Back Page: Why The Muddle On Social Intervention?

 

By Kanmi Ademiluyi

A well coordinated anti-poverty strategy has for long been absent in Nigeria. This was accentuated with the advent of the structural adjustment programme in 1985 when the now discarded “Washington Consensus” virtually saw concerted state interventions outside of a skewed definition of a “market based framework” as an anachronism. Mercifully, this perspective has now been jettisoned. The exemplary success of the social intervention programmes of the government of Ignacio Lula da Silva provided ample evidence that anti-poverty programmes could be conducted without dislocating the (prudential) fiscal balance. Instructively “lula’s” programmes in Brazil successfully raised forty (40) million people out of poverty in eight years. It was an astonishing piece of social engineering.

In spite of continuing economic uncertainties, the present federal government has to be commended for placing an anti-poverty thrust at the heart of its social and economic policies. The two are clearly interwoven. With alarming poverty figures and so many children stubbornly still out of school, it is the sensible course to take. Sadly, as with everything else in a dysfunctional democracy, the absence of a national democratic agreement on these programmes will inevitably drag them into the cesspool of contrived partisan bickering. Providing a position for fine-tuning is very much in order; however, a clarion call for disbanding the programmes wholesale is unacceptable. Much more so, since not even the perfunctory outline of an alternative is on offer.

The attack on the vice president in the National Assembly last week should not be just discarded as pre-election jitters. It portrays a dysfunctional interpretation of the duties of a government in a democracy. It also goes into the heart of the duties and responsibilities of the state, as well as the workings of the social contract, which ought to be the grundnorm for the operations of a functioning democracy. Without a clear alternative, there is every reason to question the motivation of the transducers of Vice President Yemi Osinbajo. The programmes being implemented are in the manifesto with which the vice president’s party contested and won the election. It will be a swindlle to jettison the programme once ensconced in office, and fundamentally the programmes are actually needed. In the absence of even a perfunctory alternative, it is clear that there is a fear which dares not speak its real name. Obviously, in the absence of a national democratic agreement on anything, there is a fear that the incumbent has stumbled on an election deciding battering ram. The absurdity here is that a political party cannot anywhere be expected to discard a programme because it will confer an electoral advantage. This sort of self-immolation has no precedence in political history, which is hardly surprising.

In addition, there is something profoundly disturbing entailed. There is a revelation here of the interpretation of both political economy and the social contract on the part of both the parliamentarians, as well as the merchandisers of ethnic interests, who have not surprisingly jumped into the fray in an election season. The interpretation of the motive is important. It will appear that government policy should not be in the interest of the overwhelming majority, as opposed to the long established benefits of a select few. It is not uncharitable to bring up inconvenient propositions. For example, we are not aware of opposition from the same sources to what is in effect subsidies to the well connected through the now ubiquitous Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON). Through these pervasive bailouts, sums roughly worth an entire federal government budget have been used to ameliorate what ought to be moral hazards, which ought to have been borne by the defaulting fat cats. The list goes on. Nary a word of dissent has come from these quarters about sweetheart privatisation deals, import duty waivers which, during a better forgotten interregnum, used to be dished out like confetti at a raucous wedding. This attitude reveals alot about an utmost contempt for the rights of the majority.

The opportunity costs of bailouts for a pampered elite is huge. It translates into a crumbling, dilapidated social infrastructure. It clearly affects the security framework through the inducement into existence of a “dangerous class “, a social strata lacking the means, as well as the skills necessary to compete, let alone survive in today’s conditions. It is worth noting that the State of Osun, where many of today’s social intervention programmes had been initially pioneered, also has one of the lowest poverty rates in the country.

The economic benefits, in terms of fighting poverty and transiting people out of poverty, is unambiguous. Nigeria has always had a problem with the financial inclusiveness necessary to empower the underbanked. This is a way of tackling it. The regional governments in the 1950s and the early ’60s attempted to tackle the lack of access to capital with the establishment of the cooperative banks in the regions. Hitherto, we have always had a problem with the structure of the Anglo-Saxon banking system bequethed by the colonial incursion, with its debilitating emphasis on a short term framework. It was not just a “third world” problem. In the United Kingdom itself, it has been a problem affecting the country’s competitiveness. The effect of the establishment of the cooperative banking model was demonstrably beneficial. It allowed access to capital through cooperatives to small holder farmers and helped those in the burgeoning urban distributive trade. Sadly the unintended consequences of the Soludo reforms and the emergence of the “mega banks” has disrupted this model. What we are seeing through “Tradermoney” and other initiatives, is the beginning of a fight back; it should be supported.

It is clear that two roads face us in this country. Either to stick with a political economy based on croynism, which the incomparable Fela Kuti described as “paddy, paddy” government or pursue policies which will be of benefit to the overwhelming majority and their families. The vice president will be derelict in his duties to allow himself to be bullied out of supporting the largest social intervention programme since independence. Imperfect as they are, they must be fine-tuned, deepened and defended.

 

Kanmi Ademiluyi a former chairman of the editorial board of the Daily Independent newspaper wrote in from Osogbo.