By Adefolarin A Olamilekan
In less than two weeks from today the 2023 general election campaigns would commence officially. With political parties and their supporters going into the streets, villages, towns and cities. Across the country to present campaign promises to the electorates that candidates tend to fulfil if they eventually win. Granted, the general election is not about the Presidency alone, there are elections for Governorship, National Assembly and State Houses of Assembly’s respectively. Nevertheless, this article concentrates on the presidency going by the weight it carries. Yet, the President’s position determined a lot about the other electoral positions. Predominantly, supporters of the three leading candidates have attached so much over-marketing of each candidate as the “Messiah Nigeria need”. Still, in my recent TV, radio and online platform interview features have focused on the question of what economic policy and pro grammes leading candidates would bring to campaign grounds. Interestingly, this draws our attention to project economic policy as well as the strength and weakness of the candidate’s. Arguably we expect their campaign contents not to be short of practical economy programmes or simply their thinking economic policy.
First is. Atiku Abubakar of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) who has not hidden his support for economic reforms. That would generally favour Economy/Market Deregulation, Privatization and Public Private Partnership,and Concession policy. And this project’s as his economic strategy, going by its experience and understanding of Nigeria economic. However, these reforms are not bad in itself, but the process in the long run may not guarantee accountability, transparency and responsible governance. Chiefly, as the government would be buffer away from active participation in the economy, and just be a mere paper regulator that would wait for yearly tax file returns. Again, such a reformist agenda is proclivity to accumulate more debt both in the short term and long term. Unfortunately, reforms of this kind tend to create more wealth for the rich and poverty for millions of citizens. As jobs are cut, public workforce downsized. And chances of creating new jobs through private initiatives would be slim, due to interest in maximizing profits. In all Atiku Abubakar presidency economic reform programs through fiscal and monetary policies at best would target expansionary GDP growth increase. That may have little or no positive impact on citizens purchasing power, citizens and exposed to headline inflation’s. Summarily Atiku ‘s economic policy and action could further deepen Nigeria’s economic woes with the state still bailing out Private Companies.
Secondly, is Peter Obi that can’t be far from being a Reformist, though at best a Social Liberal Reformist. These kinds of Reformists are also known as Ultra-Right-Wing Democrats or what can be referred to as Right Centrists. In this regard Peter Obi reform program will definitely be a neoliberal economy program but would be sensitive to workers welfare. Reason being that he is the flag bearer of the Labour Party, which is not comfortable with Neoliberal agenda. Though, Peter Obi economic reforms are going to be built around “Market Theology or Price Philosophy”. This in its best is to open the economy to Foreign Direct Investment (FDIs), Foreign Investment Portfolios, and re-organization of Government Own Enterprises. Through, Commercialization of the Commanding Height of State Economy and Stringent Measures to Achieved Efficiency and Effectiveness. Others are measures to reduce cost of governance and block leakages of government funds. Primarily, Obi as a reformist may not tamper or go near civil service reform. But may find ways to reform our procurement process through viable transparent measures. Such as reviewing the procurement law to allow for the engagement of consultants and others. Interestingly, Obi economic reform would increase GDP growth as well as attract FDI’s, FIP’s and boost local production. Instructively, Nigeria’s economy under the Presidency of Peter Obi at its best is going to gain attraction in expanding the productive base through encouragement of local manufacturers, cottage industries and government owned enterprise reactivation. In this way Obi drives toward production for export and home-grown consumption as against import dependency. However, his open market economy reform program may engender loose fiscal and monetary policies that may stiffen local business, and create unfavourable competition from foreign firms. The reforms may also not reduce poverty, unemployment or generate new ones. As the structural deficiency in the economy that made import dependent the clog in the wheel of local manufacturing may have not been pragmatically dealt with. Expressly, his government may be generous to still be engaged in largess to give out money as empowerment programs to alleviate poverty and increase minimum wage for workers. Equally, development projects in roads, agriculture, education and health would be the priority of the reform. In summary, Obi reform would not be favorable to the working class and poor, because it would end up expanding the poverty gap through cosmetic programmes that are not sustainable. And much more, increasing export of raw materials instead of finished goods production. The overall is that the rich importers end up getting richer and leaving local manufacturers struggling.
Thirdly, we have Bola Ahmed Tinubu of the APC that needs not much introduction as a reformist. Its variance is clear from Atiku Abubakar whose type hinged on Economy/Market Deregulation and Privatizations and Peter Obi Market Fundamentalism/ Forces or Price Determination. In our view Bola Tinubu economy reform would still be neoliberal driving. That is going to be practically hinge on Fiscal and Monetary State Control. In this regard, Tinubu reform program would favour an increase in tax policy rate and may support a major tax policy harmonization. Although his reform may also till toward a Developmental state that would create cosmetic programmes to woo foreign and local investors to buy into government initiatives in Transport, Aviation and Housing. Laconically, his reform would definitely be anti-worker’s that may have the thrust of carrying out merging of public institutions and agencies. Essentially, through policy action that may route for the government reducing waste and improving service that citizens would have to bear the cost burden. Critically his reform would lead to citizens incurring high costs in procuring government services. In addition, Tinubu fiscal policy, especially in tax collection, may engage private consultants and organizations, through incentive and rewards systems. Nevertheless, his monetary policies may stand to curtail excesses of parallel or black-market forex, with a policy strategy that may reverse CBN forex sales ban to BDCs. But this will come with shrinking the numbers of BDCs operators and possible heavy burdens of taxes. The overall micro and macroeconomic policies of the Tinubu would still target GDP increases with little or no measures to reduce inflation. Although, given bail out to private businesses will be on the increase under his presidency.
What then? Arguably, our view on each of the candidates at best suggest they are all Reformist not Radical or Revolutionary. In this regard their policy and program will be tilling towards the same neoliberal tendency but with individual variation and aspirations. Nonetheless, we believe even as reformists the three leading candidates must go beyond mere rhetoric. To practically articulate policy action that would inform realistic economic improvement.
