Perhaps, no Nigerian president since the return of democratic rule in 1999 has had more substantial job to do than President Goodluck Jonathan. He was confronted on assumption of office with numerous infrastructural deficits. Accordingly, citizens expected him to ensure adequate and regular power supply; to fix the nations roadways; to revive the railway system; to repair years of damage to the educational system; and to equip hospitals and develop a health care policy that could increase the life expectancy of Nigerians beyond the 50-year mark. He was also expected to solve problems with national security, mass poverty, youth unemployment, adult illiteracy, and rising costs. Above all, a credible policy and political will were needed to curb escalating corruption.Although the build-up to Jonathans election and reactions to it were quite divisive, he nevertheless came to office with a lot of political capital and goodwill. How well Jonathan has drawn on this political capital and goodwill is debatable. What is beyond controversy is that he has engaged in numerous unnecessary diversions, instead of focusing on real reforms that could have direct impact on the peoples lives. Yes, Jonathan has made transformation the cornerstone of his agenda, but he has so far transformed nothing. Rather, he has deployed his political capital to the pursuit of some unproductive, even divisive, projects.It all began with the zoning debate, which occurred shortly after Jonathan succeeded the late President Umaru Musa YarAdua. For nearly three months, the debate topped the agenda in national discourse and sidelined other important issues. It was a great diversion, whose outcome created a North-South divide, which in turn fuelled other divisions. But Jonathan relished the diversion, partly because it turned the searchlight away from him and partly because many contributors argued against zoning to his liking. The anger of Northern leaders at Jonathan and the Peoples Democratic Party for jettisoning the partys zoning policy was felt in the heat of election campaigns and in post-elections violence.As soon as he was elected president, Jonathan launched another diversionary projectthe advocacy for a six-year tenure for president and governors. It was tipped off with his comment that four years do not give a president sufficient time to function effectively. It became a full- blown debate shortly after his inauguration, when he pushed the six-year tenure bill to the National Assembly. Many observers wondered then why Jonathan should make such a proposal his priority, given the variety of national problems he needed to solve.The proposal was viewed as a weak solution or no solution at all to the problem it was meant to solve. According to presidential spokesperson, Dr. Reuben Abati, The envisaged bill is part of the Jonathan administrations transformation agenda aimed at sanitising the nations politics. The President believes that this single move, when actualised, will change the face of our politics and accelerate the overall development of our nation. This illogical notion that structural change would translate to qualitative change has become a hallmark of the Jonathan Presidency. We saw it in the replacement of the 6-3-3-4 system of education with a 9-3-4 system, believing that the latter would arrest dipping standards and transform the educational system.It is a leap of logic to expect that a six-year term would suddenly change the face of our politics and accelerate the overall development of our nation. True, there would be fewer elections with a six-year term, thus saving costs, but why not address areas of cost savings separately' For example, eligible voters could register all year round at specific locations, using existing institutions as is done in the United States, instead of rushing to register all voters all at once and at huge cost prior to every election.Another controversial move by Jonathan, and the most recent diversion, is the planned removal of petroleum subsidy as early as 2012. The idea of fuel subsidy appears spurious to many citizens and even international observers, more so because the government has failed to make relevant data available about the details of the subsidy. The paltry facts we have do not add up. For example, it was recently revealed that, within this year alone, fuel subsidy had gulped over N800bn as of August 2011, whereas only N240bn was appropriated for it in the 2011 budget. Were there no reference points in previous budgets for the appropriation' How does one explain the huge gap between appropriation and expenditure, without thinking immediately of corruption, if not criminality'Comments by former government officials in the petroleum industry have expressed doubts about fuel subsidy, suggesting that the government has been abetting corruption in the oil sector. The fact that Nigeria still pays the highest pump price among the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries calls the governments claim to question. So does the assertion by the Venezuelan Ambassador to Nigeria, Enrique Arundel, that Venezuelans pay N400 (about $2.5) for the same quantity of petrol for which Nigerians pay as much as N5000 or about $30. Assuming that the government has truly been paying subsidy and now needed to stop it, a gradualist approach should have been adopted to ease consumers into higher fuel costs.Even where Jonathan has some genuine reasons to introduce something new, he often allows such effort to be mired in controversy. Such is the case with the establishment of a Sovereign Wealth Fund with an initial amount of $1bn. The action involved the movement of money from the Excess Crude Account to a newly created SWF account. According to government officials, the fund is intended to help the country save for the future, invest in strategic infrastructure projects, and act as a buffer against volatile oil prices.Nevertheless, there are many reasons for doubt, if not objection. First, why set up such a fund at a time when Nigerias infrastructure is at its lowest ebb'; when poverty is so rampant that over 70 per cent of the population live on less than $2 a day'; and when Nigerias external and domestic debts stand at $39.72bn (N6.02tn)' That Nigeria is the only OPEC country that does not have such a fund begs the question. After all, Nigeria has the worst infrastructure and the lowest rank on all international indices among OPEC countries.Jonathan complicated the controversy over the SWF account by failing to carry major stakeholders along, especially governors, whose states normally have a constitutional share of the Excess Crude Account. Alarmed over the steady depletion of the account during the YarAdua administration, the governors went to court and obtained an injunction against further withdrawals. Thats why they went back to court recently, demanding restraint from further withdrawal from the account, pending the determination of their 2008 suit.Another downside to the SWF fund is that it is yet another ilabe for the West. In a report titled, Wall Street Giants Seek a Piece of Nigerias Sovereign Fund, The New York Times of October 25, 2011, commented on how major Wall Street investment firms have been courting Nigerian officials, aiming to grab a piece of a portfolio that could eventually be worth tens of billions of dollars. The firms include Goldman Sacs, Morgan Stanley, and JPMorgan Chase, the same firms whose financial dealings nearly ruined the worlds economy a couple of years ago.But the problem is not whether the funds will be well invested. It is whether Nigerian officials could allow them to last. Heres how The New York Times puts it: But Nigeria has a spotty record managing its money. In 2004, the country started plowing extra oil revenue into a separate account, as a way to build savings. At one point, the portfolio held an estimated $20bn The funds did not last longBy last year, the assets had plummeted to less than $1bn.The problem with the four projects reviewed above is that none of them has put an ear of corn on the table, added a kilowatt of electricity, or put tar on some roadway. In effect, none of them has advanced Jonathans transformation agenda.Professor Akinnaso teaches Anthropology and Linguistics at Temple University, Philadelphia, United States. He can be reached at niyi@temple.edu
Click here to read full news..
