Comment
The Waiting Game
Very few things have been looked forward to with such eagerness and/or trepidation as the two major events currently awaited: the Budget being expected at the end of the month and the political timetable announcement which has been scheduled for 'next year' - sometime in 1986. Everybody seems convinced that there is no point in making any plans before and until the two major announcements.
In some ways, the great IMF debate being waged in the country now ought to be concluded once the Budget is announced because that statement ought to give a clear indication about how the government is proposing to finance the nation's expenditure and development projects.
On the principle that for as long as people are talking, the signs must be good, the IMF debate must be rated as a good thing. The problem, however, is that if the idea behind the launching of the debate was in the hope of getting a national consensus, it must be obvious that such a hope is unattainable. The country seems to have been divided into two big groups of those who are 'FOR' and those who are 'AGAINST the IMF loan.
Every politically articulate Nigerian has a definite position in the matter; there are no 'don't-knows' or 'not- sures' or 'have no opinions': what is even more peculiar and worrisome, the debate has not been conducted with the aim of convincing the other side with the force of a stronger argument largely because nobody really is listening to the other side. In some ways this must be a good lesson for those who have argued that divisiveness is a peculiar characteristic of party politics. The IMF debate is not being conducted along party political lines and yet it is doubtful if passions have been raised higher than before during party politics or if people have felt any less about the righteousness of their position.
The government has not indicated exactly what it is looking for in the debate: force of argument, or majority opinion or simply an outlet for the release of tensions. It is doubtful that the force of any argument can be properly evaluated in a situation where arguments are being measured in decibels rather than commonsense.
As for majority opinion, that is even less likely, since there are no plans to hold a referendum on the matter. Even if there were such plans, this is one of the situations where it is difficult to determine whether the voice of the people is necessarily the national interest. The reality is that there are many things that do not get votes and do not enhance the popularity ratings but are in the public interest. Nobody will vote for raising the price of petrol or abolishing subsidies or devaluing the naira or raising duties on imported goods or for doing any of the things involved in a classic IMF formula, and yet these might very well be things that would need to be done to put some order in the economy.
There is the method that has been adopted by the Rawlings PNDC in Ghana whereby there was no debate or public discussion and a few members of the government took the decision to go for the loan and then told the country: it is in the nation's interest.
It is an easier method when there is a government that has absolute control and vice grip on public discussion and allows no dissent. For a regime like the one that Gen. Babangida is trying to run, such an opinion does not exist, for nobody has ever suggested that it is easy to run an open and liberal government.
For, it is not just the Budget that Nigerians and friends of Nigeria and trading partners are waiting for. The bigger events for the promised political timetable that is expected sometime in the new year. For long term purposes that is even more important than the Budget or the IMF decision, because it is the political will and climate that will determine the success or failure of the economic decisions..
It is significant that on this greater and more fundamental question of the political future of the country, no public debate is being conducted and the few salvos that have been fired have been more concerned with federal character' and tribal balance/imbalance than anything else. Possibly, the debate will only start when the timetable has been announced, but it is being suggested here that if the decision on the IMF and the negotiations with that body are expected to be influenced by the conduct of that debate then it is even more important that there is some form of debate to influence the decision on the political future of the country.
It will be unfortunate if the Ghana method were adopted in this matter. If Gen. Babangida in announcing his timetable should outdoor a form of government that has been determined by him and his advisers as being the best for Nigeria, any subsequent debate would be a futile exercise.
One state governor, for example, has been quoted as saying that party politics cannot work, it is not clear whether that represents his personal opinion or whether he is reflecting official thinking. There is obviously the need to agree on the fundamentals of the form of government before there can be any talk about timetables and such things are best not left to speculation.
Economic difficulties always tend to distort political problems and make many people believe that the economic problems will be solved through a political short-cut. After how many number of interventions in Nigeria and in West Africa as a whole, it must be obvious now that there are no short-cuts to this economic paradise. What is more, the dependence of military economic progress on political stability must be clear to all now. There is a choice of course between whether the 'stability' would be of the South African or Ghana type induced by iron-fisted rule or the type that is induced by a free atmosphere; at the end of the day, the economic progress will only be achieved through political stability. Countries like Ghana or South Africa might achieve false stability and a consequently false economic boom but the day of reckoning will come and show up the cracks in the foundation.
