By Waziri Adio

President Goodluck Jonathan touched all the bases and made some grand gestures in his “I-feel-your-pains” speech on Sunday night. He acknowledged the hardship inflicted on Nigerians by fuel subsidy removal, provided rationale for the removal, announced additional cushioning measures, and imposed sacrifice on officials in the executive arms of government. The broadcast was intended to bring down the rising temper in the land, and can be adjudged the best official attempt at engaging Nigerians on this touchy issue so far. But the broadcast failed to deliver the expected bang. It came at least six months late.

To be sure, subsidy removal is a difficult and contentious form of reform the world over. This is especially so on a product that is widely used in an economy without a functioning mass transit system and regular power supply. You don’t need to be an economist to know that the multiplier effects will ripple from different points. Naturally, strong opposition is to be expected. Because of its instant and widespread impact, a strong coalition of the disaffected will naturally emerge, with or without mobilization by the unions and civic groups. However, the major threat to this important agenda is not the usual suspects: it is the government itself.

To say the government has not handled this sensitive issue in an effective manner is to be charitable. Even when a good case could be made for ending the dysfunctional fuel subsidy system, the government, for a long time, carried on as if it had no obligation to persuade Nigerians on the need to endure pains and on how to effectively allocate their common-wealth. What could pass for engagement has been characterized by missteps that have broadened opposition against fuel subsidy removal and the deregulation agenda.

The first major misstep was in allowing the governors to lead the charge. It would be recalled that the governors met with the President in late June 2011 and called for the removal of fuel subsidy so that they could have money to pay the minimum wage. This was the first strategic error. By making this an issue about more money for government, the governors succeeded in muddling the water and solidifying opposition to the reform agenda. Why should Nigerians endure certain pains for uncertain promises from governors who, save for a few, have not given good account of the resources in their custody? The Administration did nothing to reframe the issue. (Yet, the cardinal rule is that you should be the first to frame the issue and on your own terms). Worse, the government keeps courting the governors as allies, even when it is clear that the governors as a group lack both the credibility and the capital to help when the attendant anger expectedly mutates into demonstrations, strikes and riots.

The second misstep is the absence of a clear and well-thought-out strategy for effectively advancing this reform agenda. Endeavours like this are usually preceded by robust stakeholders mapping, scenario building, implementation plan and effective communication. For most part, government appears uncoordinated and confused. Rather than set the agenda, the government seems to be playing catch-up all the time and favouring predictable but ineffective tactics of the past. The announcement was done without tact. The messaging and framing are clumsy. Groundwork is done after. The organizing logic seems to be: carts are better before horses. Evident in all of these is the failure of staff work and strategic thinking. This unfortunate impression was solidified by a number of related missteps such as the lack of clear programme of palliatives until two months after the announcement, the lack of consultation on the content of the palliatives, the way the palliative was introduced, and the so-called consultations with stakeholders after the fact. For close to two months after the take-off date was announced with executive fiat, mum was the word from government, apart from interventions by obviously sponsored groups. In the absence of robust and honest engagement by government, the pro-subsidy camp had the field to itself and succeeded in expanding opposition to subsidy removal.

A related misstep is lack of a clear plan for citizens’ engagement. Possibly, the thinking in government was that the critical success factors would be technocratic competence and political will. As important as these are, they are not enough for a reform that could ground the economy, could further impoverish Nigerians and could complicate the country’s security situation. From the stealthy way in which the policy was announced in October 2011 via a letter to the National Assembly to the refusal to dialogue directly with Nigerians until very recently, the government has come unnecessarily cocky, especially with its mantra of “no alternative” which curiously forecloses discussion or debate in a democracy!

(It is possible that the need for citizens’ engagement was dismissed based on Nigerians’ legendary resilience and the difficulty of sustaining strike action for a while. While that analysis may be partially correct, it is dated. It fails to take account of the widening poverty in the land, the growing frustration of our jobless youths, the widespread anger about perks of politicians, the emergence of new networks of information and mobilization, and the inspiration offered by youth-led uprising in North Africa, the Middle East and the UK. Anyone on top of these trends would know that the day of the docile Nigerians is over.)

Another tactical error is in linking subsidy removal to ending the incentive for corruption embedded in the subsidy payment regime. This is a very pathetic argument that has done a lot to undermine the case for subsidy removal and has cost government a lot of goodwill. It is a widely-held belief (supported by statements from some government officials) that the fuel importers consistently game the system by making claims higher than the quantity they import. The implication of this corruption argument is that the government is too weak to take on the oil cartel (because of their big friends in government) but strong enough to take bold actions that will inflict pains on the people; that the oil importers who are allegedly committing clear economic crimes are untouchables (despite EFCC, SSS etc), and that the people should bear the brunt. How will anyone buy such an argument?

And yet another error is the failure of government to appreciate that this issue is more about trust than spin. All over the world, governments suffer from trust deficits. It would have been expected that the Administration would invest a lot of effort into building trust with Nigerians by front-loading some of the palliatives. But rather than reassure Nigerians, the government chose a shock-and-awe approach. After promising that the subsidy will stay till March/April this year, the Administration removed the plug on January 1st, 2012. This ambush method is an expression of bad faith. It has seriously undercut whatever little trust people have in the government and more than anything else has activated widespread opposition against subsidy removal and the government itself.

The analysis above is not to suggest that deregulation is doomed. The agenda can still be salvaged; the government can claw back to the plot. The President has made a good start with his Sunday speech. But he needs to go deeper: government officials need to sacrifice more. Another look at the proposed 2012 will help. Beyond all these symbolic gestures, the Administration needs to make a tactical retreat. It should bring down the heat by suspending the subsidy removal, then initiating a process of engaging Nigerians with reason and respect.

• Adio is a member of Thisday Editorial Board.
Source: http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/subsidy-how-govt-lost-the-plot/106801/

He lost it when he failed to make the necessary sacrifices himself. . . BY TAKING AWAY HIS OWN ALLOWANCES! He should have led by example. What a dunce!

Finland:

By Waziri Adio


The first major misstep was in allowing the governors to lead the charge. It would be recalled that the governors met with the President in late June 2011 and called for the removal of fuel subsidy so that they could have money to pay the minimum wage. This was the first strategic error. By making this an issue about more money for government, the governors succeeded in muddling the water and solidifying opposition to the reform agenda. Why should Nigerians endure certain pains for uncertain promises from governors who, save for a few, have not given good account of the resources in their custody? The Administration did nothing to reframe the issue. (Yet, the cardinal rule is that you should be the first to frame the issue and on your own terms). Worse, the government keeps courting the governors as allies, even when it is clear that the governors as a group lack both the credibility and the capital to help when the attendant anger expectedly mutates into demonstrations, strikes and riots.

• Adio is a member of Thisday Editorial Board.
Source: http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/subsidy-how-govt-lost-the-plot/106801/

It was never about the masses. It was never about the in-fracture. It was about more money for the corrupt governors

Finland:

By Waziri Adio



And yet another error is the failure of government to appreciate that this issue is more about trust than spin. All over the world, governments suffer from trust deficits. It would have been expected that the Administration would invest a lot of effort into building trust with Nigerians by front-loading some of the palliatives. But rather than reassure Nigerians, the government chose a shock-and-awe approach. After promising that the subsidy will stay till March/April this year, the Administration removed the plug on January 1st, 2012. This ambush method is an expression of bad faith. It has seriously undercut whatever little trust people have in the government and more than anything else has activated widespread opposition against subsidy removal and the government itself.



• Adio is a member of Thisday Editorial Board.
Source: http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/subsidy-how-govt-lost-the-plot/106801/

GEJ is too dumb to sense these

Isn't this what we have been saying? A badly and wickedly implemented policy it is.

Pukkah:

Isn't this what we have been saying? A badly and wickedly implemented policy it is.

na so