Buharism as Fascism: Engaging Balarabe Musa
By
Sanusi Lamido Sanusi
London, February 20, 2003
(All views personal)
lamidos@hotmail.com
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?
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.”
5. We would expect a focus on an educational program that seeks transfer of skills
and technology and the development of indigenous human capital.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.

How I wan take start to dhe read dis long tin Next person shld pls read and summarize

he saw d future..... na d summary be that

This man called Sanusi is really a genius, his analysis of buhari over 10years has been as accurate as we have later come to find out. Thorough analysis. Kudos to one of my mentors.

PMB my HERO!!!

God Bless you more sir!
Long live Nigeria
Long live Nairaland.