The Ibibio people of Akwa Ibom State, South-South Nigeria, have a saying that can be loosely translated as: “A person says he has a stomach ache, but the neighbour insists the person is actually dying.” This is the sort of overbearing neighbourly role that the UK-based magazine, The Economist, played in a recent opinion article profiling the two main candidates of Nigeria’s forthcoming presidential election.
The presidential election, which has been shifted fromFebruary 14th to March 28th to allow security forces to contain insurgency challenges in Nigeria’s North East, and for the electoral body to distribute Permanent Voter Cards (PVC), will pit the incumbent, President Goodluck Jonathan, against a former military dictator, Major General Muhammadu Buhari (Retd).
The Economist, which had little that is complimentary to say about either Jonathan or Buhari, tried to pass off as facts several inaccuracies that require a response here to set the records straight.
Begin with the falsehoods against Jonathan’s Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), which has led Nigeria since the country’s return to democracy in 1999. The Economist chose to ignore that the PDP continues to faithfully discharge its foremost duty to Nigeria, which is sustaining a stable, functional state, and has superintended over the longest running democratic dispensation since the country’s independence in 1960.
Indeed, in its 15 years at the helm of Nigeria’s affairs, the PDP has created an atmosphere that allows total freedom of expression, dissent and the greatest level of inclusive political participation ever recorded in the country’s history. A case in point is that never before has Nigeria seen the high number of women in senior elective and appointive positions as obtains today under the PDP’s leadership.
Moreover, it is to the PDP’s credit that this ambience of democratic freedom fostered by the party has encouraged the most combative opposition rhetoric ever experienced in Nigeria’s history. In addition, the PDP has been responsible for the strategic restructuring of a largely state-run economy to a free-market economy, thereby engendering greater human development, free enterprise and irreversible economic expansion. It is important to note that pursuing policies that are necessary for inclusive economy growth has further guaranteed Nigeria’s political and democratic stability.
Furthermore, The Economist also contends that “on Mr Jonathan’s watch much of the north of the country has been in flames.” This is false. There are 19 states in Northern Nigeria. The Book Haram insurgency has largely affected three states, namely Borno, Adamawa and Yobe. As bad and as unacceptable as that is, it hardly qualifies as “much of the north of the country.”
Incongruously too, while asserting that, “The single bright spot of his (Jonathan’s) rule has been Nigeria’s economy, one of the world’s fastest-growing,” The Economist also declares that “under Mr Jonathan poverty has increased.” Again, this is false and fails to take into account the progress made in agriculture under Jonathan’s administration.
It is important to draw the attention of The Economistto the fact that the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) presented Nigeria with an award for reducing extreme hunger by more than half and achieving the Millennium Development Goal on Hunger three years ahead of the 2015 target date set for the Millennium Development Goals. Moreover, Nigeria’s food import bill declined from 1.1 trillion naira (6.9 billion dollars) in 2009 to 684.7 billion naira (4.35 billion dollars) by December 2013. It is simply impossible for Nigeria to have reduced her food import bill while reducing hunger and still record increased poverty as The Economist asserts.
While it is true that there are some things which the Jonathan administration could have done better, it is unfair of the opinion writers of The Economist not to reflect those things which Jonathan has done right. For instance, even before oil prices began to fall, the Jonathan-led government had already implemented several policies aimed at diversifying the economy such that Nigeria will not only weather the present oil price crisis, but will actually continue to grow economically.
Take agriculture for instance, The Economist may be unaware that the Jonathan administration brought about a total revolution in Nigeria’s fertiliser distribution system. Before then, for well over four decades, the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development procured and purportedly distributed fertilisers to farmers. Under that system only 11 percent of Nigerian farmers received fertilisers. ‘Political farmers’ got the greater bulk of the fertilisers, leaving the real farmers to wring their hands in despair. Today, fertilisers are provided straight to the farmers—not to any government ministry and not to middlemen.
As a result of these changes, in 2013, 4.2 million farmers received subsidized inputs through the programme. In the same year, the Jonathan-led administration also completed the construction of nine dams which increased the volume of water reservoirs by 422 million cubic metres. Through irrigation and drainage programmes, the total irrigated area increased by over 31,000 hectares creating jobs for over 75,000 farming families while increasing production of over 400,000 metric tons of assorted irrigated food products.
In a similar vein, The Economist may be unaware that Nigeria has moved from a cement importing country to a cement exporting country, a transformation that has engendered incalculable positive multiplier effects on the economy. If the Jonathan-led administration had not provided the enabling environment, Nigeria would not have grown its cement production capacity from two million metric tonnes in 2002 to 35.9 million metric tonnes in 2014, thereby creating 1.6 million jobs and still counting. Such large-scale turnarounds in any sector of a country’s economy cannot be achieved without the government of the day putting in place policies that are conducive to productivity.
On a final note, this writer is as relieved as the The Economist magazine opinion writers that they do not to have a vote in Nigeria’s presidential election. Thankfully, only Nigerians can vote in the forthcoming presidential election and a majority of them will once again vote for Jonathan to continue transforming Nigeria.
Mr Momodu contributed this piece from Benin City via momodujohnson@gmail.com
