Buharism as Fascism: Engaging Balarabe Musa
By
Sanusi Lamido Sanusi
London, February 20, 2003
(All views personal)
lamidos@hotmail.com
In the fortnight so following Eid el-Adha, two
incidents occurred that have compelled me once
more to write on Buharism, this time with a sense
of urgency and near desperation. The first was an
interview that the former civilian Governor of
Kaduna State, Alhaji Abdukadir Balarabe Musa gave
Tell magazine, in which he dismissed General
Muhammadu Buhari as a fascist who, by virtue of
that fact, was incapable of reforming Nigeria. In
this piece I will analyze this categorization and
expatiate on the nature and implications of
Buharism as fascism. I will for now only note that
when asked whom he would choose between
Obasanjo and Buhari, the radical PRP governor
could only hope that “it does not come to that”. In
a naïve, somewhat amusing manner, he pretends
away the reality that Nigerians today have only one
serious choice to make for all intents and
purposes; and that choice is between Obasanjo,
who by Balarabe Musa’s own admission has
betrayed his supporters and been a complete
failure and disappointment on the one hand, and
Buhari, who according to Musa is a fascist, on the
other hand. We have to choose, like it or not,
between a failure and a fascist. What choice must
the progressive politician or analyst make?
History, in throwing up the question, demands an
answer. Balarabe Musa’s refusal to make a choice
was, as we shall see, telling in more than one
respect.
The second event was the receipt of a text
message from my GSM provider breaking the news
that the PDP had conceded 10 ministerial posts
and 30 ambassadorial posts to the AD in return for
the latter’s support for president Obasanjo’s
second term bid. The AD is an ethnic party with
support in only one of the six geo-political “zones”
in the country. Its overt political agenda is one of
promoting the interests of the Yoruba elite and
bourgeoisie at all costs, including if necessary the
disintegration of the nation and the unprincipled
use of blackmail and cheap propaganda against
other constituent groups. The surprise to analysts
is not that the AD, which had been implacably
opposed to the presidency of OBJ, (a “stooge” of
“mallams”), is now supporting him. Yoruba politics
from the days of Awolowo has never transcended
ethnic identity. The real surprise, rather, is that
Nigerians in the PDP can in their right minds
concede 10 ministries to a party controlling only
one geo-political zone. Even presuming that only
with AD support can OBJ win the south-west,
surely such an agreement is an invitation to
anarchy and chaos. The 2003 election has
suddenly become a struggle for the survival of
Nigeria and its outcome will determine whether or
not Nigerians are to become subjects of
colonialism by one ethnic group. It is no longer
possible to sit on the fence. Nigerians must ask
themselves if this country can afford an OBJ
victory, and if the fascist alternative is not better
than this alliance with a narrow ethnocentric
agenda. I will now turn to an analysis of Buharism
as fascism.
Fascism, a term with roots in the politics of Italy
under Mussolini (and then Germany under Hitler),
refers to an ideology characterized by extreme
nationalism, extreme anti-communism, militarism
and restrictions on personal liberty. I have
elsewhere made the point that Buharism, in its
sense of being the ideology of the military
government headed by General Buhari after the
overthrow of the second republic 1983, shared
many common features with fascism. The
government was a right wing nationalist
government that pursued bourgeois economic
programs and curtailed personal freedoms. I have
also tried to explain the character of that
government as a necessary corollary to the
conditions that necessitated its emergence (see
my “Buharism - Economic Theory & Political
Economy”; and “Buharism Beyond Buhari”, both
published by the Daily Trust and available on the
web). In this sense, Buhari was the true successor
to Murtala Mohammed. It therefore follows that
one can only raise mild objections to Balarabe’s
description of Buhari as a fascist and one must
dismiss all attempts to reduce this opinion to the
vitriol of a politician who is yet to forgive his
unjust incarceration by Buhari’s administration.
Yet a number of points must be made.
First, in a constitutional democracy, personal
liberties are guaranteed, and protected, by the
courts of law. An elected president, (Buhari or any
other), cannot change this fact. Second, there are
no communist groups in Nigeria today. In
consequence, what is left of Buharism is a fiercely
nationalistic political ideology combined with right
wing social and economic policies. This is the
alternative Nigerians have to a regime which for
the past four years has been characterized by
sleaze and corruption (as reported by its own
auditor-general); a comical desperation to impress
America and the western world; a seeming rush to
sell off national assets at much less than fair
value; an open-door policy of import liberalization
that has destroyed indigenous industry; an
economic program lacking in fiscal and monetary
discipline that has led to high inflation, a heavy
debt burden, diminished foreign reserves, greater
disparities in income distribution, and the
consequent social insecurity and poverty. Between
1999 and 2001 Obasanjo’s government spent over
two trillion naira. About 300 billion is said to have
been spent by Chief Anenih on roads. The naira
has lost more than half its value against major
currencies. The national debt at one point in OBJ’s
term exceeded the nominal GDP.Nigeria has
defaulted on its contracted obligations to creditors
and both the IMF and the World Bank have been
most critical of economic management. The point
here is not that OBJ was the reason for all our
problems. It is that he has since assuming office
simply compounded these problems and
continued with business as usual. These are the
facts of PDP rule since 1999, and they are more
important than the ethnicity or faith of OBJ. Most
of those who supported OBJ in 1999 did so not
because of his ethnic and religious background,
but because they believed he would introduce
change for the better. Now he has failed and we
must not allow his ethnicity to be the decisive
factor returning him to power.
What can we expect of Buharism, therefore, by
extrapolating from its previous policies and
presuming Buhari’s faithful adherence to a
coherent ideological framework?
1. We would expect, given the record of
Muhammadu Buhari in power, a policy of zero
tolerance for official sleaze and corruption in
the Federal Government, as well as a definite
and transparent exercise aimed at stamping
out corruption in other tiers of government.We
know for a fact that the Buhari government not
only dealt with corrupt politicians, it took
steps to discipline military officers involved in
corruption. One of Buhari’s military governors
was removed as a result of business dealings
his wife was involved in.
2. We would expect a review of the policy of
unrestricted import liberalization, and the selective
use of tariffs and import bans (or restrictions on
eligible foreign exchange transactions) to protect
domestic industries and restrict the profligate
spending of hard earned foreign currency. This
was the policy pursued rigorously by the Buhari
government in 1984-85.
3. We would expect privatization to continue
but with three major differences from the
present form: First, those who want to buy
national assets must pay a fair price for
them. Second, no assets considered of vital
national interest will be sold. Finally, focus
will be on empowering Nigerians and
promoting the interests of a domestic
capitalist class rather than selling the nation’s
assets to foreign interest groups.
4. We would expect a shift in our foreign policy
from the present lap-dog mentality of seeking
notice from the U.S. and G.7 countries to one
of closer links to nations in Africa (e.g. South
Africa) and Asia (e.g. China, Malaysia,
Pakistan and South Korea) whose experience
in development can serve as a model. Unlike
OBJ who has spent one year of his presidency
in the air with no results, a nationalist leader
will stay home longer and travel less. Buhari’s
government policy was characterized by the
popular TV advertisement of “Andrew” who,
tired of Nigeria, was going to “check out.”
Andrew was convinced by his friend to stay.
“We have no other country. Let us stay and
save it together.”
5. We would expect a focus on an educational
program that seeks transfer of skills and
technology and the development of indigenous
human capital.
6. Buharism should confront oil exploration
companies and ensure that they pay for
environmental damage and plough a
substantial portion of their profits into
developing oil producing areas.
7. We would expect a trimming of government
and a reduction in recurrent expenditure and
overheads, greater fiscal discipline and tighter
monetary policy to combat inflation.
8. We would expect a focus on paying off our
foreign debt and reducing the debt overhang
through negotiations based on patriotic
interests and compliance with agreed terms.
In particular, only bona fide and verified debts
will be honoured and paid. Buhari’s emphasis
on verifying debts and his commitment to
paying same was a hallmark of his
administration. Not to be ignored here is that
the first Nigerian Head of State to ask for an
IMF standby facility was General Obasanjo
after he succeeded Murtala Muhammad.
9. We would expect a realistic acceptance of
the precariousness of our position and a
prioritisation of our economic projects. Such
white elephants as extravagant stadia and the
ill-advised quest to host soccer fiestas will
take secondary position to rebuilding our
dilapidated national infrastructure.
10. We would expect a truly nationalist
government that seeks to inculcate pride in
every Nigerian of his nationality and deals
fairly with all ethnic and religious groups.
These are ten points that flow logically from actual
policies pursued by Muhammadu Buhari when he
was in power, which set in clear relief the
bourgeois nationalist character of his government.
The policies will set Buhari against international
finance capital, against domestic criminals, sundry
contractors, commission agents and drug barons,
in other words against those who are responsible
for the woes of Nigeria.
Yet Buharism is not an ideal ideological construct
from the perspective of left-wing politics. The
reason for this is to be found in the very nature of
bourgeois economics. As noted by the Nobel
winning economist James Tobin in a 1970 essay,
“the most difficult issues of political economy are
those where goals of efficiency, freedom of choice,
and equality compete. It is hard enough to
propose an intellectually defensible compromise
among them, even harder to find a politically viable
compromise”. My sense is that Balarabe Musa’s
opposition to Buhari is rooted in socialist
principles, and the sound knowledge that a
bourgeois nationalist government is not likely to
pursue populist or petit-bourgeois policies of the
NEPU/PRP variety. This is a view I share. However
I differ with Balarabe in three fundamental
respects.
First, I recognize that the nation needs to produce
first, before the output can be distributed. Today
the nation’s very capacity to produce is at great
risk due to corruption, profligacy and irresponsible
economic management. If we need to have a
bourgeois nationalist government to revive the
economy and move us towards self-sustaining
growth and development, then we must support
such a government in spite of our reservations.
Secondly, Buhari, unlike Obasanjo, recognizes that
the Americans and the British and other foreign
“advisers” always act first and foremost in their
own national interests. This makes him a capitalist
in the mould of South Asian leaders like
Malaysia’s Mahathir Muhammad. Precisely when
the likes of Kalu Kalu, Olu Falae and Chu Okongwu
were busy preaching to Nigerians the benefits of
globalisation, Mahathir was telling Malaysians and
the world that “the fact that globalisation has come
does not mean we should just sit by and watch as
the predators destroy us.” Again I have elsewhere
gone into concrete analysis of Buhari’s economic
programs, which made him the essential enfant
terrible with the IMF and western capital. I believe
Buhari has what it takes for Nigeria to start moving
towards the Asian model, given the right
complement of patriotic intellectuals.
Finally, I believe left-wing politics and civil society
will exert pressure on Buhari and moderate some
of the sharp pains of bourgeois economic
programs. Buhari’s closest advisers will continue
to be the right wing elements with whom he is
known to be in close association, but a democratic
government of necessity and by definition makes
policy from a much broader opinion base than the
kitchen cabinet if at all it intends to last. If
progressive elements support Buhari there
influence in policy will be even more pronounced.
For these reasons I find that the shortcomings of
Buharism are not fatal, and consider the Buhari
option in 2003, as in 1983, a necessary, if difficult,
step in the path to national progress and
independence.
This intervention will be incomplete without a
discussion of the likely position of Buharism on the
implementation of Shari’ah. Right wing politicians
the world over, from the Tory party in the UK and
the Republicans in the US to the center-right
Christian Democratic parties of Europe tend to
closely associate themselves with institutional
religion and promote conservative values. Buhari
will be no different. The logic of his ideology is
such as to lead him towards supporting a
vigorous role for the state in establishing moral
standards. Indeed when he was in power he
pursued a “War against Indiscipline” (popularly
called WAI) and set up WAI brigades which set out
to compel Nigerians to adopt certain standards of
public conduct. It is not inconceivable that various
hisbah groups may begin to operate like WAI
brigades and there must be vigilance to protect
the citizenry from the excesses of zealots.
Having said this, a commitment to one’s religion
and religious values is not synonymous with
intolerance or disrespect for other faiths. We have
seen many right wing governments in Europe who
have shown great respect and tolerance for other
religious groups. Buhari’s famous speech for
which he is labeled a fundamentalist is one in
which he called on Nigerian Muslims to vote into
power good Muslims. Clearly, the implication here
is a sense of dissatisfaction with the conduct of
those Muslims who have not been good
representatives of their faith while in office. No
reasonable person would quarrel with this. Nigeria
needs good Muslims and good Christians, good
Nigerians to run its affairs. Perhaps this explains
why one of the most eloquent pieces written in
defence of Buhari on this point came from the
Reverend Mathew Hassan Kukah. Father Kukah
correctly understood that the point Buhari made
was that Muslims had a duty to elect into office
those persons who would uphold the political
values for which Islam stood, such as honesty,
justice and a true commitment to the welfare of the
people. These are values Islam shares with
Christianity and which are expected in good
Christians, and indeed a Buhari government is
likely to be dominated by conservative elements of
both religions.
As far as religion is concerned, therefore, it seems
fairly evident that Buhari remains a nationalist who
will not compromise his commitment to national
unity. Indeed his critics easily forget that his most
implacable opponents while in power were
Muslims. Buhari led a coup d’etat against a fellow
Muslim. He was the first to curtail the number of
pilgrims going to Saudi Arabia to conserve foreign
exchange and he changed the national currency
while Muslims were on pilgrimage. He also had
well advertised disputes with the late Sheikh
Abubakar Gunmi and at one time it was rumoured
he had him arrested. When Buhari was overthrown
many Nigerian Muslims in Saudi Arabia celebrated,
particularly those whose benefactors were either in
detention or exile as a result of his government’s
corrective measures. The facts of history refute the
charges of bigotry leveled against Buhari. The
genuine concern in my view lies in the point
alluded to above, the extent to which Buhari will
tolerate infringements on personal liberty by
hisbah groups. As in all societies ruled by right
wing governments, defenders of freedom must be
vigilant and ensure that the limits of state authority
are policed and personal freedoms preserved.
In the final analysis, progressives must make a
choice between four more years of Obasanjo/Atiku
on the one hand, and Buhari on the other. History
demands of us that we make that choice and
history will judge us appropriately. As for me, I
have made my choice. Buhari is not perfect, but he
has my vote.

Make it brief! GEJ my HERO! FAYOSE my ROLE MODEL!!

language is a moral medium and writing is a means of education and exhortation aimed at inviting the reader to act for his freedom and liberate first his consciousness, then his person, from the obscurantist cloak of myths, superstitions and outright fallacies invoked by those responsible for his state of alienation. This theme runs in the writings of several intellectuals, from Marx and Trotsky, to Sartre, Chomsky and Eco. Sanusi Lamido Sanusi

Nice writeup, only termites will fail to understand just like the first to comment up there