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
Post a Comment