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.

Buharism Beyond Buhari: A Response to Mohammed Haruna
By
SANUSI LAMIDO SANUSI
LONDON, SEPTEMBER 6, 2002
(All views personal)
lamidos@hotmail.com




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 unclothed, 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 divine 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 authoritarianism, but authoritarianism 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. These are concepts which they do not understand and whose roots and implications they have not studied. 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. “Privatisation” is not about the private sector creating new assets by investing in the economy but about selling to private persons assets belonging to the state at a price they deem “fair”. 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 profitably 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. In technical terms the supply curve shifts to the right leading to a reduction in price of food and bringing in poor consumers. But the economist will tell you: “Subsidies are bad.” The Harunaesque economist, that is. The implication of this of course is that the poor and hungry do not matter, and that the state should not bear the cost of reducing hunger. It is an ethical question in which value judgement comes into play, making exposing the fallacy of the positivist claims of objectivity. 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. It is through analysis of who stands to benefit from particular economic policies that the true ideological character of Mohammed Haruna and his group of “patriotic” economists (and rulers) emerges.



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? In the early 20th century, what became known as Keynesian Economics was actually anticipated and implemented in Sweden even before the publication of Keynes’ 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 of the Swedish school, 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, and I have stated my position on that. But perhaps 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.

With SLS now serving under GEJ, will he support Buhari for 2011?

SLS actually says he does not want Buhari to lead Nigeria as the president, he only sees him playing the role of a statesman, the problem we have is that the people Buhari will mentor have no chance of ever getting there. I believe Buhari should run and if GEJ is sincere, let him conduct a free and fair election (he can rig out IBB in their primaries ).

Sanusi lamido Sanusi has spoken like a patriot and has clearly shown how he stands in our present economy.

he posited like i have always done that Buhari should mentor younger ones to achieve what he could not achieve, this he can do by taking Ribadu under his arms and give Ribadu his backing any day both financially and morally.

I like the statement by SLS when he said he would give Buhari his vote for what it was worth not because of the man Buhari but for what he stood for.

Buhari is a great leader that Nigerians have shown little appreciation for, how do we call him a religious bigot when in his tenure he actually reduced the number of islamic pilgrims.

I need to know more about the Buhari era although the little i know of it has always endeared me to the man buhari.

This thread becomes relevant again.

One of the best articles I have read in recent times. And I still felt the Nigerian pride while reading this. my best part of the article is below:

Muslims for example cursed Buhari’s government for restricting the number of pilgrims in order to conserve foreign exchange

Jarus:

This thread becomes relevant again.

Yep, I also like watching programs about dinosaurs on National Geographic Channel.


I am still waiting for someone to tell me where the votes for buhari will come from in the South of Nigeria. How you intend to explain to the SW, SS, and SE that the coup plotting dinosaur is what they have been waiting for.

May God bless both Buhari and SLS, where are the GEJ supporters? We need them to respond to this article.

hercules07:

May God bless both Buhari and SLS, where are the GEJ supporters? We need them to respond to this article.

I asked a question in the post above yours, answer it or keep quiet. This eunuchs dance you do is boring. Who cares really what is in some article? Articles don't vote. Talk about something that VOTERS care about.

Look at it this way, of what use are 100,000,000 internet votes if none of them can vote on the day of election? Talk about something that matters to the NIGERIANS in Nigeria who will vote on that day.

Johndoe

the problem with some Nigerians is we dont read but live on rumours, hearsay(the profession of no-jobbers). I am sure you have not read that article before you posted. read the article, criticise and give us your opinion. dont just throw it out like a lazy student!

johndoe200:

I asked a question in the post above yours, answer it or keep quiet. This eunuchs dance you do is boring. Who cares really what is in some article? Articles don't vote. Talk about something that VOTERS care about.

Look at it this way, of what use are 100,000,000 internet votes if none of them can vote on the day of election? Talk about something that matters to the NIGERIANS in Nigeria who will vote on that day.

The millions of almajiris in the north who dont have internet acess will vote Buhari. This debate is relevant for the elites and that is why we are having an intellectual debate. The article is very relevant!!!

Lagosboy:

The millions of almajiris in the north who dont have internet acess will vote Buhari. This debate is relevant for the elites and that is why we are having an intellectual debate. The article is very relevant!!!

Your main problem is that there are no almajirs in the south and without votes from the south, no one can be president. The southern voters already know what they want, and sadly BUHARI or Ribadu is not it.

johndoe,

so south will win without northern vote? i pity your brains man.

please read below


The last Northerners standing Monday, 17 January 2011 00:07 Mahmud Jega mmjega@dailytrust.com, 08054102925
I was still dizzy with sleep at 11am last Friday, having stood up all night to report on the PDP convention, when my friend Umar phoned from Funtua. He was driving through that commercial town in Katsina State on his way to Sokoto that morning, and when he stopped to refuel, he said he saw a large group of men, young and old, huddled together in the harmattan cold to discuss the issue of the moment.

They were in mournful mood, Umar said; they were saying, in unison, that the very large Katsina State delegation to the PDP convention the previous night, which they watched live on television, had betrayed them by voting for President Goodluck Jonathan.

As the day wore on, the dozens of text messages and phone calls I received indicated that the mood of the Funtua men was the same in many parts of the North. Angry text messages described Governors Ibrahim Shema, Murtala Nyako, Sule Lamido, Aliyu Doma, Ibrahim Idris, Isa Yuguda, Danjuma Goje and Bukola Saraki in unprintable terms.

On the other hand, Governors Aliyu Wamakko, Mu’azu Babangida Aliyu, Sa'idu Usman Dakingari and Mamuda Aliyu Shinkafi, as well as Kano PDP leader Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso, were hailed in the text messages as “true sons of the North” and “true heirs of the Sardauna.”

Well, well. Someone sent me a text message that day charging that the minority of Northern delegates that voted for Atiku Abubakar at the convention did so “on sentimental regional grounds.” That could be true. What will he however say of the Southern delegates, more than 99% of whom voted for fellow Southerner Dr. Goodluck Jonathan?

Anyway, I personally did not expect a different result from what obtained on Friday. Last Monday, I noted in this column that no PDP governor, no matter how unpopular, was defeated in the party’s governorship primaries, and even departing ones easily anointed their successors. How then could you expect the sitting president to be defeated in his own primaries?

Now, even though the idea that another Northerner should complete the hypothetical Yar’adua second term gained a lot of support in the North in the past one year, the idea of a Northern consensus candidate, such as was championed by the NPLF, was not greeted with a lot of enthusiasm. This was partly due to the aspirants that were thrown up--not the most popular fellows in the North--and partly because President Jonathan’s mild character made it difficult to turn him into an Obasanjo-like hate figure.

Still, the whole back and forth debate for and against “zoning” [actually, power rotation] since mid-last year put the Northern governors in quandary, forcing a majority of them to vote for “zoning” at a summit in Kaduna last July.

Governors’ opinion is very important here, because political events and processes in this country over the past decade have shown them to be the political force with the greatest ability to deliver delegate votes at primaries as well as to deliver general election votes, by hook or by crook.

Now, the President of the Federal Republic, even a powerful one such as Obasanjo, cannot really deliver delegates or popular votes on his own. However, since he controls the party’s national officers as well as other instruments such as the police, EFCC and [until recently] INEC, he can and does control the state governors. It looks like INEC is now gone from the president’s bag of electoral tricks, but he still has many other tools, including the Federal Treasury.

Ordinarily, given that self-interest directs a Nigerian politician’s actions, any state governor, especially a PDP member, would love to be in the President’s good books, even if the President is unpopular.

Until recently, governors did not care very much about popularity, believing as they did that factors other than popularity win elections here. However, last year’s changes at INEC, and the electoral commission’s new body language of apparent independence, has had a psychological impact on the governors. For the first time since 1999, they are beginning to think that perhaps the will of the people could prevail in April’s elections.

As such, a governor may want to support the president for his own political self-interest, but he must also look over his shoulder at public sentiment in his home state.

Southern governors have no problem in this regard, since there is a general sympathy for President Jonathan in their states, especially in the Niger Delta states. Their personal self-interest therefore coincides with their constituents’ wishes.

It was the Northern governors that faced and still face a dilemma, especially since the presidential elections will hold before the governors’ own elections in April. Many of them already face a serious challenge from General Muhammadu Buhari’s CPC. The last thing they want is to be accused of betraying the Northern consensus and the desire of the North to hold on to the presidency in 2011-15.

That, in addition to other factors, helps to explain the overwhelming vote for Atiku by the Sokoto, Kebbi, Zamfara, Niger and Kano delegates. Otherwise, Atiku Abubakar is not particularly popular in the old Sokoto area, due to statements he made during the 2003 campaign. He said in Gusau that he would not visit those states again if they did not throw out their ANPP governors [they didn’t, in 2003].

Atiku was not particularly popular in Kano State either, because he once said that the North East region was marginalised by the North West. However, Kano’s PDP chapter is in a tough 3-way race against CPC and the ruling ANPP. It therefore needs a lot of Federal support, but then, if the delegates had been seen to have voted for Jonathan at the convention, Kano’s volatile youths could have made life difficult for them.

Though Jonathan won all the other Northern states apart from these five, Atiku’s relatively good showing in Bauchi, Borno, Yobe, Kaduna, Adamawa and Taraba suggests that he would have won those states if not for the forceful intervention of governors and, in some cases, ministers.

The Northern governors’ fear, in summary, is that if the president were to lose the election on April 9, then most of them would go down to defeat the following week. Now, even if Jonathan wins the election but he loses in a particular state, that state’s PDP governor will be in deep trouble the following week.

Given the feelings across the North at the weekend, the possibility is high that Jonathan will not be able to carry many Northern states in the April elections.

I am saying this despite a text message that someone sent to me, saying there will be no Northern backlash because Jonathan won 14 of the 19 Northern states and FCT at the convention. Now, my dear friend, winning the PDP delegates is one thing; winning the popular vote is another thing altogether.

The Anenih-style manoeuvre at the convention that allocated ballot boxes to states [Jonathan's people say it was Atiku that invented it] clearly violated the spirit, if not the letter, of secret balloting. As a newspaper commentator, I am not complaining because it turned out to be a boon for political analysis.

Its main purpose, though, was probably to enable the Chief Fixer Tony Anenih to actualise his threat in Port Harcourt to “fish out” and punish anyone, or at least any governor who did not deliver his state to Jonathan.

That may have been Anenih’s purpose, but the manoeuvre has also backfired, at least in the North. It has now enabled the voters to fish out the governors and delegates that voted against the people’s wishes at the PDP convention and probably deal with them at the polls in April.

johndoe200:

Your main problem is that there are no almajirs in the south and without votes from the south, no one can be president. The southern voters already know what they want, and sadly BUHARI or Ribadu is not it.

The equivalent of the Northern almajiris in the south and in particular the SW are the Agberos, the Road transport workers, the market traders. Buddie, these people are the one that makes the difference, they are the voters and not me and you among the elite that will never even register to vote.

These people in the SW dont give a hoot about religion and would vote whoever their leader asks them to vote for.

The only support base GEJ has is in the SS and might split the SE but the entire South is a far call. Forget the PDP convention of only 5000 delegates coerced by their governors. PDP only has 2 states in the SW. lets wake up to the reality!!

SAI BUHARI!!!

I have also read that Mahmud's article up there this morning, and it corroborates what I have been saying that these delegates are on thier own.
Not only does GEJ stand not winning general elections in these northern states he won at primaries, but their state governors that directed their delegates to vote for him, risk not getting re-elected. Not even VP Sambo can move near Kaduna at the moment. Those northern populace are battle ready for PDP, and their delegates. One doesn't need a crystal ball to tell that in addition to Zamfara, Sokoto, Niger, and Kano, GEJ doesn't stand chance in other core northern states(both SE &SW) in general elections.

On the above article, I put it forward because it was the only article that discusses Buhari's political and economic ideology, other write-ups on him only talk about his personality, he is religious bigot, he is ethnic jingoist etc, but this article by Sanusi in 2002 discusses his ideology. What is GEJ's, and by extension PDP's, ideology?

Jarus:

What is GEJ's, and by extension PDP's, ideology?

PDP's only ideology is the sharing of the National cake, whilst their supporters (Beaf, Rasputtin, Na So etc) cheer from the sidelines at the chance for one of their kinsmen to join the plutocracy lootocracy.

Ibime:

PDP's only ideology is the sharing of the National cake, whilst their supporters (Beaf, Rasputtin, Na So etc) cheer from the sidelines at the chance for one of their kinsmen to join the plutocracy lootocracy.

ROMFLAO

Dont forget Jakumo i think he is a fan of GEJ as well.

GEJ has no ideology and Atiku was right when he said if you ask GEJ his plans for Nigeria we should doubt if we would get a coherent answer

If you love corruption and backwardness and a spendthrift govt that spends money with nothing to show for it, vote for Jonathan Goodluck. If you hate corruption as a progressive and want total eradication and instilling of discipline in Nigerians, vote for Gen Buhari. If you want favoritism, selective justice, witch hunting then vote Ribadu.

the choice is yours,make a wise choice,make the right choice and you'll be glad you did

#RSVP
#Rig2011ElectionsAndYouDie

@Johndoe

Some people have some work to do you know, GEJ can not sweep the whole of the South in a free and fair elections, infact, if ACN and CPC work together with Buhari as the Presidential candidate, GEJ will not win in a free and fair election, he might sweep the SS and SE, but, he will will lose in all the other regions.

First of all, permit me to say I'm a passionate and unrepentant follower of SLS especially his views on Welfare and development Economics but I find myself wondering if this article was truly meant to be to the credit of Gen Buhari's repressive and economically inept govt. or perharps a Satirical piece intended to expose the folly of the General and his regime to folks out there that have heard nothing but stories about the Generals 'Good' intentions.
The lack of national political icons is so often brought to the fore by articles as this that are no more than feeble attempts to re-write history by transforming catastrophic failures to national heroes at the mere whim of a clever writer - Cry Nigeria, or how else can u explain the elevation of a Buhari to the level of a Pandit Nehru whose economic vision modern day India is founded upon or Chairman Mao who was synonymous to ruthlessness but today is celebrated as the foundation of a successful China or coming closer to home, a Thomas Sankara who while Gen Buhari's domestic policy was whipping people into queues, instituted widespread reforms in his country (Burkina faso) that included compulsory vaccinations,doubling Wheat production by redistributing lands from feudal landlords to peasant farmers, halting desertification thru massive tree planting,establishing a network or road/rail transport to "tie up his country", outlawing polygamy and forced marriages in his predominantly moslem country, encouraging girls to stay in school even if pregnant among other laudable foreign policies and today is widely regarded by most as Africas biggest loss. Of course he's repressive tendencies were matched and surpassed by Buhari, but while he's were laudable and seen as truly being in the interest of his nation, can we say same about Buhari?

@Wesley

SLS is blunt and says things the way they are, if you can read the article properly, you will see where he said Buhari will be rememberd for good deeds. A lot of countries that are powerful today were brought forth from repressive regimes, the only difference between them and Naija is that their leaders had the love of their country at heart.

The whole idea of "Buharism" ( this is such a huge joke) seems to Border around his rejection of SAP but in reality was SAP such aterrible economic proposition? were d likes of Falae and idika kalu really economic saboteurs to have advocated 4 its implementation? of course the conditions necessary for its success were not present in Ngr at the time but wasnt that what the whole idea was about? the inevitable economic hardships that were supposed to come with SAP were supposed to force us to look inwards and with complementary govt. policies, help us realize the Ngr of our dreams:more like stooping to conquer. IBB's mistake was assuming SAP was a sort of Economic auto-pilot that wld take us to the promise land while he just did his thing so if anything, Buhari deserves raps for not accepting the challenge of SAP esp when he's own economic idea's left the country worse off.

Jarus:

I have also read that Mahmud's article up there this morning, and it corroborates what I have been saying that these delegates are on thier own.
Not only does GEJ stand not winning general elections in these northern states he won at primaries, but their state governors that directed their delegates to vote for him, risk not getting re-elected. Not even VP Sambo can move near Kaduna at the moment. Those northern populace are battle ready for PDP, and their delegates. One doesn't need a crystal ball to tell that in addition to Zamfara, Sokoto, Niger, and Kano, GEJ doesn't stand chance in other core northern states(both SE &SW) in general elections.

Let us all cheer, Buhari has won the election on NL , Ribadu came second!!!!.

The reality is that PDP is the party to beat in the REAL WORLD. On the ground we are there. We will take on the regional parties and beat them in their regions.

hercules07:

@Johndoe

Some people have some work to do you know, GEJ can not sweep the whole of the South in a free and fair elections, infact, if ACN and CPC work together with Buhari as the Presidential candidate, GEJ will not win in a free and fair election, he might sweep the SS and SE, but, he will will lose in all the other regions.

Stop putting forth your opinions as if they are facts. According to your fantasy, PDP get zero votes when ACN wins an election in the SW and SE. We will work on the regions we feel we need to shore up, but as usual we will come out on top.

GEJ doesn't stand chance in other core northern states(both SE &SW) in general elections.

I meant NE & NW here pls.

@Topic
This whole articles are so interesting and revealing. Too bad NL's legion of mouthy online footsoldiers would be put off by its length and wld lose this opportunity to get a grasp of the real issues they all so often fail to pay attention.

Jarus
you are tool much on political matters.but am not sure you in office or are you

working at all? Aburo, 10 gbosa for for hooooooooooooooooooo

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.

-Sanusi

Mmmmmm! This part of the article struck my sweet bone!
I think many of the Buhari huggers here cannot read that well.

Things stay the same....