A policy is a set of statements by a government regarding an intended course of action for addressing specific problem(s) in a given sector of the nation’s economy. In formulating a policy, technocrats are expected to define the problem(s), collect data, analyze available data in a context applicable to the problem, and create a set of possible solutions to the problems. Thereafter, recommendations will be proffered to the decision maker, which in this instance is the government, on the basis of a systematic analysis of available data. Whenever there is opportunity to have a national discourse on any policy issue, there must be a consistent consideration of alternatives. That there is no alternative to a policy is incorrect.
This is because the concept of choices and options is always at the heart of policy scholarship in civilized societies. In Nigeria, it is very rare for policy formulators to accept that a policy has failed and that such policies need to be reviewed or changed. For instance, most Nigerians will remember the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) and its attendant adverse social effects that put to question the sincerity of purpose of the policy formulators and implementers. SAP was one of the deadly prescriptions of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to the then ruling military government to enable it liberate Nigerians from the depths of poverty. SAP was equally prescribed to many African countries in the eighties. Most African nations embraced SAP because of dishonesty of leadership and ignorance of followership. Even when there was public outcry in Nigeria regarding the ineffectiveness of the policy, Nigerians were simply told by the military government then that ‘there was no alternative to SAP’. After about 10 years of implementing SAP, most Nigerians were poorer when compared to their economic status at commencement of the policy. This piece is not to advance reasons why SAP failed generally in Africa and Nigeria in particular, but to draw our attention to the fact that there are risks associated with any policy formulated. Accordingly, there should be contingency plan of action should there be failure of policy instead of saying there are no alternatives. Should citizens of a nation perish before a policy is reviewed or changed? With a deep sense of responsibility, it is inappropriate for any government to say that there is no alternative to a policy. Most times policies fail when there is a misalignment of interests among public policy formulators, implementers, and the general public. In other words, policy of government fails when its content is not conterminous with national interests. But some have argued that most policies in Nigeria are good and that implementation has been the problem. This is debatable though.
At this stage of our national life, one cannot but come to an understanding of various governments’ decisions that the nation requires a fundamental restructuring to accelerate economic growth and development so that life could be meaningful to Nigerians. This led to various reform programmes which include deregulation of the financial sector, privatization as well as trade liberalization. Since we started various reform programmes, it will not be out of place to ask if privatization of state-owned assets should be conducted by the same public institutions accused of inefficiency and corruption. Should sale of public enterprises be to ‘core investors’ only or the general public? Are there no better variants of privatization than transfers to ‘core investors’ only? These questions are raised because there are substantial risks in a state agency being directly involved in privatization bearing in mind the peril of back-tracking, or the temptation of rent-seeking behaviour and corruption. As Nigeria is known for corruption and underdeveloped ethical standard of business conduct, it is bound to face some challenges when privatizing state-owned enterprises. This perhaps may be the reason why Nigerians have not derived maximum benefits from the privatization of the nation’s power sector. A few days ago, the minister of power, Chinedu Nebo, after the Federal Executive Council (FEC) meeting on 6 May, 2015 advised the in-coming administration of General Muhammadu Buhari not to reverse the privatization process because ‘core investors’ will see the nation as lacking commitment in its policy. This writer is of the view that governments must be committed and does not have any divergent opinion on privatization. In fact, policy consistency is advocated but that does not mean that the methodology and processes of privatizing government assets in any sector should not be reviewed when the strategic goal is not achieved in a timeframe. There is no doubt that all is not well with the power sector reform in Nigeria. Privatization of the power sector with all intents is to enable Nigeria provide electricity for its US$450 billion economy. But how long will Nigerians expend the sum of US$455 billion on generators as reflected in media reports? If all is well with privatization of the power sector, it is expected that ‘thoughtful doers’ in Nigeria should have championed the cause of building indigenous technological capability with the policy. At this juncture, there should be a cost-benefit analysis to enable policymakers know if the sector is now efficient with Nigerians deriving maximum benefits from about US$40 billion spent in the sector in almost 16 years.
Next is the media report that the organized labour and some National Assembly (NASS) members have stated that fuel subsidy should stay at a time when the nation’s oil refineries are not working optimally. Some stakeholders have equally argued that the government should revive the refineries before privatizing them. The main concern is that Nigerians are undergoing hardship to get fuel to power their cars, generators and other appliances. There are media reports that the NASS has approved N143 billion only for subsidy of petrol and kerosene products in 2015, while at the time of writing this piece N500 billion has been spent. It implies that about 12 percent of the yet-to-be-approved budget of N4.49 trillion has been spent to settle fuel subsidy claims within the first four months of the year 2015. By the end of 2015, all things being equal, it is estimated that about 35 percent of the budget would have been expended on fuel subsidy. Will it then be considered appropriate to continue with payment of fuel subsidy even with a supplementary budget? Are the organized labour and the NASS saying that during the next four years of the incoming government’s tenure money should be wasted on endless fuel subsidy? Whether there should be fuel subsidy removal or not, it is the view of this writer that stakeholders should be prepared for evidence-based debate as from 29 May, 2015 when the president-elect would have been sworn in. It is superior arguments that will hold sway. When some Nigerians and those in government say that fuel subsidy should not be removed and that there is no alternative to the privatization of assets to ‘core investors’, then the nation is caught in a trap. If fuel subsidy and privatization of the power sector are no-go-areas for the incoming administration, policy outcomes may result in privation of Nigerians. That means the people will be going through another dose of SAP prescribed this time by our own government.
MA Johnson
