By T Iboroma Akpana

My friend and colleague Comrade Abdul Mahmud wrote "Comrade IB, on this national subsidy wahala, your silence amounts to betrayal o! Your wall
is dead to the issue. This is unlike you, " Now the Comrade and I have had extremely heated albeit good natured debates on the issue of subsidies since the 1980's and I am not in the least surprised that he has brought his characteristic passion and intellect to bear on the debate this time around. On my part, my weariness is largely a reflection of the fact that over the years, my views have ossified and there really cannot be any epiphany for me! The Comrade and my girl Alexis have now sought to rouse me from my blissful state of ennui! This debate really represents each of our most deeply held underlying beliefs about what works in society and how our society should be organized to mean the most to its citizens. Of course over time the debate has been framed slightly differently but at its core, the issues have not changed. For the record, I remain irrevocably opposed to this inefficient and corrupt subsidy regime that imperils the future of our children and places a disproportionate burden on the most vulnerable in our society. This debate is really about the future of our children and as a parent of three young children myself, I cannot find common ground with anything that imperils their future any further and denies them the chance to have a real shot at a decent and productive life. Over the years the pro-subsidy argument has been largely schizophrenic with a capacity to mutate itself but shorn of all grandstanding, it has three essential strands having lost the economic argument for the subsidy retention. Briefly, they are; 1. Nigeria produces oil and so the subsidy is a benefit and reward of our citizenship especially in a country without social safety nets - simply put entitlement; 2. A fortiori, it is a safety net for the "poor" who will be most affected by any price spikes and are already suffering the brunt of leadership failure over the years; 3. Our government is wasteful and profligate so why should we accept any policy that puts more money into their hands whilst demanding further sacrifices from an impoverished citizenry? In any event, the govt should do its job and plug all leakages and corruption so we do not have to suffer for their ineptitude. I recall sometime in the 1980's during these debates, the Late Stanley Macebuh (one of the finest public intellectuals of his generation) raised a poser thus "Should any generation be allowed to consume wily nily, a common resource that belongs to us all without any consideration for future generations?" That question represents my response to those who make what I refer to as the entitlement argument. More recently Sanusi Lamido Sanusi put this poser "Assuming we take a sovereign bond with a 25 year maturity period to finance the 1.5 trillion Naira subsidy; can it be right that our children a made to pay such a debt so we can buy petrol at 65 Naira?" These two posers define my attitude to this subsidy regime. In any event, why 65 Naira? Why not free? Will free petrol abolish poverty or all the ills of government in our country? If it really is for the poor, why don't we target the poor and make this subsidy available to them? Of course that is not possible and experience teaches (several studies conducted on the issue of subsidies) conclusively that subsidies serve no useful function as a basis for organizing social relations in society. And to the folks who say government should rein in the cabal and check corruption they miss the point completely and it reflects their views about the limits of government. The entire subsidy architecture is one that rewards and incentivizes opportunistic behavior. Given our nature as rational maximizers, we are likely to behave opportunistically and seek to game the system. The mischief can only be solved by removing the structure that incentivizes corruption. In any event, given our acceptance of our institutional weaknesses, is it not counter intuitive that we seek the retention of a system whose monitoring is left to the same government? On a personal level, my underlying conservative beliefs mean that I am distrustful of all governments. In this case, I am also not a fan of the current federal government so I would much rather markets, imperfect as they are determine the efficient allocation of this important and wasting national asset. I agree with those who call for spending cuts across board with various branches and levels of our government. These cuts are necessary and we must continue to engage to reform our government. That is what our citizenship demands of us but to pine for the retention of a wasteful policy in response to government ineptitude is really a case of cutting our noses to spite our face. More importantly, we should never forget that this debate properly framed is about the future of our children. Let us vote for a better future for our children. Understandably, the labor, "yuman rights" activists and sundry do-gooders have called this a fight for the "poor" but with a little rigor and sincerity, it is clear that most of them are being self serving and sanctimonious. The way to lift people out of poverty is to create an economy that provides opportunities for growth. As to the issue of timing, there really is no good time and because govt resources are finite, those who request that we create the perfect society in every sense before proceeding with a necessary policy choice are being disingenuous. Let this subsidy go! And there you have it,

I wonder why it is difficult for the NLC to understand these sort of articulate argument