Skip to main content

THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF CHANGE: LESSONS FROM AMERICA FOR THE BUHARI’S ADMINISTRATION IN NIGERIA –Dr. Emmanuel Ojameruaye


Introduction:

In a democracy, a general election is a referendum on the status quo. The incumbent says that things are okay or getting better and we need to stay on course. The opposition says that things are not okay and we need a change or changes so that things can get better. When things are not okay or when the incumbent and his team are seen to be performing well, the tendency is that the opposition will win. Thus, opposition politicians usually campaign on the platform of “change” or some variant of it. It works in many cases when most voters find the status quo undesirable. This is what happened on March 28, 2015 and April 11, 2015 when the APC not only won the presidency but also took control of both the Senate and House of Representatives as well as xx out of 36 States of the Federation, thus ending the 16-year rule and domination by the PDP and its dream to rule Nigeria for 50 years! The daunting task before the APC now is how to implement the “Change” it promised and satisfy the electorate, so that it can retain control after its current 4-year mandate. The party and the new President have been inundated with suggestions on what changes to implement and how to implement them. However, most of the suggestions have not been based on the theory, experience and best practices of socio-economic and political change management. Cynics have argued that there is very little that Buhari can do to change Nigeria and that he is doomed to fail because he will be operating under a democracy where there are checks and balances, and because Nigeria is essentially “unreformable”. With determined and effective leadership change is possibly and happens under democratic governments. In fact, political history is replete with “democratic Revolutionaries” who have implemented fundamental changes or “democratic revolutions” in their countries even within the constraints of democracy. In this open letter to the President Buhari and the APC leadership, I will proffer some suggestions for the effective management of the Change Agenda in the next four years based on lessons from the United States, specifically from the presidencies of Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933 – 1945), Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) and Barrack Obama (2009-2017). My choice of the United States (US) is based on the fact that it is one of the “best practice” cases and greatest advocate of democratic governance. It is my hope that the lessons from the US will assist in shaping and managing the Buhari Revolution in Nigeria. I will begin by looking at the concept of change in the context of the results of an election. Then I will briefly look at some of the changes implemented by the three US Presidents mentioned above and some of the challenges they faced as well as lessons from their presidencies. Finally, I will present my suggestions for the Buhari administration.

Change

The term change is both a noun and a verb. As a verb, change means “to become different” or “to become something else” or “to become transformed or modified”. As a noun, it means “an act or process or result of changing” or “a transformation or modification or alteration”. Thus, when a politician promises “change” during an election, it means that he is going to do certain things differently or he is going to transform or modify or alter certain things and the end result will be better than the status quo.  The change process involves transitioning from a state or position A (status quo) to state B (ideal/target) and the difference (B – A) is the change. Moving from A to B will obviously take some time and will require planning, resources and several steps. It is also important to track, monitor and evaluate the movement or transition by using specific performance indicators (metrics) to ensure that the transition is progressing well. It is also important for the results to be sustainable. That is, once state B is achieved it must be maintained or improved upon so that the system does not slide back to state A.

The promised “Change” is normally made up of many changes. A politician will not win an election if he promises only one change. Voters expect several changes as part of the Change platform. For instance, the Nigerian voters expect the incoming President to significantly reduce corruption, significantly improve security (i.e., reduce kidnappings and armed robberies, and eliminate Boko Haram and other insurgencies), end the perennial fuel scarcity, improve public governance (transparency, accountability, performance, effectiveness and efficiency), significantly improve the reliability of public electricity supply, and improve public infrastructure – roads, water supply, sanitation, etc. All these and more should form part of a comprehensive Change Agenda. Each of these elements of the Agenda will require several implementation steps. The various changes cannot be implemented in one fell swoop or simultaneously without “overheating” the economy and polity. Therefore, sequencing of the changes is required. In order words, the change agenda must effectively managed. Change management deal with the identification of the various changes that have to be made and the steps involved in each, how these changes will be implemented, the sequencing of the changes and steps, harmonization of the changes, identification of the resources for implementing the changes, behavioural change communication during the process, monitoring and evaluation of the changes taking place, and ensuring that positive and sustainable results are achieved at the end. A “Change Czar” reporting to the President may be required to coordinate the changes and overall management process.

Democratic Changes or Revolutions in the United States

The history of the United States (US) is replete with Presidents who have implemented fundamental changes –which I will call “democratic revolutions” – in the country and overseas. In this section, I will describe some of the significant changes that occurred in the US following some general elections in which the opposition party won the presidency. I will discuss three spectacular cases and draw some lessons from them for the Buhari administration. The first case is that of Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR), the 32nd President of the US who won a record four presidential elections ruling from March 1993 to April 1945 when he died in office. Even though he had lost the use of his legs due to polio in 1921, FDR won the Democratic Party presidential ticket to contest the 1932 elections. In his acceptance speech, he laid the foundation for his Change Agenda when he stated that “I pledge you, I pledge myself to a New Deal for the American people... This is more than a political campaign”.  He went on to defeat the incumbent Republican President Herbert Hoover in the November 1932 election at the depth of the Great Depression. The voters expected him to deliver changes that will pull the country out the Depression and improve their lives. After he was sworn into office in March 1933, FDR and the Democratic Party formed the New Deal coalition by mobilizing the poor as well as organized labor, ethnic minorities, urbanites, and Southern whites. During his first 100 days in office, FDR spearheaded major legislations and issued several executive orders that instituted the New Deal which included several programs designed to produce relief (government jobs for the unemployed), recovery (economic growth), and reform (through regulation of Wall Street, banks and transportation). He also created numerous programs to support the unemployed and farmers, and to encourage labour union growth.  He worked with Congress to repeal the Prohibition and this added to his popularity and helped him to win reelection by a landslide in 1936. The US economy improved rapidly from 1933 to 1937, but then relapsed into a deep recession in 1937–38. Of course, he had opposition to his New Deal, both from his own Democratic Party and the Republican Party. The bipartisan Conservative Coalition that was formed in 1937 blocked all his proposals for major liberal legislation (apart from a minimum wage law), and abolished many of the relief programs when unemployment practically vanished during World War II. However, most of the regulations on business continued until they ended between 1975–1985, except for the regulation of Wall through by the still existing Security and Exchange Commission. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and Social Security and several smaller programs which he established are still alive till today. FDR appointed powerful men to top positions but he made all the major decisions, regardless of delays, inefficiency or resentment.  On FDR’s administrative style, the historian James M. Burns concluded that:

“The president stayed in charge of his administration...by drawing fully on his formal and informal powers as Chief Executive; by raising goals, creating momentum, inspiring a personal loyalty, getting the best out of people...by deliberately fostering among his aides a sense of competition and a clash of wills that led to disarray, heartbreak, and anger but also set off pulses of executive energy and sparks of creativity...by handing out one job to several men and several jobs to one man, thus strengthening his own position as a court of appeals, as a depository of information, and as a tool of co-ordination; by ignoring or bypassing collective decision-making agencies, such as the Cabinet...and always by persuading, flattering, juggling, improvising, reshuffling, harmonizing, conciliating, manipulating.”

The second case is President Ronald Reagan who also implemented significant and enduring changes during his tenure as the 40th President of the United States (1981-1989). Amid a weak economy and the Iran hostage crisis that called for stronger leadership, Ronald Regan, the Republican Party presidential candidate, defeated incumbent President Jimmy Carter of the Democratic Party in the US presidential election on November 4, 1980. Although Reagan did not use the “Change” mantra, it was clear from his campaign promises that he planned to turn things around when elected. In his campaign he stressed lower taxes to stimulate the economy, less government interference in people's lives, states’ rights and a strong national defense. Desirous for a change, Americans voted massively for Reagan. He received 50.7% of the popular vote as against 41 % for Carter, carried 44 states (out of 50), and secured 489 electoral colleges to 49 for Carter. The Republicans also captured the Senate for the first time since 1952, and gained 34 seats in the House of Representative which however remained under the control of the Democratic Party. In his inaugural address, on January 20, 1981, Reagan dwelt on the country's economic problems and argued that "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem”. Immediately he was sworn into office, he sprang into action to implement policies that reflected his belief in individual freedom, liberalized economy, expanded military, and termination of communism. He implemented several economic initiatives including the so-called supply side economics, dubbed Reaganomics, which is based on tax rate reduction to spur economic growth, control of the money supply to curb inflation, economic deregulation, and reduced government spending. The economic policies led to a reduction of inflation from 12.5% to 4.4%, and an average annual growth of GDP of 7.91%. During his presidency, federal income tax rates dropped significantly with the signing of the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, which lowered the top marginal tax bracket from 70% to 50% and the lowest bracket from 14% to 11%. In 1982 he signed the Job Training Partnership Act in support of his job creation program which initiated one of the first public-private partnerships in the United States resulting in the creation of 16 million new jobs. He also announced the “War on Drugs” in 1982 to curb the increasing “crack epidemic” in the US. He ended the price controls on domestic oil which had contributed to energy crises in the early 1970s. The price of oil subsequently dropped, and the 1980s did not see the fuel shortages that the 1970s had. His policy of “peace through strength” resulted in a record peacetime defense buildup including a 40% real increase in defense spending between 1981 and 1985. In his famous address on June 8, 1982, to the British Parliament, he said, "the forward march of freedom and democracy will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash-heap of history” and on March 3, 1983, he predicted the collapse of communism, stating, "Communism is another sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages even now are being written".   The same month, he called the Soviet Union "an evil empire”.

During his reelection bid in 1984, Reagan campaigned on the notion that it was “Morning again in America” implying that more positive changes are in the offing. Because of his good performance and positive results of the changes introduced during his first term, he won a landslide with the largest electoral college victory in American history. Foreign affairs dominated his second term, including ending of the Cold War between the US and Soviet Union.  Reagan recognized and took advantage of the change in the direction of the Soviet Union under Mikhail Gorbachev, and shifted to diplomacy, to encourage the Soviet leader to pursue substantial arms agreements and persuade him to allow for more democracy and free speech that would lead to reform and the end of Communism. He reached a nuclear disarmament agreement with Gorbachev. Speaking at the Berlin Wall on June 12, 1987, Reagan challenged Gorbachev, saying “if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall”.  Due to Reagan’s efforts and his positive engagement with Gorbachev, the Berlin Wall was torn down in November 1989, ten months after Reagan left office, and the Cold War was officially declared over at the Malta Summit on December 3, 1989. Two years later, on December 26, 1991, the Soviet Union was dissolved and its 15 constituent “republics” (Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Estonia, Belarus, Moldova, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, etc) were “liberated” to form their own independent countries. The East European countries also regained their “freedom” from the strangle-hold of the Soviet Union.

Reagan also implemented several domestic initiatives. For instance, in 1986, he signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act to deal with the immigration problems in the US. The act made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit illegal immigrants and granted amnesty to some three million illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982, and had lived in the country continuously.   In order to cover the federal budget deficits, his administration borrowed heavily both domestically and abroad, raising the national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion.  Reagan described the increase in national debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency. Nonetheless, Reagan held an approval rating of 78% when he left office, matching those of FDR and later Bill Clinton, the highest ratings for departing presidents in the modern era. Reagan has since become an icon among Republicans and ranks highly in public and critical opinion of US Presidents.

Several factors contributed to the success of the so-called “Reagan revolution” – the set of his political and economic initiatives - which apostles of change must learn to follow.  Firstly, he was a great communicator. Secondly, he was a great alliance builder, a great “engager” and a great negotiator.  He built alliances with other world leaders, especially with Margaret Thatcher of the United Kingdom. He engaged his political base and Republican leaders in the US as well as Democratic leaders in Congress and foreign leaders, especially Mikhail Gorbachev. Thirdly, he was a firm but friendly and jovial leader. Even his “enemies” and opponents admired. Fourthly, although he was a dogged leader, he was willing to adjust his strategies and views.  For instance, during his visit to Moscow in 1988, a journalist asked him if he still considered the Soviet Union an “evil empire”, he replied "No. I was talking about another time, another era".

The third case is that of President Barrack Obama, the 44th President of the US, and the first African American to occupy the White House. He announced his candidacy for the President of the US on February 10, 2007, using the “Hope and Change” mantra and with emphasis on rapidly ending the Iraq War, increasing US energy independence and reforming the healthcare system. He defeated Hilary Clinton in 2008 to become the Democratic Party presidential candidate. He then went on to defeat the Republican Party candidate, John McCain, whom he portrayed as a man of the status quo and a mirror image of outgoing President George Bush, a Republican. Obama won the presidential election on November 4, 2008 with 365 electoral college votes compared to 173 for McCain, and 52.9 percent of the popular vote compared to 45.7per cent for McCain. In his first few days in office, Obama issued executive orders and presidential memoranda directing the U.S. military to develop plans to withdraw troops from Iraq and ordered the closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp (Gitmo). However, Congress prevented the closure of the camp by refusing to appropriate the required funds and preventing moving any Gitmo detainee into the U.S. or to other countries. On his 9th day in office he signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 which relaxed the statute of limitation for equal-pay lawsuits, thus finally prohibiting gender-based wage discrimination. Five days later, he signed the reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to cover an additional 4 million uninsured children. In March 2009, he reversed a Bush-era policy which had limited funding of embryonic stem cell research.

During his first two years in office, Obama take several far-reaching actions and implemented many initiatives including the following: a) He signed into law the economic stimulus legislation (called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) and the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Jobs Creation Act of 2010 to overcome with the Great Recession; b) After much controversy, he signed into law thePatient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010  (often referred to as Affordable Care Act or  "Obamacare") aimed at increasing the quality and affordability of health insurance, lowering the uninsured rate by expanding public and private insurance coverage, and reducing the costs of healthcare for individuals and the government. The law also introduced mechanisms like mandates, subsidies, and insurance exchanges and requires insurance companies to cover all applicants within new minimum standards and offer the same rates regardless of pre-existing conditions or sex; c) He signed the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 which brought the most significant changes to financial regulations in the US since the regulatory reform that followed the Great Depression of the 1930s; d) He also signed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 which established a process that allows gays, lesbians, and bisexuals to serve openly in the U.S. Armed Forces by ending a policy in place since 1993 that allowed them to serve only if they kept their sexual orientation secret and the military did not learn of their sexual orientation; e) He appointed two women to serve on the Supreme Court in the first two years of his Presidency, including the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice, bringing the number of women sitting simultaneously on the Court to three, for the first time in American history; f) He ended US military occupation of Iraq by bring all her troops home. He however increased US troop levels in Afghanistan; g) He ordered the military operation that killed America’s most-wanted, Osama bin Laden and also increased the use of drones to eliminate several Al Qaeda leaders; h) He signed a new START arms control treaty with Russia and tried to “reset” US-Russia relationship; unfortunately, during the mid-term Congressional election in November 2010, the Republican Party regained control of the US House of Representatives as the Democratic Party lost a total of 63 seats. Obama said the result of the election was "humbling" and a "shellacking" and he acknowledged that it was in part due to the fact not enough Americans had felt the effects of the economic recovery and other initiatives he had introduced during his first two years in office. On April 4, 2011, Obama announced his reelection campaign for 2012 and thanks to keeping fate with some of his promised changes, he was reelected in November 2012, defeating the Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, who campaigned on reversing or gutting some of the changes Obama had introduced during his first term. Obama won 332 electoral college votes and 51.1 percent of the popular vote, thus becoming the first Democratic president since FDR to twice win the majority of the popular vote. He was sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2013.
During his second term, Obama promoted domestic policies related to gun control and immigration reform. Frustrated by the unwillingness of the US Congress to come up with a legislation to fix the country’s immigration problem and in fulfillment of one of his outstanding campaign promises, he decided to issue an Executive Order on November 19, 2014 to address some aspects of the immigration problem while waiting on Congress to act. Among other things, the Executive Action: a) “offers a legal reprieve to the undocumented parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents who've resided in the country for at least five years, and removes the constant threat of deportation; b) “expands the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program that allowed young immigrants, under 30 years old, who arrived as children, to apply for a deportation deferral” and to remain in the US legally. In foreign policy, he has ordered US military re-involvement in Iraq in response to the threat by ISIS “terrorist” group and has initiated a process to end US combat operations in Afghanistan. He has also taken the first steps to normalize relationships with Cuba.
The verdict is still out on the Obama Revolution and on whether his initiatives have been successful or will outlive his tenure. One thing that is clear is that he has faced more opposition to his change initiatives than FDR and Reagan, and this was reflected in the decline in his approval rating over time, and the loss of control, by his party, of the House of Representatives in the 2010 election, and of the Senate in the 2014 election. All these have not only blunted the impact and speed of implementation of his change agenda but also called into question the sustainability of the changes when he leaves office in 2017. Despite the setbacks and opposition, President Obama has remained faithful to his program of change, and has earned a place in the pantheon or hall of fame of democratic revolutionaries. There is no doubt that latent or overt racism may have accounted for some of the opposition to his change program and his person. For some people, it is akin to a situation where their hatred for the messenger overrides their love for the message.
However, there is no doubt that there are certain things he should have done to increase the acceptability of his initiatives. Firstly, he has not been a very effective communicator of the benefits of the changes to the American people. The opposition (Republicans) seemed to have been more effective in communicating the “negatives” and alleged dangers and failures of some of the initiatives. For instance, rather than call the president’s health care program by the official  name (Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care, which is positive), they decided to call it “Obamacare” - in a rather negative and derogatory sense – which masks the “protection” and “affordability” elements of the law. Unfortunately, President, his party and the public have embarrassed the name imposed on the program by the Republicans. It is not surprising therefore to see an uninformed voter saying that he hates Obamacare but loves the Affordable Healthcare. In fact, the Obama’s case illustrates the difference between oratory and effective communication in the theory of change. While most people agree that Obama is a very good orator, many think that he is not an effective communicator. Oratory can help to win an election, but you need effective communication and leadership skills to sell and successfully implement your change agenda.
Secondly, it has been alleged that President Obama did not adequately engage the Republicans and other groups who may be adversely affected by his change agenda before the enabling laws were and during the implementation. In a democracy, it is important to give the opposition (minority) a “voice” even though the majority will ultimately have its way.  Thirdly, it appears that the changes are too many and are not optimally sequenced.  For instance, given the controversy and opposition to the Affordable Act (ACA), Obama should not have made it a priority during the first two years of his administration or he should not have allowed it to become law without the support of a single Republican lawmaker. Signing such landmark legislation at the beginning of his administration without a single Republican support created “bad blood” that has devilled that law, and has led to various legal challenges to it. Perhaps, instead of the “omnibus” ACA, the President should have adopted a “piecemeal” or “gradualist” approach in reforming the healthcare system beginning with the generally acceptable components of the ACA and moving the controversial components to his second term. Fourthly, the President was over-optimistic about the preparedness of America for change.  He underestimated the power of inertia in people, organizations and systems.  For instance, at the University of Cairo in 2009, he called for a “New Beginning” in the relationship between the US and Islamic countries and the promotion of Middle East peace. Six years on, these have remained elusive. Ditto the promised closure of the Gitmo prison camp.  Notwithstanding the challenges and upsets Obama has faced in implementing his Change initiatives, history will show that many of the changes were necessary and that he did his best to improve the American and the World, and thus deserved the Nobel Peace Prize he was awarded in 2009.

Lessons for the Buhari Administration:

In addition to some of the lessons that have been highlighted in the above review of the “Change” agenda of three great US Presidents, the following are some additional lessons for the Buhari Administration as it embarks on its mission to cure the ills of the country and make the country truly great through its Change Agenda.

1.    Unanimity is almost impossible in a democracy. There will always be opposition to any proposed change. Although some people want a change, others may resist it. The “apostle” of Change must try to address some of the concerns of those who will resist the changes he is intending to make; otherwise they can become a wrench in the wheel of change, and can ultimately scuttle the change. As a minimum, the opposition should be allowed to have their say if they cannot have their way. Therefore, the Buhari administration  should be mindful of the fact that that many of the people benefitting from the status quo,  including some members of APC, the oil “cabal”, etc,  will oppose some of the proposed changes and will stop at nothing to thwart the changes.  The administration must therefore devise a clever way of communicating or engaging with them, and to assuage their fears without compromising the changes.

2.    In a democracy, the powers of the President are limited. Even though he can use “executive orders” to effect some changes, it should be as a last resort on a temporary basis. All major changes must be approved by the legislature and backed by an enabling legislation, ideally with the support of some members of the opposition or other (non-ruling) parties. Thus, the Buhari administration must guard against changes that are “unconstitutional” or not backed by legislation or a “temporary” executive order. To this end, the first order of the Change Agenda of the administration should be to catalogue the first set of changes/initiatives it intends to implement and verify if they are constitutional or consistent with existing legislation. If not, the administration should prepare appropriate enabling bills and send to the National Assembly for debate and approval, and ultimate signing into law before the implementation. Where the debate is taking too long (as in the case of the Petroleum Industry Bill), the President can sign executive orders to implement some aspects of the proposed changes as President Obama has done in the case of the immigration problem in the U.S.
3.   The Buhari Administration needs to form a Change Coalition by mobilizing the poor, farmers, labour unions, student unions, and civil society organizations, religious and ethnic groups from various parts of the country to support the change initiatives similar to what FDR did in the U.S. If those opposed to the changes know that there is popular support for the changes they will be less likely try to disrupt or sabotage the changes.

4.    People do not like cosmetic changes or old wine in new bottles. People want and expect real changes or innovations. Therefore the Buhari administration must demonstrate that the proposed changes are real through verifiable results.

5.    The actions of the administration during its first 100 days are very critical and will indicate its sincerity and capability for change. The administration must therefore identify and take some concrete actions that will deliver visible changes (so called “low-hanging fruits”) during the first 100 days and set the tone for subsequent changes. Such actions should focus on some of the areas that of immediate concern to most Nigerians now, namely fuel crisis (scarcity of petroleum products), electric power supply, corruption and insecurity. For instance, on the fuel crisis, the administration should free the economy from the strangle-hold of the private importers of petroleum products by taking advantage of the low price of petroleum products in the world market to abolish any form of fuel subsidy, monitoring the activities of the importers and marketers to prevent price gouging by imposing stiff penalties including withdrawal of licenses of offenders, importation by PPMC (to bridge gap and compete with private importers) and increasing domestic refining of petroleum products. For each of the areas of change, a short-term program of action (activities) with deliverables/targets should be worked out.  

6.    All the promised changes cannot be implemented in one fell swoop or simultaneously. Thus, it is important to prioritize and sequence the changes and the steps. The APC Manifesto posted the party’s website (www.apc.com.ng ) lists well over 100 activities or actions in 26 sectors or areas the party intends to carry out if they win the presidency. The 26 sectors/areas span virtually all the sectors/areas of the economy including agriculture and food security, war against corruption and national orientation, transportation, power supply, education, healthcare, Niger Delta, politics and governance, code of conduct, etc. However, on the same website, the APC “Roadmap to a New Nigeria” document lists several targets and sub-activities under ten program areas/key activities, namely create job; fight corruption; free relevant quality education; restore agriculture; housing plan; healthcare for children and adult; social welfare and plan for the less advantaged; roads, power and infrastructure; management of natural resources; and peace, security and foreign policy. In a strict sense of the word, both the Manifesto and the Roadmap are not plans but campaign documents. The administration now needs to harmonize both documents and transform them into a four-year National Development Plan (NDP) that will span all the sectors/areas of the economy and a smaller four-year Change Plan (CP) that will focus on the real changes the administration plans to undertake and want to see happen by the end of its first term. Both a listing of all activities and sub-activities, implementation schedule, resources required for execution, performance indicators, targets and means of verification.  Of course, the CP is different from, but constitutes an integral part of the broader NDP. While the NDP covers all the sectors of the economy, the CP focuses on planned changes. The Annual Budgets will be derived from both the NDP and the CP. In this way the Annual Budget will become the instrument for allocating resources to implement the CP and NDP.

7.     Change is measurable, and should be monitored and evaluated periodically. This means that performance indicators should be identified for all the desired changes and realistic time-bound targets set. For instance,   reliability of power supply is one of the indicators of power supply, average wait time at gas stations is good indicator for fuel supply, corruption perception index is good indicator for corruption, security perception index and number of security-related incidents are indicators for security and citizens’ report card scores and policy and institution assessment index are indicators for governance. Of course, more indicators can be identified and tracked. The “baselines” of these indicators should be measured within the first 100 days of this administration and future values should be measured on a quarterly or annual basis – depending on the indicator- and the results should be published or posted the federal government website.  An independent monitoring and evaluation group should be contracted evaluate and make recommendations on the changes taken place, and publish their results online at regular intervals.  

8.     The President must identify knowledgeable men of integrity who are true “agents of change” and who share his vision to occupy the positions of his administration. However, like FDR in the U.S., he must be in charge – the buck must stop with him – and he must make or approve all the major decisions even if this may cause delays, inefficiency or resentment. However, to assist him, the President can appoint a “Change Czar” to coordinate the changes. The president must also institute an effective system of performance management (with “carrots and sticks” – rewards and punishment) for ministers and other top government officials who should do same for the subordinates and down the line.

In conclusion, I believe Nigeria, like other countries of the world, is reformable. I reject the notion that Nigeria is unreformable (apology, Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, the Coordinating Minister of the Economy under the immediate past administration) as if to say Nigerians were created on a separate day from the rest of mankind. All that is required to reform or change Nigeria is strong, effective and visionary leadership. This is what Nigerians expect from the Buhari administration. Like the President in his inaugural address, I will end by paraphrasing Shakespeare again:  There is a tide in the affairs of nations which when taken leads to fortune, and when omitted leads to further misery. The March 28, 2015 election produced such a tide in Nigeria…and we are now afloat. May we follow the current and may it lead to fortune for all.

Dr. Emmanuel Ojameruaye
President, Capacity Development International, LLC, Phoenix, Arizona State, USA emmaojameruaye@yahoo.com,  www.capdevinternational.com,

June 4, 2015

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

FEDERAL ALLOCATION TO THE TWENTY FIVE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN DELTA STATE IN 2023

Below Is The Federal Allocation To The Twenty five Local Government Areas in Delta State In 2023: Aniocha North:  ₦2,631,989,064.8 Aniocha South:  ₦2,847,788,192.94 Bomadi:               ₦2,491,779,057.87 Burutu:                 ₦3,367,885,422.51 Ethiope East:      ₦3,178,376,209.24 Ethiope West:     ₦3,226,505,207.54 Ika North East:   ₦3,279,681,589.37 Ika South:            ₦3,117,284,050.15 Isoko North:        ₦2,968,741,529.30 Isoko South:       ₦3,372,633,698.8 Ndokwa East:     ₦2,766,813,948.49 Ndokwa West:   ₦3,108,983,376.16 Okpe:                    ₦2,750,960,811.06 Oshimili North:  ₦2,683,889,807 Oshimili South: ₦2,890,887,684.18 Patani:                 ...

OBOREVWORI: How Not To Glorify A 'One Chance' Governor - By Zik Gbemre

It is appalling how, in desperation to sustain its thieving hegemony over the Delta State Government since 1999, the Delta PDP had the audacity to impose the weakest, most uninformed contender, a local champion, as Governor over a state replete with accomplished men and women of immense capacity. Given this unenviable privilege, one would have expected the fortunate placeholder governor, Sheriff Oborevwori—whose only election campaign manifesto was pledging to improve on the failed leadership of Ifeanyi Okowa, his predecessor—to engage creative minds and individuals of proven integrity to assist him in making a difference. Rather than doing the needful, Oborevwori has worsened matters by electing to engage the same spent leaders, deadwood, and gluttons that have gained prominence in running the state down over successive administrations. The result has been a government of mediocre officeholders competing to run the state for their pockets at the detriment of the populace, under a gove...

MOMENT OF HONOUR: Ughelli Agog As Ovie Omo-Agege Arrives Home

It was a day of honour for Obarisi Senator Ovie Omo-Agege, CFR, the immediate past Deputy President of the Senate, and Delta State governorship candidate of the All Progressives Congress, as the people of Delta State came together from all ethnic nationalities to collectively celebrate and honour him. The grand reception in the ancient city of Ughelli was historic, marking the recognition of a distinguished Deltan who has brought great honour to the state and its people. Obarisi, Senator Ovie Omo-Agege arrived Osubi Airport flanked by Distinguished Senator Peter Nwaoboshi, Hon. Eric Oharisi and Hon. Evance Iwhurie. The streets of Ughelli came alive with jubilation as the former Deputy Senate President and his entourage drove into town. It was a historic moment, characterized by the beating of drums, vibrant displays of cultural pride, and an overwhelming sense of camaraderie among the people. The air filled with chants of joy, and the atmosphere electric with excitement—all painting a ...