I'm no fan of PDP, and I want them dislodged from Aso rock. Evidences abound to support describing PDP as an evil cult that is bent on sucking the nation's blood dry. In fairness, the other parties may not be much better either, but at least let's try them and see what they have to offer, especially as most of the politicians today that have a modicum of credibility and principle are in other parties.

Thankfully, this appears to be a good time to dislodge them on the following grounds:
-we expect INEC leadership to conduct what should be close to free and fair election this time around, rigging should be minimal
-GEJ doesn't appear to have the liver of Obj to militarize the whole process and crush opposition
-PDP doesn't have a formidable presidential candidate - GEJ, IBB, Atiku?
-Obj, their strongest man, even if still powerful, can not be as influential as he was while in power

With these realities, I think the only ticket that can give PDP a run for their money is a Buhari-Fashola ticket and merging of CPC and ACN.
I used to think Ribadu/Fashola ticket was the best before but after reading an advertorial in a national daily few days ago, proposing Buhari-Fashola candidacy, I'm more than convinced it's more formidable than Ribadu-Fashola ticket.

REASONS:
1, Buhari is more popular in the north than Ribadu. In fact, Buhari polled up to 6 million in the 2003 and 2007 presidential elections. He was teh heart of ANPP and the party won six states. He is very popular among the masses. Ribadu is not liked in the north among the elites, and the masses hardly know him. Buhari will be a massive sell in the north, especially now that the north sees GEJ as an intruder to their slot

2, Fashola is very popular in the South-West. I see him sweeping Lagos, the largest voting population, as well as doing well in other Yoruba states.

3, ACN is reasonably popular in other states like Edo, Ekiti, and even Ondo

4, If GEJ gets the ticket ahead of IBB, Bukola Saraki and co, I expect rebellion in PDP, splitting their votes.

5, Buhari is increasingly becoming popular even among the educated, non-northerners. The religious and ethnic bigotry, teh greatest albatross to his previous ambitions, is gradually been shed by many people. I have seen pastors, core Yorubas & Igbos, highly educated people making arguments for Buhari presidency.
In fact, in a recent poll by Nigeria Village square after their interview with Buhari, as I type this, 44% say they will vote for him, 44% say they will not, 12% say they are not sure yet. Majority of the visitors and members of Nigeria Village Square are from the South and highly educated. For somebody so derided and despised by Southerners and non-Muslims and even Southern Muslims before, this result is not bad at all. It shows he's being gradually accepted among this class of people.

6, Buhari is widely believed to be a solution to the cankerworm called corruption in Nigeria. Almost every Nigerian agrees to his disciplined stance on corruption. he is perhaps the only living past Nigerian leader that doesn't have a corruption question dangling on his neck. If corruption, is fought head-on, and the mindset of the populace changes, then many other things will fall in place

7, From past experience, Buhari is known to give his deputy free hands(remember Idi-Agbon). With a proven administrator per excellence as Fashola as vice, we expect great works. Imagine a Fashola as a working, not a figure-head, Vice President. Imagine the transformation of Nigeria. Imagine the wonders.

THE LOW POINTS
1, Muslim-Muslim Ticket: This will be the greatest stumbling block to the realization of this project. But Nigerians have shown that they can discard religious considerations when the need to do so arises. The Abiola-Kingibe ticket comes to mind here.

2,Another Yoruba-Hausa combination: Unfortunately, this is another flaw of this arrangement, given the regional balance reality in this country. Obasanjo-Atiku just completed the Yoruba-Hausa ticket, and here we are saying another Yoruba-Hausa ticket. I know our Ibo and Niger Delta brothers will not find this funny, especially as this will involve dislodging a Niger Deltan(GEJ) that currently occupies the position. I will not, like Chidi Amuta, suggest an 'Eastern Bye-Pass', but I believe we can find a way round this by dialoguing with easterners and making them see reason behind this arrangement while promising to hand over power to them at the expiration of this tenure.

only problem with this dept tactic is our igbo brothers, they no go gree @ all.
even if its for their good.

The combination you are suggesting is not practical. In Nigeria, the VP position is largely ceremonial, which nullifies the Fashola half of the ticket and might squash his future presidential ambitions. Why serve as a figurehead when he can be boss? Why not have Fashola as the Presidential candidate with Buhari as Deputy?

7, From past experience, Buhari is known to give his deputy free hands(remember Idi-Agbon). With a proven administrator per excellence as Fashola as vice, we expect great works. Imagine a Fashola as a working, not a figure-head, Vice President. Imagine the transformation of Nigeria. Imagine the wonders.

There are strong rumours that Idiagbon carried out the coup that brought them to power, but as a titular Yoruba man sought out the nearest Hausa-Fulani he could find, in order to be acceptable to the military establishment of that period whose officer ranks were overwhelmingly skewed in favour of the Hausa - Fulani. By this argument, Buhari was a figurehead who had no real alternative, but to conside to the real power, Idiagbon.

6, Buhari is widely believed to be a solution to the cankerworm called corruption in Nigeria. Almost every Nigerian agrees to his disciplined stance on corruption. he is perhaps the only living past Nigerian leader that doesn't have a corruption question dangling on his neck. If corruption, is fought head-on, and the mindset of the populace changes, then many other things will fall in place

. . .Very strongly disputed! Buhari has a very serious corruption question dangling from his neck. 2.8 billion US Dollars went missing under his watch at the NNPC. That question remains unanswered, in fact it is said to be the lever Idiagbon had over him.

This is another (arguably more informed) take on the matter by Naiwu Osahon;

Naiwu Osahon:
Babangida first came into serious political reckoning with Buhari's misleading coup of December 31st 1983.  In reality, power was seized for the opportunity to destroy documents relating to the NNPC's missing USA$2.8 billion oil money, and punish all those involved in the unraveling of the scam.  Politicians and critics, including Fela Anikulapo-Kuti, notorious for clamouring for the exposure of the oil money rogue Minister of an earlier military epoch, were locked up without trial.

After consigning the vexatious matters that brought him to power to administrative oblivion with the help of Shinkafi, his Secret Service guru, Buhari announced his readiness to quit office.  Idiagbon, as Buhari's lieutenant, naturally insisted on taking over as head of state from his apparently prematurely retiring boss.  Babangida, who was Chief of Army Staff at the time and a member of the Supreme Military Council, insisted it was his turn to rule because he had been involved in virtually every military coup.  The quarrel split the Supreme Military Council members almost equally behind the two principal combatants.

Taken from Naiwu Osahon's book, The Viper's Den.

I still think Ribadu , with the right VP candidate, stands a good chance. Nonetheless this thread is about Buhari . He has my vote also if Ribadu will not run.

It is unlikely Fashola will run as VP candidate to anyone . He has stated repeatedly that he want to finish his work in Lagos State. Very few Governors , except those who are outgoing, will accept to be VP unless victory is assured. For reasons I will not belabour , I don't think , for Buhari, a Yoruba VP is strategically clever.

A Buhari/Ken Nnamani ticket would be very strong IMO.

Gbawe:

I still think Ribadu , with the right VP candidate, stands a good chance. Nonetheless this thread is about Buhari . He has my vote also if Ribadu will not run.

It is unlikely Fashola will run as VP candidate to anyone . He has stated repeatedly that he want to finish his work in Lagos State. Very few Governors , except those who are outgoing, will accept to be VP [size=15pt]unless victory is assured[/size]. For reasons I will not belabour , I don't think , for Buhari, a Yoruba VP is strategically clever.

A Buhari/Ken Nnamani ticket would be very strong IMO.

For once, Gbawe makes a weak attempt at getting real

Nah Jarus! While it might sound like a very credible ticket, I don't think it is workable for very many reasons.
You mentioned two of the strongest reasons already. But I will just add to it a little.

1)[/b]The Muslim- Muslim ticket would not work out for various reasons which include the fact that we are just coming out of three very aggravated religious disturbances.Boko Haram, Jos Massacres and Mutallab. When Abiola won with Kingibe, Nigeria was more united than it is toady.  
The Northern Christians(more than 30% of Northern Population) would be the first to reject the ticket. Funnily, the southerners might even be more accomodating.
Also, Buhari is still perceived by most Christians as an extremist. I really don 't know why he is percieved that way though.
Another very important factor is that the south west is the centre for mega pentecostal churches. The likes of Redeemed, MFM, Christ Embassy, Deeper Life, Winners etc come to mind. This group of Christians are not going to support Buhari. They wouldn't mind Ribadu, but not Buhari.
[b]So, with these on mind, Buhari-Fasola ticket loses out in the Middle Belt, Half of the south west and all of the Niger Delta and South East.

2) Buhari and Fashola have very very different ideological leanings. Infact, Fashola & Tinubu have the same ideological disposition with GEJ, OBJ, El Rufai, Soludo,Duke and the likes. They are Uber capitalist. Buhari on the other hand is a Socialist/Welfarist. Similar to that of Sanusi,Yar Adua,Oshiomole. They would surely be having problems before they  start working. In the end, Fashola would be indolent on such a ticket.


3) Money!! Buhari has no money. ACN has limited funds. All PDP needs to buy 5 million votes at N5000 each is N25 Billion. That is chicken change for PDP. The multiplier effect of 5 million votes can easily blossom into 25 million. The average Nigerian voter is still very much open to selling their votes for a price albeit sheepishly.

Truth is 2011 belongs to Jonathan!! Not only is he very popular amongst the electorate, he has incumbency power and he is on the part with the widest spread and strongest political structures.

na_so:

For once, Gbawe makes a weak attempt at getting real

You must think you are talking to one of the duplicitous supporters of GEJ on Nairaland who deciefully say the opposite of what they believe in.

For the avoidance of doubt I know that the PDP can be defeated . It is the Governors of Nigerian States , especially if they have a guaranteed second term , who will not want to gamble against the 'assured' victory of the PDP because they are privy to the massive rigging ability of the PDP. Not to mention the bully boy tactics, partisan control of the armed forces and abuse of executive power that almost makes a PDP victory a certainty. A Nigerian Governor will not take the gamble.

Meanwhile , if the opposition to the PDP can achieve a modicum of unity , with appealing candidates assisted by respected foot soldiers ,  to fight the PDP kobo for kobo, tactics for tactics (wherever possible) and a serious grassroot campaign of sensitizing the masses, then the PDP can be defeated. It would not be a Nigerian Governor , with an eye on a second term, that will subscribe to that difficult yet highly achievable project. That is my point. In the eyes of most Governors , the PDP will win the Presidency. That is why GEJ is desperately willing to do anything to gain the PDP ticket.

Most Nigerian Governors, elite and political leaders are disconnected with reality. How can they not be given how we Practice politics in Nigeria? Nigerians will shock them in 2011 . They are fed up of misrule . The Ekiti guber protests could have snowballed to be a real issue if other States/regions had joined the agitation . It showed us that Nigerians themselves are ready to resist the corrupt non-achievers.  In 2011 , when every region will be robbed at the same time the agitation will be simultaneous . It will be interesting to see how the PDP will deal with that. The targets of a revolution are always the last to see it coming.

^
How about IBB?

IBB people = Foolish people.

Forget PDP and AC fighting, the battle is between NORTH AND SOUTH, it is high time southerners show the north that this country belongs to everybody and that some people are the real PRODUCERS OF THE NATIONS WEALTH and that such people deserve to be PRESIDENT, i have never liked PDP due to their lawlessness, but i will never vote for the OVER RECYCLED NORTHERN LEADERS like IBB and Atiku, i can still vote for the like of Ribadu and Umar, but on sympathy ground I WILL VOTE FOR GOODLUCK EVEN IF IT IS ON PDP HE IS CONTESTING

This ticket will defeat PDP over and over ten times. There is no doubt about that. I am sure PDP strategists will be praying silently against this!

The thread smells of religious bigotry. Jarus, Buhari and Fashola (pls spot the similarities).
Jarus, the only thing Fashola and Buhari have in common is religion and it stops there. Fashola is a progressive, Buhari a conservative. Fashola a democrat, Buhari an opportunist and a dictator. Can 2 work together, unless they agree? What relationship has light with darkness? Let him explain PTDF and d 28 bag of cash, then we might start taking him serious.
As for the 6 million votes he got, I reckon there abt 6 million uneducated islamic fanatics (sure the number of enlighted God fearing muslims greatly outnumbers this) in Nigeria.
Ribadu is our man.

^
Good one! It was actually 54 suitcases of raw cash, not 28 bags.

Xavier.:

The thread smells of religious bigotry. Jarus, Buhari and Fashola (pls spot the similarities).
Jarus, the only thing Fashola and Buhari have in common is religion and it stops there. Fashola is a progressive, Buhari a conservative. Fashola a democrat, Buhari an opportunist and a dictator. Can 2 work together, unless they agree? What relationship has light with darkness? Let him explain PTDF and d 28 bag of cash, then we might start taking him serious.
As for the 6 million votes he got, I reckon there abt 6 million uneducated islamic fanatics (sure the number of enlighted God fearing muslims greatly outnumbers this) in Nigeria.
Ribadu is our man.

I initially wanted to engage in an intellectual discourse with the poster of this comment and dismantle his venoms one by one, but seeing it's Xavier, my arch-enemy here since his Yemmyse days in 2008, I clicked ignore button

Get a life dude, you're literate enough to be a Chartered Accountant, but you have refused to behave like somebody that went to school. I'm highly disappointed in you.
What exactly is your problem with me that you continue to stalk me around since 2008? Is it a crime to be a Muslim and has acceptability or versatile enough to contribute to issues beyond religion? I have outgrown engaging hare-brained bigots like you who sees things only from religious prism.

And in your rabid fault-finding mission on me, you have goofed several times, including having to apologize, after taking it upon yourself to trumpet an obviously false allegation by another person against me here:

Apologies Jarus. Just that we nid to keep those in the position of power under close watch, less they drift and become tyrants.
@sean, jarus says its spambot.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=501959.msg6628668#msg6628668

Grow, Yemi!

It article below says it all.  I think the only thing that can stop Jonathan in 2011 is Jonathan himself!!

Why merger talks with Buhari’s party flopped, by ACN

The Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) yesterday explained why its merger talks with the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) headed by General Muhammadu Buhari ended in deadlock, saying demands posited by the party was not in tandem with reality on ground.
National Publicity Secretary of ACN, Lai Mohammed, who gave an insight into the merger talks during a visit to Media Trust Corporate Headquarters, said General Buhari appeared not ready to succumb to any arrangement that would tamper with the CPC arrangement.

According to him, though ACN has better structures on ground, it was however ready to concede the chairmanship as well as the presidential slots to the CPC if the merger sails through but General Buhari declined the offer.

“He (Buhari) insisted that ACN should eclipse into CPC but we feel this is not in tandem with the reality on ground because we (ACN) have better structures than CPC. We have two governors, senators and several local government chairmen and councillors. So why should we operate on CPC platform?” he said.

He said even though General Buhari would be difficult to sell in some parts of the country, the likes of  former Lagos State governor, Bola Ahmed  Tinubu, and the former Anambra State governor, Chris Ngige as well as the Edo State governor, Adams Oshiomhole among others are ready to form a coalition for Buhari had the merger succeeded.

He said talks with former Vice President Atiku Abubakar could not go further as he insisted on returning to the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), stressing that there are rooms for more talks with other like minds.

He also denied reports that the party has concluded arrangement to field the former chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Nuhu Ribadu, as its presidential candidate, saying for now Ribadu is not a card carrying member of the party.

He said the national convention of the party would hold in the first week of November to elect its presidential candidate for the 2011 elections.

Commenting on the preparations of the Independent National Electoral Commission to conduct the 2011 elections, Alhaji Lai Mohammed, said the choice of January may not be feasible because INEC is yet to award contract for the purchase of equipment for the review of voters’ register.

He said the commission needs at least 15 weeks to come up with a comprehensive voters’ register needed for a credible elections.

According to him, INEC needs at least 10 weeks to get supply of the 120,000 units of data capturing machine required, three weeks to conduct registration and another two weeks to integrate data for final compilation of a credible voters’ register.

He said the challenge is for INEC to ask the National Assembly to suspend the operation of the new constitution to enable it have more time to conduct free and fair elections.

He said seeking the suspension of the new constitution is necessary because the country cannot afford to invest N80 billion and have the process aborted.

Mohammed also told Daily Trust that the party is not interested in the zoning debate that has dominated political space in the country, saying that as a PDP affair, zoning or no zoning shouldn’t be a national issue.

http://www.dailytrust.dailytrust.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2407:why-merger-talks-with-buharis-party-flopped-by-acn&catid=1:news&Itemid=2

[size=14pt]Every bye election and LG elections conducted within the last 3 months have being won by PDP, PDP cleared the stakes in the LG elections in Imo and Cross Rivers State recently, they won the bye election in Bauchi State, snatching victory under ANPP’s nose making Madame Farida’s husband the latest Senator in town.

I do not see any party dislodging PDP, it is noting more than wishful thinking.[/size]

Jarus:

I initially wanted to engage in an intellectual discourse with the poster of this comment and dismantle his venoms one by one, but seeing it's Xavier, my arch-enemy here since his Yemmyse days in 2008, I clicked ignore button

Get a life dude, you're literate enough to be a Chartered Accountant, but you have refused to behave like somebody that went to school. I'm highly disappointed in you.
What exactly is your problem with me that you continue to stalk me around since 2008? Is it a crime to be a Muslim and has acceptability or versatile enough to contribute to issues beyond religion? I have outgrown engaging in hare-brained bigots like you who sees things only from religious prism.
Grow, Yemi!

why do you like attacking people always on EDUCATION issues? every time it is he is not literate and many things like he did not gain anything from education, stop being arrogant, the mere fact that you are the moderator does not give you any right to SPEWN GARBAGES HERE

seanet02:

why do you like attacking people always on EDUCATION issues? every time it is he is not literate and many things like he did not gain anything from education, stop being arrogant, the mere fact that you are the moderator does not give you any right to SPEWN GARBAGES HERE

Because after certain level of education, I expect a certain level of reasoning from people.

Gbawe:

You must think you are talking to one of the duplicitous supporters of GEJ on Nairaland who deciefully say the opposite of what they believe in.

For the avoidance of doubt I know that the PDP can be defeated . It is the Governors of Nigerian States , especially if they have a guaranteed second term , who will not want to gamble against the 'assured' victory of the PDP because they are privy to the massive rigging ability of the PDP. Not to mention the bully boy tactics, partisan control of the armed forces and abuse of executive power that almost makes a PDP victory a certainty. A Nigerian Governor will not take the gamble.

Meanwhile , if the opposition to the PDP can achieve a modicum of unity , with appealing candidates assisted by respected foot soldiers ,  to fight the PDP kobo for kobo, tactics for tactics (wherever possible) and a serious grassroot campaign of sensitizing the masses, then the PDP can be defeated. It would not be a Nigerian Governor , with an eye on a second term, that will subscribe to that difficult yet highly achievable project. That is my point. In the eyes of most Governors , the PDP will win the Presidency. That is why GEJ is desperately willing to do anything to gain the PDP ticket.

Most Nigerian Governors, elite and political leaders are disconnected with reality. How can they not be given how we Practice politics in Nigeria? Nigerians will shock them in 2011 . They are fed up of misrule . The Ekiti guber protests could have snowballed to be a real issue if other States/regions had joined the agitation . It showed us that Nigerians themselves are ready to resist the corrupt non-achievers.  In 2011 , when every region will be robbed at the same time the agitation will be simultaneous . It will be interesting to see how the PDP will deal with that. The targets of a revolution are always the last to see it coming.

What happened to you Gbawe!! You've finally become more realistic. For the first time I agree with U. However, we all wonder why the opposition cannot "achieve a modicum of unity". In the absense of a credible opposition to the rotten PDP, we shall all happily accept GEJ on their platform.

Jarus:

Because after certain level of education, I expect a certain level of reasoning from people.

then your CREDIBILTY and LEADERSHIP qualities as moderator is at stake
and a big thank you for releasing ME from your SPAMBOT DUNGEON

The Good General has my vote.

GJ hasnt got the balls to even declare his intention to run let alone the power to fight corruption, let him go and rest.

is Buhari not too bigoted to govern any country? let alone like Nigeria.

I will choose PDP 10 times before Buhari
I will choose GEJ 10 times before Buhari
I will choose IBB 10 times before Buhari

mikeansy:

is Buhari not too bigoted to govern any country? let alone like Nigeria.

I will choose PDP 10 times before Buhari
I will choose GEJ 10 times before Buhari
I will choose IBB 10 times before Buhari

Buhari has denied being a bigot .The notion he is a bigot has come about due to allegation that he urged Muslim voters not to cast their vote for a Christian candidate (OBJ) in 2003 . The man has rejected the statements many times. Since Buhari does not have a consistent record of bigotry and religious radicalism I am happy to accept what he has said to defend himself.

I lived in the UK for long enough to know that a genuine bigot/racist will always have a history and future of consistent bigoted and racist actions/behaviour. I wont accept it if you call my white neigbhour racist because he allegedly made a racist statement while he has being nothing but a decent person in all the times I have known him. In any case it was IBB that attempted to destroy Nigeria's secularity by enlisting us as a member of the OIC (Organisation of Islamic Countries) when we are not an Islamic nation. IBB deserves the term of bigot more than Buhari IMO.

I just don't think it is fair for Buahari to be judged on a statement he was alleged to have made when we have nothing else to indicate consistent bigotry.

http://allafrica.com/stories/201008200963.html

I Am Not a Religious Bigot - Buhari

By Paul Dada
19 August 2010

Lagos — Former Military Head of State, Major General Muhammed Buhari, has denied being a religious bigot with a plan to turn Nigeria into an Islamic country if voted into power as president.

Buhari, who was alleged to have called on Muslims to oppose the presidential bid of Olusegun Obsasanjo, a Christian during the 2003 election, said this in Lagos when he paid a visit to the Prelate, Methodist Church of Nigeria, Dr. Ola Makinde, recently.

Buhari was accompanied on the visit by the former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Aminu Masari, Director General of his presidential campaign, Alhaji Sule Hamma, Hon. Farouk Adamu, Alhaji Abba Kyari and Barrister Joy Nunuwe.

The aim of the visit was to get the support of the Christian cleric for his ambition to become president next year.

Buhari would be contesting in next year's election on the platform of the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC), a party which he formed after leaving the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP), the platform on which he had contested twice for the presidency.

The former head of state indicated that he was ready to face anyone who could prove that he had said he would make Nigeria an Islamic state. He said he understands the fact that Nigeria remains a secular country.

"I have a lot of respect for the religious and traditional institutions in the country and that is why I have decided to always begin my consultation with visits to religious and traditional leaders across the country.

"In 2003, I wrote to all the religious leaders in the country and during my campaign tours, I visited them. I visited Christian leaders, the Ulamas and traditional rulers across the country," he added.

Buhari said he deliberately used the period of the Ramadan to start the campaign process by visiting spiritual leaders, with the aim of explaining his vision to the nation and letting Nigerians know "our feelings about the problems of the country and how we intend to solve them and recreate the Nigeria of our collective dream."

He said people who see him as a hardliner are wrong. He added that it was erroneous for anybody to describe him as a hardliner, saying if he was one, he would not be building bridges across the length and breadth of the nation.

Buhari also called for the conduct of free and fair elections in the country. He expressed confidence that in an ideal situation, he would defeat the incumbent president, Goodluck Jonathan in the 2011 elections.

"Elections must be free and fair and this is what we have been fighting for. Let the elites go and deliver their constituencies. Let them tell their people the truth and allow them to choose who would represent them", he added.


"What we need is a free and fair election. We were in court for 30 months in 2003 and in 2007, we were in court for 20 months which means between 2003 and 2007, we were in court for 50 months. We were not doing it for a joke. I believe in democracy and I believe in social justice,"

Ola Makinde had earlier confirmed that Buhari had told him that he was not a religious bigot. "Buhari said he did not say any such thing; but I made him know that we will no longer accept any religious killing in any part of the country. We must work together. I am telling you and anybody that we will not condone any more religious killings and therefore we will not vote for any religious bigot to rule this country.

"We will fight that with the last drop of our blood. I know how many people who were killed in Jos. We don't have that kind of crisis in the South. Most of the people they killed in the North are Southern Christians," he said.

I think it is time Nigerians do away with believing allegations.Political aspirant put out damaging but false allegations against their opponents all the time in Nigeria. It is the norm. Better to look at the character of an individual over a lengthy period of time. Below , prominent Nigerians testify that Buhari is not a bigot.

http://news.biafranigeriaworld.com/archive/2004/feb/26/0062.html

Testimonies for Buhari


BY AL-BASHIR
Thursday, February 26, 2004


Inside the main theatre of the International Trade Fair complex Kaduna, built by the Abacha created and Buhari led PTF, saw a sea of heads on December 17, 2003. Outside was a colorful ocean of humans. Along the routes, leading to the complex, spectators, drummers and praise singers were struggling with vehicle owners for space. All round, the atmosphere was thickly suffocated and saturated with promotional noises, “Sai Buhari! Sai maigaskiya,” meaning, “Buhari the truthful”.

The occasion was the launching of his biography, Buhari: The spirit man, authored by lawyer, A. K. Usman of ABU Zaria. Chaired by the Sardauna Kekere, Chief Sunday Awoniyi, leader of Arewa, the gathering was a carnival of testimonies about the former head of state, for now Nigeria’s main opposition leader. For Buhari, the testimonies of his one time Commander-in-Chief, the very likeable and popular General Yakubu Gowon, and his former permanent secretary, while commissioner for petroleum and energy, the Sardauna Kekere, most have ranked among the best, as both leaders demolished the nation that the celebrant is a religious bigot.

This is Awoniyi’s testimony. “Most of the staff of the ministry were Christians. Except for Alhaji Gubio, my deputy permanent secretary, from Borno and myself all the heads of units in the ministry were non-Northerners. Col Buhari displayed not the slightest hint of tribalism, ethnic preference or religious bias or intolerance whatsoever. General Buhari is not a tribalist. He is not a religious bigot. With him, you know where you stand any moment on any issue. He is just incapable of double talk.”

General Gowon, who spoke without notes said more. “I felt very sad” he started, “when, before the elections, some people were saying that they were not going to vote for Buhari because he told Muslims not to vote for Christians. I really felt bad because I know, as a fact, that this “young man” is not a religious bigot. He has never discriminated on the basis of religion” or almost exact words to this effect. The thunderous standing ovation that followed these remarks was enough to uproot a tree, metaphorically speaking.

The general spoke the minds of ardent supporters and alike when he called on Nigerians to support Buhari in all his endeavours, a clear endorsement without saying so. He went down memory lane recalling how he wanted an honest and sincere officer to undertake a very difficult assignment.

Buhari, he said, was the choice of his superiors and that he never disappointed.

Many may elect to impune that these remarks were meant to suit the occasion. May be so. However, recall when following the Kaduna bloodbath, the Federal Government, via a presidential broadcast, claimed that the National Council of State had taken a decision to the effect that all Sharia states should reverse to the status quo ante. This was immediately denied by the government of Zamfara State. When the media sought to know the true position from Buhari, he denied that it was discussed, though it was mentioned in passing. Gowon was to clear the air that what the Dauraman said was the true position.

Now to Ojukwu, who he said Buhari is a trust worthy person who does what he says he will do. Short of saying, in specific words, that Buhari is the right person for Aso Rock nothing complementary he did not say. He talked of the alliance between the two “for the good” of Nigeria. Overall, his testimony was a tactical endorsement of the WAI initiator.

None had adjectival oration in such flamboyantly coined words, for the celebrant, than Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, the boss of Lagos State and none could repeat what he said off hand. What he said could be summarized to the effect that Buhari is the best president Nigeria is yet to have but may have.
Two BUK Professors, Auwwalu Yadudu and Jibrin, did not disappoint as the guest speaker and book reviewer, respectively. Yadudu, a law professor, was in his excellent wits as Jibrin, of the language department, spoke his usual Queen’s English. If many mistook him as a seasoned broadcaster, an Abba Zoru, of sort, in his beautiful presentation, they could be forgiven. An English teacher, he spoke and speaks the language as they speak it.

What was news in the whole testimonies was not the intimidating turn out, the brilliant speeches and the huge donations etc. A Buhari outing couldn’t have achieved less. So, there was no news in this respect. What was news was Gowon’s revelation

I would be totally against this ticket.

How come all the tickets I am hearing only involve Non-Eastern people?

We Eastern people have plenty of highly educated individuals who can lead this nation out of this quagmire.

EzeUche22:

I would be totally against this ticket.

How come all the tickets I am hearing only involve Non-Eastern people?

We Eastern people have plenty of highly educated individuals who can lead this nation out of this quagmire.

What do you think of a Buhari/Ken Nnamani ticket? I think it can happen because Nnamani , while OBJ is active in the PDP, will forever be in political wilderness because of how he helped scuttle OBJ's third term project . I am certain Nnamani would listen to reasonable offers . He is still an ambitious politician IMO.

Gbawe

We have less access to info at times to make conclusive judgements on these politicians. But perhaps it is easier to understand the antecedents of these guys when we catch them off guard. Obviously candidate Buhari is aware of his political baggage which is the accusation that he is intolerant of other views. Hence why he considers it necessary to deny those claims and you and I know that you don't usually learn a lot about the character of a man from denials or rejoinders because most times they are staged and controlled

But bigotry is not only about race or religion; it is also about politics and not being tolerant to other views. If Buhari was not a political bigot he would have come to terms that having had the chance to run for elections in 2003 and 2007 and yet failing one way or the other. He does not need to change parties just to remain Presidential candidate. May be it is time to display some loyalty to those who kept faith in you for two electoral cycles. The man almost believes that he has a devine right to run for elections and once he does not get what he wants he changes.

His unwillingness to criticise himself, listen to those he does not agree with makes it difficult for him to engage in some soul searching and realise the truth. Hence why I am convinced he is a bigot. If not a religious bigot, a political bigot. I will give you an example.

In a video on youtube about Nigeria at 50, Buhari identified the January 1966 as the origin of our problems. It is fair to say that there are a lot of folks who legitimately share that sentiment. But What Buhari has failed to also talk about is the fact that OBJ gave us a second opportunity in 1979 by handing over to a democratically elected government but he Buhari trauncated that Republic in 1983.

In essence no matter how noble he likes to claim his coup is, he put this country back by 17years. So when a man like Buhari wants to talk about 1966 coup in 2011 without a mention of 1983 coup. Then I see a man living in denial, not willing to do some soul searching, not ready to criticise himself or listen to other opinions. He simply does not have the heart of a leader and I am greatful that Buhari will never win an election in Nigeria.

He will get high votes in Katsina, Kano, Sokoto, Zamfara, etc. But that is where his political power ends.

In my view:

As much as he likes to call himself a disciplinarian; I say he can not be described by that word because as a Soldier in 1983 there was an existing Nigerian constitution which made it ilegal to take over power through unconstitutional means. he had no respect for constituted authority, nor did he have respect for the constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria.

As a politician he still lacks discipline for leaving his party ANPP to CPC just to remain a Presidential candidate. the party has at least kept faith with him twice. It would have made sense to stick to the party and play the role of an elder statesman in the party.

Permit me to post these two articles on Buhari by Sanusi Lamido Sanusi in 2002. We may get one or two things useful about the man Buhari here. Like somebody mentioned up there, Buhari and Sanusi appear ideologically compatible

BUHARISM: Economic Theory and Political Economy
By

Sanusi Lamido Sanusi

[LAGOS]

July 22,2002

(All views are strictly personal)

lamidos@hotmail.com

 

I have followed with more than a little interest the many contributions of commentators on the surprising decision of General Muhammadu Buhari to jump into the murky waters of Nigerian politics. Most of the regular writers in the Trust stable have had something to say on this. The political adviser to a late general has transferred his services to a living one. My dear friend and prolific veterinary doctor, who like me is allegedly an ideologue of Fulani supremacy, has taken  a leading emir to the cleaners based on information of suspect authenticity. Another friend has contributed an articulate piece, which for those in the know gives a bird’s eye view into the thinking within the IBB camp. A young northern Turk has made several interventions and given novel expressions to what I call the PTF connection. Some readers and writers alike have done Buhari incalculable damage by viewing his politics through the narrow prism of ethnicity and religion, risking the alienation of whole sections of the Nigerian polity without whose votes their candidate cannot succeed.

 

With one or two notable exceptions, the various positions for or against Buhari have focused on his personality and continued to reveal a certain aversion or disdain for deeper and more thorough analysis of his regime. The reality, as noted by Tolstoy, is that too often history is erroneously reduced to single individuals. By losing sight of the multiplicity of individuals, events, actions and inactions (deliberate or otherwise) that combine to produce a set of historical circumstances, the historian is able to create a mythical figure and turn him into an everlasting hero (like Lincoln) or a villain (like Hitler). The same is true of Buhari. There seems to be a dangerous trend of competition between two opposing camps aimed at glorifying him beyond his wildest dreams or demonizing him beyond all justifiable limits, through a selective reading of history and opportunistic attribution and misattribution of responsibility. The discourse has been thus impoverished through personalization and we are no closer at the end of it than at the beginning to a divination of the exact locus or nexus of his administration in the flow of Nigerian history. This is what I seek to achieve in this intervention through an exposition of the theoretical underpinnings of the economic policy of Buharism and the necessary correlation between the economic decisions made and the concomitant legal and political superstructure.

 

Taxonomy
 

Let me begin by stating up front the principal thesis that I will propound. Within the schema of discourses on Nigerian history, the most accurate problematization of the Buhari government is one that views it strictly as a regime founded on the ideology of Bourgeois Nationalism. In this sense it was a true off-shoot of the regime of Murtala Mohammed. Buharism was a stage the logical outcome of whose machinations would have been a transcendence of what Marx called the stage of Primitive Accumulation in his Theories of Surplus Value. It was radical, not in the sense of being socialist or left wing, but in the sense of being a progressive move away from a political economy dominated by a parasitic and subservient elite to one in which a nationalist and productive class gains ascendancy. Buharism represented a two-way struggle: with Global capitalism (externally) and with its parasitic and unpatriotic agents and spokespersons (internally). The struggle against global capital as represented by the unholy trinity of the IMF, the World Bank and multilateral “trade” organizations as well that against  the entrenched domestic class of contractors, commission agents and corrupt public officers were vicious  and thus required extreme measures. Draconian policies were a necessary component of this struggle for transformation and this has been the case with all such epochs in history. The Meiji restoration in Japan was not conducted in a liberal environment. The Industrial Revolution in Europe and the great economic progress of the empires were not attained in the same liberal atmosphere of the 21st Century. The “tiger economies” of Asia such as Taiwan, South Korea, Indonesia and Thailand are not exactly models of democratic freedom. To this extent Buharism was a despotic regime but its despotism was historically determined, necessitated by the historical task of dismantling the structures of dependency and launching the nation on to a path beyond primitive accumulation. At his best Buhari may have been a Bonaparte or a Bismarck. At his worst he may have been a Hitler or a Mussolini. In either case Buharism drawn to its logical conclusion would have provided the bedrock for a new society and its overthrow marked a relapse, a step backward into that era from which we sought escape and in which, sadly for all of us we remain embedded and enslaved. I will now proceed with an elaboration of Buharism as a manifestation of bourgeois economics and political economy.

 

 

The Economic Theory of Buharism
 

One of the greatest myths spun around Buharism was that it lacked a sound basis in economic theory. As evidence of this, the regime that succeeded Buhari employed the services of economic “gurus” of “international standard” as the architects of fiscal and monetary policy. These were IMF and World Bank economists like Dr. Chu Okongwu and Dr Kalu Idika Kalu, as well as Mr SAP himself, Chief Olu Falae (an economist trained at Yale). At the time Buhari’s Finance Minister, Dr Onaolapo Soleye (who was not a trained economist) was debating with the pro-IMF lobby and explaining why the naira would not be devalued I was teaching economics at the Ahmadu Bello University. I had no doubt in my mind that the position of Buharism was based on a sound understanding of neo-classical economics and that those who were pushing for devaluation either did not understand their subject or were acting deliberately as agents of international capital in its rampage against all barriers set up by sovereign states to protect the integrity of  the domestic economy. I still believe some of the key economic policy experts of the IBB administration were economic saboteurs who should be tried for treason. When the IMF recently owned up to “mistakes” in its policy prescriptions all patriotic economists saw it for what it was: A hypocritical statement of remorse after attaining set objectives. Let me explain, briefly, the economic theory underlying Buhari’s refusal to devalue the naira and then show how the policy merely served the interest of global capitalism and its domestic agents. This will be the principal building block of our taxonomy.

 

In brief, neo-classical theory holds that a country can, under certain conditions, expect to improve its Balance of Payments through devaluation of its currency. The IMF believed that given the pressure on the country’s foreign reserves and its adverse balance of payments situation Nigeria must devalue its currency. Buharism held otherwise and insisted that the conditions for improving Balance of Payments through devaluation did not exist and that there were alternate and superior approaches to the problem. Let me explain.

 

The first condition that must exist is that the price of every country’s export is denominated in its currency. If Nigeria’s exports are priced in naira and its imports from the US in dollars then, ceteris paribus, a devaluation of the naira makes imports dearer to Nigerians and makes Nigerian goods cheaper to Americans. This would then lead to an increase in the quantum of exports to the US and a reduction in the  quantum of imports from there per unit of time. But while this is a necessary condition, it is not a sufficient one. For a positive change in the balance of payments the increase in the quantum of exports must be substantial enough to outweigh the revenue lost through a reduction in price. In other words the quantity exported must increase at a rate faster than the rate of decrease in its price. Similarly imports must fall faster than their price is increasing. Otherwise the nation may be devoting more of its wealth to importing less and receiving less of the wealth of foreigners for exporting more! In consequence, devaluation by a country whose exports and imports are not price elastic leads to the continued impoverishment of the nation vis a vis its trading partners. The second, and sufficient, condition is therefore that the combined price elasticity of demand for exports and imports must exceed unity.

 

The argument of Buharism, for which it was castigated by global capital and its domestic agents, was that these conditions did not exist clearly enough for Nigeria to take the gamble. First our major export, oil, was priced in dollars and the volume exported was determined ab initio by the quota set by OPEC, a cartel to which we belonged. Neither the price nor the volume of our exports would be affected by a devaluation of the naira. As for imports, indeed they would become dearer. However the manufacturing base depended on imported raw materials. Also many essential food items were imported. The demand for imports was therefore inelastic. We would end up spending more of our national income to import less, in the process fuelling inflation, creating excess capacity and unemployment, wiping out the production base of the real sector and causing hardship to the consumer through the erosion of real disposable incomes. Given the structural dislocations in income distribution in Nigeria the only groups who would benefit from devaluation were the rich parasites who had enough liquidity to continue with their conspicuous consumption, the large multi-national corporations with an unlimited access to loanable funds and the foreign “investor” who can now purchase our grossly cheapened and undervalued domestic assets. In one stroke we would wipe out the middle class, destroy indigenous manufacturing, undervalue the national wealth and create inflation and unemployment. This is standard economic theory and it is exactly what happened to Nigeria after it went through the hands of our IMF economists under IBB. The decision not to devalue set Buharism on a collision course with those who wanted devaluation and would profit from it-namely global capitalism, the so-called “captains of industry” (an acronym for the errand boys of multinational corporations), the nouveaux-riches parasites who had naira and dollars waiting to be spent, the rump elements of feudalism and so on. Buharism therefore was a crisis in the dominant class, a fracturing of its members into a patriotic, nationalist group and a dependent, parasitic and corrupt one. It was not a struggle between classes but within the same class. A victory for Buharism would be a victory for the more progressive elements of the national bourgeoisie. Unfortunately the fifth columnists within the military establishment were allied to the backward and retrogressive elements and succeeded in defeating Buharism before it took firm root. But I digress.

 

Having decided not to devalue or to rush into privatization and liberalization Buharism still faced an economic crisis it must address. There was pressure on foreign reserves, mounting foreign debt and a Balance of Payments crisis. Clearly the demand for foreign exchange outstripped its supply. The government therefore adopted demand management measures. The basic principle was that we did not really need all that we imported and if we could ensure that our scarce foreign exchange was only allocated to what we really needed we would be able to pay our debts and lay the foundations for economic stability. But this line of action also has its drawbacks.

 

First, there are political costs to be borne in terms of opposition from those who feel unfairly excluded from the allocation process and who do not share the government’s sense of priorities. Muslims for example cursed Buhari’s government for restricting the number of pilgrims in order to conserve foreign exchange.

 

Second, in all attempts to manage demand through quotas and quantitative restrictions there is room for abuse because there is always the incentive of a premium to be earned through circumvention of due process. Import licenses become “hot cake” and the black market for foreign exchange highly lucrative. This policy can only succeed if backed by strong deterrent laws and strict and enforcible exchange rules. Again it is trite micro-economic theory that where price is fixed below equilibrium the market is only cleared through quotas and the potential exists for round tripping as there will be a minority willing and able to offer a very high price for the “artificially scarce” product. So again we see that the harsh exchange control and economic sabotage laws of Buharism were a necessary and logical fallout of its economic theory.

 

Conclusion
 

I have tried to show in this intervention what I consider to be the principal building blocks of the military government of Muhammadu Buhari and the logical connection between its ideology, its economic theory and the legal and political superstructure that characterized it. My objective is to raise the intellectual profile of discourse beyond its present focus on personalities by letting readers see the intricate links between disparate and seemingly unrelated aspects of that government, thus contextualizing the actions of Buharism in its specific historical and ideological milieu. I have tried to review its treatment of politicians as part of a general struggle against primitive accumulation and its harsh laws on exchange and economic crimes as a necessary fallout of economic policy options. Similarly its treatment of drug pushers reflected the patriotic zeal of a bourgeois nationalist establishment.

 

As happens in all such cases a number of innocent people become victims of draconian laws, such as a few honest leaders like Shehu Shagari and Balarabe Musa who were improperly detained. The reality however is that many of those claiming to be victims today were looters who deserved to go to jail but who would like to hide under the cover of a few glaring errors. The failure of key members of the Buhari administration to tender public and unreserved apology to those who may have been improperly detained has not helped matters in this regard.

 

This raises a question I have often been asked. Do I support Buhari’s decision to contest for the presidency of Nigeria? My answer is no. And I will explain.

 

First, I believe Buhari played a creditable role in a particular historical epoch but like Tolstoy and Marx I do not believe he can re-enact that role at will. Men do not make history exactly as they please but, as Marx wrote in the 18th Brumaire, “in circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past.” Muhammadu Buhari as a military general had more room for manoevre than he can ever hope for in Nigerian Politics.

 

Second, I am convinced that the situation of Nigeria and its elite today is worse than it was in 1983.Compared to the politicians who populate the PDP, ANPP and AD today, second republic politicians were angels. Buhari waged a battle against second republic politicians, but he is joining this generation. Anyone who rides a tiger ends up in its belly and one man cannot change the system from within. A number of those Buhari jailed for theft later became ministers and many of those who hold key offices in all tiers of government and the legislature were made by the very system he sought to destroy. My view is that Nigeria needs people like Buhari in politics but not to contest elections. Buhari should be in politics to develop Civil Society and strengthen the conscience of the nation. He should try to develop many Buharis who will continue to challenge the elements that have hijacked the nation.

 

Third, I do not think Nigerians today are ready for Buhari. Everywhere you turn you see thieves who have amassed wealth in the last four years, be they legislators, Local Government chairmen and councilors, or governors and ministers. But these are the heroes in their societies. They are the religious leaders and ethnic champions and Nigerians, especially northerners, will castigate and discredit anyone who challenges them. Unless we start by educating our people and changing their value system, people like Buhari will remain the victims of their own love for Nigeria.

 

Fourth, and on a lighter note, I am opposed to recycled material. In a nation of 120million people we can do better than restrict our leadership to a small group. I think Buhari, Babangida and yes Obasanjo should simply allow others try their hand instead of believing they have the monopoly of wisdom.

 

Having said all this let me conclude by saying that if Buhari gets a nomination he will have my vote (for what it is worth). I will vote for him not, like some have averred, because he is a northerner and a Muslim or because I think his candidacy is good for the north and Islam; I will vote for him not because  I think he will make a good democrat or that he was not a dictator. I will vote for Buhari as a Nigerian for a leader who restored my pride and dignity and my belief in the motherland. I will vote for the man who made it undesirable for the “Andrews” to “check out” instead of staying to change Nigeria. I will vote for Buhari to say thank you for the world view of Buharism, a truly nationalist ideology for all Nigerians. I do not know if Buhari is still a nationalist or a closet bigot and fanatic, or if he was the spirit and not just the face of Buharism. My vote for him is not based on a divination of what he is or may be, but a celebration of what his government was and what it gave to the nation.

Buharism Beyond Buhari: A Response to Mohammed Haruna
By
SANUSI LAMIDO SANUSI
LONDON, SEPTEMBER 6, 2002
(All views personal)
lamidos@hotmail.com




When I chose the sub-title “economic theory and political economy” for my essay on Buharism, it was with a clear purpose in mind. “Political Economy or Economics”, wrote Alfred Marshall a very long time ago in his Principles of Economics, “is a study of mankind in the ordinary business of life.” Although the definition has been considerably narrowed, it seems to me evident that no one who delves into this area can pretend to be a neutral and impartial observer, since every one has a position in the scheme of things and everyone has an explicit or implicit interest in what happens to mankind. Indeed I have never written on a matter about which I am indifferent, for to do so is an exercise in futility. As I wrote in one of my earlier articles, 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. My intervention was not the contribution of an impartial arbiter but, as stated clearly in the piece, an attempt to unveil the “exact locus or nexus” of the Buhari administration in “the ebb and flow of Nigerian history”. To this extent, that is to the extent of stating that I am not a neutral party as far as Buharism is concerned, my friend Mohammed Haruna is dead right in his rebuttal titled “Sanusi Lamido Sanusi and Buharism”. Beyond that, however, he seems to have made a number of unsubstantiated logical leaps, which need to be pointed out as part of the process of moving the discourse forward.



The principal error is to confuse my clear partiality in favour of Buharism with a glorification of Buhari the man. The economic principles and the political ideology underpinning the Buhari government transcend Muhammadu Buhari and they formed the kernel of my paper. It is the sad element in Mohammed’s rebuttal that precisely when he addressed himself to the substance of my paper, the economic theory and political economy of Buharism, he ran into logical conundrums that left one silently bemused at what is best described as a most eloquent articulation of incoherence in economic matters. Take for instance the following statements: “Nigeria, Sanusi would argue, quite rightly, has since taken its bitter pill of devaluation, but seems to be getting worse, not better. Devaluation, therefore could not possibly be the correct prescription. But then the problem with social behaviour is that it is impossible to predict with certainty for the simple reason that too many variables are involved….” My initial reaction is to wonder if Mohammed read my paper. The point was clearly made therein that this issue had nothing to do with the unpredictability of social behaviour. The results of devaluation in an economy with the characteristics of the Nigerian economy were a foregone conclusion. I have discussed the theory at length and shown that we knew, ab initio, that things would get worse. After Buhari was overthrown, for those who remember well, economists like Dr Ibrahim Ayagi (who braved opposition given his post as the Chief Executive of Chase Merchant Bank), Professor Eskor Toyo, Professor Sam Aluko, Professor Ikenna Nzimiro and Dr Bade Onimode, as well as radical intellectuals like Dr Bala Usman, Dr Yusuf Bangura, Dr Claude Ake etc. were vocal in their opposition to the so-called “IMF conditionalities.” Founded on this fallacy of unpredictability is also Mohammed’s assertion that “there are… economists who are no less patriotic than Buhari who would support the contrary position that although devaluation may be a bitter medicine, it is inevitable for…Nigeria, which produces little of what it consumes.” Were this statement not coming from a writer for whom I have the most profound respect, I would have dismissed it as the unserious ranting of a demagogue. What, pray, is patriotic in prescribing an economic policy that is bound to condemn the majority of the populace to great poverty and hardship, with the only “positive” effect of handing the economy over to foreigners and creating a very small clique of the super rich? The only rational understanding of this statement is to say that patriotism in this context has not been defined. Perhaps Mohammed means that these economists are as patriotic in their loyalty to the United States, the IMF, the World Bank and Multinational Corporations as the Ayagis and Bala Usmans are to Nigeria. But even more objectionable, given the implicit insult to their intelligence, is the insinuation that those who say devaluation was bad for Nigeria did so simply because it was “good for the IMF or the World Bank”. We rejected IMF conditionalities because they were bad for Nigeria and for Nigerians. Those who supported them did so because they favoured international capital and a small clique whose interest they represented. Behind the sophisticated theorisation was a naked, violent struggle for “market share” with consequences for the creation of wealth and affluence, as well as their concentration or diffusion among countries and among individuals, institutions and groups within each country.



The final direct response to Mohammed is on his argument that we have had good dictatorships and bad ones and that we could therefore not divine the likely direction Nigeria would take had Buharism been pursued to its logical conclusion. This argument is dangerous and it suggests that the article on Buharism had supported despotism for its own sake, rather than acknowledge it as a negative, if sometimes necessary corollary to certain policies in specific contexts. To bring in the likes of Mobutu (Haruna may well have added Abacha) as examples is mischievous when dealing with an administration that spent its short life punishing those involved in precisely the kind of looting that these tyrants were guilty of. Contrary to Mohammed’s assertion, I do not have an “apparent blind faith in Buharism with no questions asked.” In what remains of this intervention, I will substantiate this proposition.



The first point I will make is that even though Buharism rejected the “big bang” approach of what was known as “the Washington consensus” (the IMF, the World Bank and the US Treasury) it did not pursue a regime of fixed exchange rates (another false item in Mohammed’s paper). It argued for a gradual process that would maximise the benefits and minimise the costs of managing a severe economic crisis. Indeed the exchange rate between 1984 and late 1985 depreciated in a gradual, controlled manner. The question now is this: Which, between the gradualist approach to deregulation, liberalisation and privatisation on the one hand and the big-bang approach would have taken Nigeria down the same path as the “Asian tigers”? I call to witness Joseph Stiglitz, winner of the Nobel prize for economics in 2001 and until January 2000 Chief Economist at the World Bank. I will quote at length, because of its lucidity, a passage from a book he published this year, Globalization and its Discontents (p. 92):



“There were problems in the way the Asian economies developed, but overall, the governments had devised a strategy that worked….which had but one item in common with Washington consensus policies- the importance of macrostability. As in the Washington Consensus (hereafter WC- my abbreviation, not Stiglitz’s) trade was important but the emphasis was on promoting exports, not removing impediments to imports. Trade was eventually liberalized but only gradually as new jobs were created in the export industries. While the WC…emphasized rapid financial and capital market liberalisation, the East Asian countries liberalised only gradually….While the WC….emphasized privatisation, government at the national and local levels helped create efficient enterprises that played a key role in the success of several of the countries. In the WC view, industrial policies in which governments try to shape the future direction of the economy are a mistake. But the East Asian governments took that as one of their central responsibilities….While the WC policies paid little attention to inequality, the East Asian countries did, believing that (this was) important for maintaining social cohesion, and that social cohesion was necessary to provide a climate favourable to investment and growth…Most broadly, while the WC emphasized a minimalist role for government, in East Asia, governments helped shape and direct markets.”



Thus while it is fair to compare Nigeria under Buhari to Singapore under Lee or Indonesia under Sukarno, it is those governments that came after him that are comparable to Zaire under Mobutu or Indonesia under Suharto. The issue is not the fact of authoritarianism, but authoritarianism in pursuit of what? The parallel drawn by Mohammed is a mischievous attempt at reducing all dictatorships to one common denominator, thus creating a false moral equivalence between one regime and the next.



There is a second line of argument that will reveal to us the true nature of the Harunaesque “patriotism”. Events since 1985, not just in Nigeria but also in other nations, have shown that those who stood firm against the Washington Consensus were the true patriots everywhere. When the British financial markets were deregulated in 1986 under Thatcher this was presented as their opportunity to “compete and win in the global market”. By the close of the century the last of the UK’s major financial players was in foreign hands. Mohammed Haruna should read a book, The Death of Gentlemanly Capitalism, written by Philip Augar, one of the City’s top brokers, for an analysis of how this happened. It is not for nothing that from Washington to Prague to Nice to Quebec to Gothenberg and to Genoa the anti-globalization movement has staged protests and engaged in violent riots. In her book, The Silent Takeover: Global capitalism and the Death of Democracy, Cambridge don Noreena Hertz makes the following frightening revelation: “ Propelled by government policies of privatisation, deregulation and trade liberalisation… in the past twenty years a power shift has taken place. The hundred largest multinational corporations now control about 20% of global foreign assets; fifty-one of the hundred biggest economies in the world are now corporations. Only fourty-nine are nation-states. The sales of General Motors and Ford are greater than the GDP of the whole of sub-Saharan Africa; the assets of IBM, BP and General Electric outstrip the economic capabilities of most small nations; and Wal-Mart, the US supermarket retailer, has higher revenues than most Central and Eastern European states including Poland, the Czech Republic, Ukraine, Hungary and Slovakia.” (p. In other words we have all become “banana republics”, courtesy of our “patriotic” economists.



At the heart of the problem is the emergence, in Africa, of a crop of “intellectuals” who are the heirs to the old colonised minds. These are not just persons with a bougeoisified intellect. They have lost all originality in thinking and all critical ability because their minds have become standardised and commodified by the ideology of the market. Everywhere you turn you see them preaching the beauty of the market, of efficiency, liberalisation, private sector and privatisation, deregulation etc. These are concepts which they do not understand and whose roots and implications they have not studied. They do not ask how we can stop public sector corruption or make government more efficient and accountable. These anomalies are presented as necessary to all government and used as a pretext to strip the people of owned assets. “Privatisation” is not about the private sector creating new assets by investing in the economy but about selling to private persons assets belonging to the state at a price they deem “fair”. One of the world’s foremost fund managers, George Soros, wrote this about markets in his latest book, Globalization: “Markets are amoral: they allow people to act in accordance with their interests but they pass no moral judgement on the interests themselves. Yet society cannot function without some distinction between right and wrong”. This simple truth, now resounding from the very heart of global capital, is still not present in our discourse.



Let me illustrate with a simple example I used often in my teaching days. The economist tells us that the price of food, for example, should be determined by the forces of demand and supply. The “equilibrium price” is that at which demand and supply are equated and the market is cleared. This is the market’s much touted “efficiency” and any other price comes with problems. This is taught as part of “positive economics”, a mythical discipline that pretends to be value-free social science. What the economist does not tell us is the following: The segment of the demand curve below and to the right of its intersection with the supply curve represents millions of poor consumers who are priced out of the market because they cannot afford to pay the “equilibrium price”. Also, the entire segment of the supply curve above and to the right of the intersection represents thousands of poor farmers who are priced out of the market because they cannot afford to produce food and sell profitably at that price. For a consumer to be in the market he must afford the market price. For a producer to sell his crops profitably he must have economy of scale. A subsidy in this market, say on fertilizers, will lower the production cost of farmers and allow some more into the market. In technical terms the supply curve shifts to the right leading to a reduction in price of food and bringing in poor consumers. But the economist will tell you: “Subsidies are bad.” The Harunaesque economist, that is. The implication of this of course is that the poor and hungry do not matter, and that the state should not bear the cost of reducing hunger. It is an ethical question in which value judgement comes into play, making exposing the fallacy of the positivist claims of objectivity. In the US and Europe the governments are spending billions of dollars in subsidy to agriculture, keeping farmers in business and making food cheap. In Nigeria our patriots tell us subsidies are bad. The US only recently introduced heavy import tariffs to protect the inefficient domestic steel industry and save jobs, in flagrant disregard of all the principles and agreements on trade liberalisation. In Nigeria, based on the advice of “patriotic” economists we have in the 2002 budget proposed a reduction in the excise duty on beer from the meagre 40k to 20k. It is through analysis of who stands to benefit from particular economic policies that the true ideological character of Mohammed Haruna and his group of “patriotic” economists (and rulers) emerges.



In conclusion, the economist J.K. Galbraith once wrote that there is no economic theory that cannot be explained in intelligible English to the non-economist. The greatest economists have always asked themselves: How does economics affect my people? In the early 20th century, what became known as Keynesian Economics was actually anticipated and implemented in Sweden even before the publication of Keynes’ General Theory. A group of economists, starting with Wicksell and continuing through the likes of Gunnar Myrdal, Bertil Ohlin, Erik Lindahl, Erik Lundberg and Dag Hammarskjold challenged Say’s Law and helped create the first welfare state in the capitalist world. These economists of the Swedish school, according to Galbraith in his A History of Economics had one thing in common: “With a knowledge of the relevant theory and a strong resistance to its constraints, they all addressed themselves to the practical problems of the Swedish economy, society and polity.” Ultimately, this is the yardstick for defining a patriot. Buharism was, in its time, a patriotic ideology. But as a world-view, it goes beyond Buhari the man and his political ambitions, and I have stated my position on that. But perhaps Buhari’s (and any leader’s) relevance, should be determined by reference to Buharism and his commitment to it.



We should, finally, state that Mohammed Haruna has given us the best possible conclusion, He wrote:” Now that he has intervened with the right emphasis on the issues rather than on the personalities involved, hopefully the debate, not just about Buhari’s entry in politics but the debate about the coming elections will move away from who the key actors are to what they can do to eliminate the country’s poverty and its divisions.” I rest my case.

[flash=600,600]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqM1M6nhajY?fs=1&hl=en_GB[/flash]

mikeansy:

is Buhari not too bigoted to govern any country? let alone like Nigeria.

I will choose PDP 10 times before Buhari
I will choose GEJ 10 times before Buhari
I will choose IBB 10 times before Buhari

This is a big lie created by the devilish PDP. How come PDP has suddenly become better than other parties/people nowadays?

Akanbi_edu:


This is a big lie created by the devilish PDP. How come PDP has suddenly become better than other parties/people nowadays?

It is the GEJ factor!!!

I know actually.

I just think people should be consistent in their demands. It shows something is terribly wrong somewhere. Talk about naivety and mischief.

To think that suddenly a party like PDP will just change overnight because of GEJ is naive. And to change our opinion from bad to good just because it is NOW in our FAVOR is mischievous- more like hypocrisy to me.

There used to be so much noise against Yar'adua on the issue of appointing INEC chair or not, then suddenly everybody seems to agree with GEJ just because he appointed a perceived good man JEGA. Just like that? They are no longer protesting against that clause. But you know what! The problem remains, GEJ is going to leave on day and we are going to start making noise on the same issue. Just an example.