President Muhammadu Buhari was once fond of the Soviet Union, as military head of state between 1984 and 1985, he practised the Soviet-style command economy and political authoritarianism. Like Soviet leaders did, he dealt ruthlessly with those he saw as “enemies” of the state, such as economic “saboteurs”, as he termed Fela Kuti, whom he jailed for five years in 1984 for “currency smuggling”
The Soviet regime was underpinned by statism, a belief in the absolute power of the state; a belief that only the state can act in the best interests of citizens, and, so, should control economic and political activities “on behalf of the people”. Thus, statist regimes are, typically, not democratic, transparent or accountable. The values of democracy, transparency and accountability were, indeed, anathema to the Soviet Union as they were to General Buhari, a student of Soviet ideology.
However something happened years after General Buhari was overthrown in a coup in 1985, the Soviet Union collapse – in 1991. Communism and autocracy, the economic and political systems that underpinned the Soviet regime, were discredited. Buhari said it was this seismic event that triggered his conversion to democracy. As he put it in one interview, “after the collapse of the Soviet Union, I became convinced that democracy was the correct form of government.”
But what exactly about the collapse of the Soviet Union turned Buhari into a converted democrat? Was it because autocracy or dictatorship as a form of government failed? Was it because communism or socialism as an economic system failed? What “principles of democracy” did Buhari really embrace? Was it just the principle of elections? Or do they include the principles of transparency, accountability, rule of law and human rights? Surely, these are also principles of democracy, not just elections.
Why am I asking these questions? Well, because, apart from his belief in elections, President Buhari does not seem to share the other core values of democracy: transparency, accountability, respect for the rule of law and regard for human rights. And given his instinctive preference for dirigisme or state intervention, he does not embrace a key element of liberal democracy, namely, open market and free trade, which Adam Smith called a “system of natural liberty”.
But perhaps the strongest pointer to Buhari’s ideological orientation is the powerful nations with which he is most closely aligned. As the saying goes, “Show me your friend and I will tell you who you are.” So, which major nations is Buhari most fond of today? Well, they are China and Russia, not Western powers or blocs like the US or the EU.
Take Russia first, as Western nations hesitate to sell arms to Nigeria to fight the Boko Haram insurgency because of their concerns about human rights abuses, Buhari has turned to Russia, which would not ask questions about human rights violations.
But perhaps the strongest pointer to Buhari’s ideological orientation is the powerful nations with which he is most closely aligned. As the saying goes, “Show me your friend and I will tell you who you are.”
Of course, Russia itself is a major violator of the rule of law and human rights. For instance, in 2014, Russia illegally annexed Crimea, and recently President Putin controversially secured a referendum vote to stay in power until 2036, despite having been in power for two decades. But Buhari, who participated actively in the Russia-Africa summit in Russia last year, said recently that he would “inject fresh energy into Russia-Nigeria relations”.
Of course, Buhari is drawn to Russia because, as I said earlier, it could sell lethal weapons to Nigeria without asking questions about the violations of human rights and the rule of law. And, in turn, Nigeria would say nothing about human rights violations in Russia or about Russia’s undermining of the sovereign integrity of its weaker neighbours. So, Russia-Nigeria relations would be devoid of true democratic or liberal values!
Which brings us to China.
To be sure, it is with China that Nigeria has formed the closest strategic relationship, albeit based on debt dependency. In April 2016, Buhari took six state governors, nine ministers and a horde of officials on a week visit to China. They returned with an offer of a $6bn infrastructure loan and a currency swap deal.
Truth is, Nigeria’s relations with China, under President Buhari, is underpinned by China’s debt-dependent finance. Nigeria is excessively reliant on China for easy infrastructure loans.
Again, the reason is simple. Because the West, including multilateral lenders, such as the World Bank and the IMF, as well as private investors, would not invest in Nigeria’s infrastructures without demanding reforms and good governance, Nigeria has turned to China that would ask no questions about political and economic governance.
Of course, China is an utterly statist regime, where virtually every company is state-owned or subject to the overbearing influence of the Communist Party, and where democracy, rule of law, human rights, accountability and transparency are non-existent, as we are seeing with China’s instigated national security law and human rights violations in Hong Kong.
Of course, like President Xi Jinping, President Buhari believes that national security should trump the rule of law and human rights. So, Nigeria, under Buhari, is not only China’s client state economically, it is also its political and ideological ally, with shared belief is statism.
In May last year, President Buhari lavished praise on China. When the chairman of China Railway Construction Corporation, Fenjian Chen, visited him at the State House, Buhari said: “We are very grateful to China for the genuine efforts and strides to rebuild our infrastructure.” In July this year, while receiving the outgoing Chinese Ambassador to Nigeria, Zhou Pingjian, Buhari praised China again. “Please convey our appreciation to President Xi Jinping”, he said, “for the contribution of China towards reversing the infrastructure deficit we suffer in the areas of rail, roads, airports and power.”
But does President Buhari believe that China’s debt-laden “rebuilding” of Nigeria’s infrastructure is driven by altruistic motives? Is China funding infrastructure projects in Nigeria without a “catch”? And if there is a catch, what is it?
Well, the first point is that Chinese loans only leave recipient countries with unsustainable debts and, often, economically unviable projects. Secondly, the real beneficiary of Chinese loans is China itself. This is because when China gives loans, it ties them to projects that must be executed by Chinese companies, with supply and service contracts that go to Chinese firms and with labour that is predominantly Chinese.
Yun Sun, a Chinese academic, said that China’s infrastructure loans are designed to create jobs for Chinese firms and Chinese people abroad. Essentially, it is Chinese loans for Chinese firms, products, services, and workers.
In a recent tweet, Kingsley Moghalu made the same point, he argued that “there is no competitive bidding for the projects financed by China ‘loans’”, adding: “We have no independence in how we use such borrowed funds”. His verdict? “This is a rip-off. This is not loan”!
Sadly, the Buhari government does not care about the terms of China’s loans and doesn’t want Nigerians to care either.
Last week, the House of Representatives queried the transport minister, Rotimi Amaechi, over the terms of a $500bn Chinese infrastructure loan to Nigeria. But Amaechi asked the legislators to stop asking questions about the loan. Why? Well, he said: “If the Chinese government have the feeling that you don’t like the way they lend you money, they may withdraw their loan offers.” It was shocking! Put simply, Amaechi was saying Nigeria must accept the terms of China’s loans willy-nilly.
Truth is, Buhari needs arms and infrastructure finance but won’t do the right thing – rule of law, human rights and market reforms – to get them in the right way. So, he turns to Russia and China, two authoritarian states with which he shares a statist worldview. But a strategic relationship based on debt dependency and illiberal beliefs won’t serve Nigeria well.
