DEMOCRACY WITHOUT PEOPLE

The piece you are reading was written five days ago, on the fifth day of the national resistance against the decision of President Goodluck Jonathan to remove subsidy on petroleum. Many things are likely to have changed as you read this, perhaps for the better, perhaps for the worse. We live in troubled times. Our city of Kaduna has been under curfew since the second day of the protests, so we have been locked out of the national resistance. We are being let out for a few hours today to breathe some fresh air, and for those who have some little money, to scramble over very little and extremely expensive scarce commodities. Like citizens in Niger, Nassarawa, Kano, Zamfara, Kebbi and a few other States, we are paying the price for the overzealousness of a few, mostly young people who thought that we are having our equivalent of the Arab Spring. No one can say when we will be let out for good, but there is much restiveness from behind gates and walls. People are angry that they have been confined without food, water or other essentials, and when they are eventually released, they will come out to find that their lives have been radically altered by the removed subsidy.

The curfews being placed in large parts of the country contrast sharply with the massive protests we see on television by fellow citizens who are still free to protest. We also see empty streets in most parts of the country, and widespread lamentations from people who are suffering over strikes, lockouts and poverty. Every time we see mammoth crowds in Lagos and Abuja, citizens here jubilate in the hope that President Jonathan will be touched to reverse his decision on the removed subsidy. Then, either his Minister of Finance or Governor of the Central Bank, or Minister of Petroleum Resources comes on the screen to say the subsidy will stay, and Nigerians just don’t get it. Labour leaders come on the screen to say it will be a fight to finish. Panels on television shows reel out statistics, facts and figures and arguments to confuse us even more. Many say Nigerians do not understand what the subsidy issue is all about. And they are right. Others say the governments is involved in a grand deception over the subsidy, and we think they are right. Yet others say there is much more to this matter than removal of subsidy; that issues about accountability, transparency and the competence of the administration are at stake. And we think they are right.

All in all, you could say that the Nigerian people are pretty much out of the picture in this epic battle over their welfare. Government insists that the removal of subsidy is central to its ability to transform the Nigerian economy and society, and the retention of subsidy will virtually destroy the economy. The opponents of the removal – this is virtually everyone now, whether they understand the issues or not – say they want subsidy to remain, and President Jonathan should find other means of transforming Nigeria. President Jonathan says Nigerians do not understand how serious the issue is. Nigerians say he does not understand how serious they are over the issue.

Labour takes up the gauntlet, and has succeeded thus far in tapping into a massive national sentiment and anger against the President’s decisions. The resistance however goes way beyond labour’s populist posturing. The protests thus far have assumed a dimension that cannot be controlled or determined by labour alone. The labour movement may find that the people have gone too far ahead of it, when it attempts to, as it is accustomed to do, “negotiate” with government. It may find that the people are unwilling to accept its solution, and it may even be part of the problem as people may say it has sold out. Labour may, in the end, be just another victim of the fire it helped start.

And all this is going on in a democratic system which says that the people should have the final say in terms of how leaders emerge and how they govern. President Jonathan is digging in because he believes the people have failed to understand the real benefits of the subsidy decision; and that ultimately, he is right, and they are wrong. Perhaps President Jonathan sees himself here in the mould of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who took on the old union-based, labour-dominated British economy and turned it around in spite of the most awesone resistance. If he does, he will be tragically wrong. Mrs Thatcher had a solid conservative support for a radical change in the British economy; and a weakening working-class hold on British politics which she understood very well. President Jonathan has no solid popular support for his policy; and has been spectacularly unsuccessful in building one. It is now clear that this failure to build up critical support may have been the reason behind his decision to pull the plug around the subsidy in January, and then attempt to weather the storm.

Perhaps President Jonathan sees himself in the mould of former USSR leader Gorvachev, who took on the decaying communist establishment and changed the nature of Soviet Union’s politics and economy on a scale not seen since Stalin. But he will be tragically wrong if he does. Gorvachev had an acute sense of history and a solid support from key institutions such as the military and the Communist Party to push through massive changes in the structure of the country and its economy. He also had support from a large urban-based emerging middle class, and an understanding from former foes in the West that they will stay off his internal problems which the reforms will engender.

President Jonathan’s decision on removal of subsidy is a study on how not to undertake key changes in a system, which has neither institutional nor social foundations for it. There is everything wrong in the manner subsidy on petroleum was being administered. But President Jonathan failed to show Nigerians what it was. When he says corruption and waste are the reasons behind the removal of subsidy, he did not think Nigerians will ask him to remove the corruption and waste around the subsidy, and not the subsidy itself. After all, that is his job as President, and he asked for it, didn’t he?

President Jonathan prepared badly for this battle. His intelligence over the nature of the enemy is very limited and compromised. His troops are few, poorly trained and poorly-equipped. His generals have little understanding of the terrain, or influence over the troops. The battle plan is poorly designed. There is no plan B, no contingencies, reserves or options. No leader has taken on the Nigerian people in the manner President Jonathan is attempting to do. Certainly, none has done so being as isolated as President Jonathan is. His party, the PDP is virtually an on-looker. Every leader worth his salt has advised him against removing subsidy in the manner he has just done. The first few days of the national resistance showed clearly that he was pitting himself against the entire Nigerian people. So what could be the inspiration behind President Jonathan’s position? It is possible that he believes he is right, the entire nation is wrong and he can hang on while the people rant and rave and then tire and submit. Risky strategy, because the resistance may be stronger than he imagines, and the damage it will cause will be worse than the benefits of his decision. Or he may be counting on some resurgence of primordial sympathy from sections of the country such as South South and South East who see him with his back against the wall, and who will adopt an opportunistic position to try to bail him out. Self-defeating strategy, because he would have done even greater damage to the current perception of his Presidency being purely a South South affair. He could hold on for as long as he can, and then negotiate a compromise with labour. This will leave him and labour exposed to the possibility that Nigerians will not accept a compromise. He would also have exposed a vulnerability which will haunt him in many other areas of governance.

There is a popular misconception that in a democratic setting, leaders do what citizens want. They do not, and should not. They should do what in their judgement, is in the best interest of the nation. This means that many citizens will be unhappy over many decisions, but they must be able to live with them. If leaders have to please very citizen, they will not be leading a democratic system. In fact, they will not be leaders, but just people in an anarchy. But in democratic systems, leaders take decisions after an assessment of what is best for the most. If they get it right, they get the support of most people. If they get it wrong, the people turn their backs on them. President Jonathan’s decision on removal of subsidy is a study on how a leader can try to run a democratic system without the people. In democratic systems, leaders also go wrong, and accept that the voice of the people must be listened to. More will be lost than gained by a position which insists that the subsidy on petroleum must be removed. If President Jonathan can come to a position that leaves him some credibility and capacity to continue to govern, he should consider it. It was J.K Galbraith (1908 – 2006) the American economist who said, “Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable.”