for an analysis of how this happened. It is not for nothing that from Washington to Prague to Nice to Quebec to Gothenberg and to Genoa the anti-globalization movement has staged protests and engaged in violent riots. In her book, The Silent Takeover: Global capitalism and the Death of Democracy, Cambridge don Noreena Hertz makes the following frightening revelation: " Propelled by government policies of privatisation, deregulation and trade liberalisation… in the past twenty years a power shift has taken place. The hundred largest multinational corporations now control about 20% of global foreign assets; fifty-one of the hundred biggest economies in the world are now corporations. Only fourty-nine are nation-states. The sales of General Motors and Ford are greater than the GDP of the whole of sub-Saharan Africa; the assets of IBM, BP and General Electric outstrip the economic capabilities of most small nations; and Wal-Mart, the US supermarket retailer, has higher revenues than most Central and Eastern European states including Poland, the Czech Republic, Ukraine, Hungary and Slovakia." (p. In other words we have all become "banana republics", courtesy of our "patriotic" economists.




At the heart of the problem is the emergence, in Africa, of a crop of "intellectuals" who are the heirs to the old colonised minds. These are not just persons with a bougeoisified intellect. They have lost all originality in thinking and all critical ability because their minds have become standardised and commodified by the ideology of the market. Everywhere you turn you see them preaching the beauty of the market, of efficiency, liberalisation, private sector and privatisation, deregulation etc. They do not ask how we can stop public sector corruption or make government more efficient and accountable. These anomalies are presented as necessary to all government and used as a pretext to strip the people of owned assets. One of the world’s foremost fund managers, George Soros, wrote this about markets in his latest book, Globalization: "Markets are amoral: they allow people to act in accordance with their interests but they pass no moral judgement on the interests themselves. Yet society cannot function without some distinction between right and wrong". This simple truth, now resounding from the very heart of global capital, is still not present in our discourse.




Let me illustrate with a simple example I used often in my teaching days. The economist tells us that the price of food, for example, should be determined by the forces of demand and supply. The "equilibrium price is that at which demand and supply are equated and the market is cleared. This is the market’s much touted "efficiency" and any other price comes with problems. This is taught as part of "positive economics", a mythical discipline that pretends to be value-free social science. What the economist does not tell us is the following: The segment of the demand curve below and to the right of its intersection with the supply curve represents millions of poor consumers who are priced out of the market because they cannot afford to pay the "equilibrium price". Also, the entire segment of the supply curve above and to the right of the intersection represents thousands of poor farmers who are priced out of the market because they cannot afford to produce food and sell at that price. For a consumer to be in the market he must afford the market price. For a producer to sell his crops profitably he must have economy of scale. A subsidy in this market, say on fertilizers, will lower the production cost of farmers and allow some more into the market, increase the quantity supplied, reduce the price and bring in more poor consumers. But the economist will tell you: "Subsidies are bad." The Harunaesque economist, that is. In the US and Europe the governments are spending billions of dollars in subsidy to agriculture, keeping farmers in business and making food cheap. In Nigeria our patriots tell us subsidies are bad. The US only recently introduced heavy import tariffs to protect the inefficient domestic steel industry and save jobs, in flagrant disregard of all the principles and agreements on trade liberalisation. In Nigeria, based on the advice of patriotic economists we have in the 2002 budget proposed a reduction in the excise duty on beer from the meagre 40k to 20k. The duty was reduced about a year ago from 60k to 40k.




The emergence of the powerful corporation and the market as the dominant elements in the world political economy was the result of deliberate policies pursued with ruthless single-mindedness. Milton Friedman, the main intellectual force behind the Reagan-Thatcher policy of supply side economist has organized and published many of his populist articles under the exotic title The Lexus and the Olive Tree. He not only preaches the virtues of globalisation, he prescribed the rules by which all countries wishing to participate in the global economy should be bound, including sanctions on nations that vote for the wrong governments: Investors will "stampede away" and "stock markets crash". A close reading of an interesting book by Thomas Frank, One Market under God will give the reader an insight into the ideological fountainhead of the Harunaesque patriots.




In conclusion, the economist J.K. Galbraith once wrote that there is no economic theory that cannot be explained in intelligible English to the non-economist. The greatest economists have always asked themselves: How does economics affect my people? Friedman has succeeded as an ideologue of the corporation and a patriotic American. In the early 20th century, what became known as Keynesian Economics was actually anticipated and implemented in Sweden even before the publication of his General Theory. A group of economists, starting with Wicksell and continuing through the likes of Gunnar Myrdal, Bertil Ohlin, Erik Lindahl. Erik Lundberg and Dag Hammarskjold challenged Say’s Law and helped create the first welfare state in the capitalist world. These economists, according to Galbraith in his A History of Economics had one thing in common: "With a knowledge of the relevant theory and a strong resistance to its constraints, they all addressed themselves to the practical problems of the Swedish economy, society and polity."




Ultimately, this is the yardstick for defining a patriot. Buharism was, in its time, a patriotic ideology. But as a world-view, it goes beyond Buhari the man and his political ambitions. I dare say Buhari’s (and any leader’s) relevance, should be determined by reference to Buharism and his commitment to it. We should, finally, state that Mohammed Haruna has given us the best possible conclusion, He wrote:" Now that he has intervened with the right emphasis on the issues rather than on the personalities involved, hopefully the debate, not just about Buhari’s entry in politics but the debate about the coming elections will move away from who the key actors are to what they can do to eliminate the country’s poverty and its divisions." I rest my case.




Sept 2002

BUHARISM AS FASCISM: Engaging Balarabe Musa
By

Sanusi Lamido Sanusi
Feb., 2003

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 center-right 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.

http://www.nigerdeltacongress.com/barticles/buharism_as_fascism.htm

Did u made a mistake with your post title?

Tsiya:

Did u made a mistake with your post title?

yeah, corrected. tanx

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.

I find Sanusi's thoughts and concerns about the influence of global financial organisation(IMF, World Bank) very interesting.

I will like to know how he relates with those multilateral financial organisations now that he's CBN Governor. He sounded so suspicious and sometimes dismissive when he referred to them in the first article especially.

It's interesting to read a sitting CBN Governor express those views. I wonder how much influence they and their sympathizers within Nigeria have on Sanusi and how much resistance he puts up.

Jarus, any thoughts on Sanusi's Governorship and his relationship with IMF, WB  and co?

Kilode?!:

I find Sanusi's thoughts and concerns about the influence of global financial organisation(IMF, World Bank) very interesting.

I will like to know how he relates with those multilateral financial organisations now that he's CBN Governor. He sounded so suspicious and sometimes dismissive when he referred to them in the first article especially

It's interesting for a sitting Nigerian CBN Governor to have those views. I wonder how much influence they and their sympathizers within Nigeria have on Sanusi and how much resistance he puts up.

Jarus, any thoughts on Sanusi's Governorship and his relationship with IMF, WB and co?

I have been an open supporter of Sanusi's policies so far and I have voiced out my opinions here and in other places, including newspaper pages.
On relationship with IMF, IBRD etc, I think he has mellowed down a bit. Having read the articles written by the activist Sanusi in the years 1998-2003 where he always flayed these institutions, I think he has toned down on his criticism. Of course, this is understandable, being the country's economic manager now, it will not speak well of him to openly criticize IMF, IBRD etc. He will need them, even if caution has to be the watchword.

Jarus:

I have been an open supporter of Sanusi's policies so far and I have voiced out my opinions here and in other places, including newspaper pages.
On relationship with IMF, IBRD etc, I think he has mellowed down a bit. Having read the articles written by the activist Sanusi in the years 1998-2003 where he always flayed these institutions, I think he has toned down on his criticism. Of course, this is understandable, being the country's economic manager now, it will not speak well of him to openly criticize IMF, IBRD etc. He will need them, even if caution has to be the watchword.

That sounds sensible, show he's not fanatical about his views. As long as he continues to act with integrity, we might just have a longterm gem in that office. I've read a lot of his cultural-ideological treatise, but less of the economic ones.

Na these looter-politicians dey worry me with how they always try to remove decent public servants from their posts i.e Ayo Salami. I'll see how long Sanusi will last without compromising.