In less than a week the 2023 general elections campaigns would commence officially. Political parties and their supporters will go into the streets, villages, towns and cities across the country to present campaign promises to the electorate that candidates tend to fulfil if they eventually win. Granted, the general elections are not about the presidency alone, there are elections for governorship, National Assembly and State Houses of Assembly, respectively.
Nevertheless, this article concentrates on the presidency going by the weight it carries. The presidency determines the other electoral positions. Predominantly, supporters of the three leading candidates have attached so much over-marketing of each candidate as the “Messiah Nigeria needs”. My recent television, radio and online platform interviews have focused on the question of what economic policy and programmes leading candidates would bring to campaign grounds.
This draws our attention to project economic policy as well as the strength and weakness of the candidates. Arguably, we expect their campaign contents not to be short of practical economic programmes or simply their thinking economic policy.
First is Atiku Abubakar of the PDP who has not hidden his support for economic reforms. He favours economy/market deregulation, privatisation and public private partnership,and concession policy. And this projects his economic strategy, going by his experience and understanding of Nigeria’s economy. However, these reforms are not bad in themselves, but the process in the long run may not guarantee accountability, transparency and responsible governance.
The government would be 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, chances of creating new jobs through private initiatives would be slim, due to interest in maximising profits.
In all, Atiku Abubakar’s presidency economic reform programmes 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 would be exposed to headline inflation. Summarily, Atiku ‘s economic policy and action could further deepen Nigeria’s economic woes with the state still bailing out private companies.
Second is Peter Obi who is not far from being a reformist, and 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’s reform programme will definitely be a neoliberal economy programme 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. Peter Obi’s 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 Investments (FDIs), Foreign Investment Portfolios, and re-organisation of government owned enterprises. This will be done through commercialisation of the commanding height of state economy and stringent measures to achieve efficiency and effectiveness. Others are measures to reduce cost of governance and block leakages of government’s funds. Obi as a reformist may not tamper or go near civil service reform. He may find ways to reform our procurement process through transparent measures.
These include reviewing the procurement law to allow for the engagement of consultants and others. Interestingly, Obi’s economic reform would increase GDP growth as well as attract FDIs, FIPs and boost local production. Nigeria’s economy under the presidency of Peter Obi at best is going to gain attraction in expanding the productive base through encouragement of local manufacturers, cottage industries and government owned enterprises reactivation. In this way, Obi drives towards production for export and home-grown consumption as against import dependency.
However, his open market economic reform programme may engender loose fiscal and monetary policies that may stifle local business, and create unfavourable competition from foreign firms. The reforms may also not reduce poverty, unemployment or generate new ones. The structural deficiency in the economy that makes import dependency the clog in the wheel of local manufacturing may not have been pragmatically dealt with.
His government may be generous to still be engaged in largesse to give out money as empowerment programmes to alleviate poverty and increase minimum wage for workers. Equally, development projects on roads, agriculture, education and health would be the priority of the reform.
In summary, Obi’s reform would not be favourable 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, eaving local manufacturers struggling.
Third, we have Bola Ahmed Tinubu of the APC who needs not much introduction. As a reformist its variant is clear from Atiku Abubakar’s whose type hinges on economy/market deregulation and privatisation and Peter Obi’s market fundamentalism/forces or price determination.
In our view, Bola Tinubu’s economic reform would still be neoliberal driving. It is going to be practically hinged on fiscal and monetary state control. In this regard, Tinubu’s reform programme would favour an increase in tax policy rate and may support a major tax policy harmonisation. His reform may also tilt towards a developmental state that would create cosmetic programmes to woo foreign and local investors to buy into government initiatives in transport, aviation and housing.
His reform would definitely be anti-workers that may have the thrust of carrying out merging of public institutions and agencies. Tinubu’s policy thrust may route for the government reducing waste and improving service that citizens would have to bear the cost burden. His reform would lead to citizens incurring high costs in procuring government’s services.
In addition, Tinubu’s fiscal policy, especially in tax collection, may engage private consultants and organisations, through incentive and reward system. 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 presidency would still target GDP increases with little or no measures to reduce inflation. However, 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 programmes will be tilting towards the same neoliberal tendency but with individual variation and aspirations. Nonetheless, we believe that even as reformists the three leading candidates must go beyond mere rhetoric to practically articulate policies that would inform realistic economic improvement.
Olamilekan, political economist, writes from Abuja via [email protected], 08107407870, 08073814436
