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 stranglehold 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 US 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, he held an approval rating of 78 percent 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 him. 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.”
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 two 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.
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.
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 US.
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 US. 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.
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. 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 are of immediate concern to most Nigerians now, namely fuel crisis (scarcity of petroleum products), electric power supply, corruption and insecurity.
Emmanuel Ojameruaye
