Dr. Kalu Idika
Kalu
|
|
|
|
Dr. kalu Idika kalu
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prof. Chinua Achebe
|
|
has served twice as Nigeria’s Minister of Finance. He has also served his nation as Minister of National Planning as well as
Transport.
He attended Kings
College,
Lagos
and the University
of Wisconsin,
Madison, USA, graduating with B. Sc Econs. (1964), M.A Econs. (1965).
He completed his PhD (which he began in 1966, but could not complete, because of Nigeria’s civil war) in 1972.
Dr. Kalu Idika Kalu, popularly known as K.I.K, was a Research Fellow at the University of Wisconsin,
(1966, 70-72), and a Research Fellow/Lecturer, Economic Development Institute, EDI, University of Nigeria, Enugu
Campus, (1988-70). He joined the World Bank (1972-80) as an Economist, and was Country Economist in East
Asia and the Pacific region. He was Head of Economics of Skoup & Co. Ltd (1980-84), and is currently
Chairman of BGL Ltd (Investment and Asset Management Services) and various other companies. He is married to Dr
(Mrs.) Imo Kalu, and has five children.
He was interviewed by Mr. Pini Jason, a columnist for Nigeria’s Vanguard newspaper, Associate Editor of New African, London (1987-2004), author of A Familiar Road, and publisher/Editor-in-Chief of The Examiner newspaper. Mr. Jason has several years of experience in major Nigerian newspapers as well as international
publications.
Q. A veteran Nigerian politician, Mrs. Oyibo Odinamadu, recently wrote
a newspaper
article entitled: "To Tell the Truth: Something is Wrong with Nigeria". But one wonders what could
possibly be wrong with a country that has produced eminent economists like you, great writers like Chinua Achebe
and Wole Soyinka, former World Bank Vice President, and now Nigeria’s Minister of Finance, Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala,
the former Commonwealth Secretary General, Emeka Anyaoku, and so on?
A. Well,
it is a very intriguing question. Of course, our great Chinua (Achebe) said it simply, and I can imagine the measure
of exasperation, that the problem with Nigeria is leadership. Well, we can explore what that means. A nation the size of Nigeria, with so many differences in ethnicity,
language, culture and levels of socialisation, needs a leader who can transcend all these differences. If a leadership
exists that views all our cultures and traditions as important, and appreciates the need to weld a nation; if we
are blessed with a leader who can abstract from his own particular constituency, and see that his responsibility
is to the entire constituency called Nigeria, then things could be very different.
In this
way, one can begin to identify what Chinua Achebe might mean when he says that our problem is that of leadership.
Our leadership must be people who are clearly well educated enough to understand the significance of training,
standards, merit, even-handed justice, and then the more technical issues about relationships between effort and
reward as an inviolate principle in any society that wants to move towards a modern age.
There has
to be a critical minimum education. That education must have the right content, not merely the superficial act
of attending primary and secondary school, and then university or military school. There has to be that worldliness,
a view of the world that informs us: this is where we are; this is where we ought to be in a discrete timeframe;
these are the options to get to that point. So leadership is a key issue.
Q. Some say that this country has never had a leader with a university
education. Are we being pedantic here? Or are you saying that education goes beyond the classroom, is more about
exposure, sophistication; a certain worldliness?
A. Yes,
I think. Because drawing from my own experience, refinement, sophistication has to go beyond simply possessing
a formal education. One’s social background has to be part of the package. As I said, the socialization process
includes both formal and informal education, and the whole camaraderie issue; for example, who are those involved
in this collegial leadership? They don’t all have to be graduates per se; however there has to be that identification
with a commitment to what is proper, what is orderly, what is legal. And this is where the rule of law is important,
but which we have abandoned as a very important ingredient of leadership. You can very clearly see this from the
way we have gone about elections, rigging and muddling through with illegalities in this country.
Q. How much of our problem is located in the political structure of the country?
A. If you
asked ten people to define that term, you will probably receive about ten different definitions. I think what you
point out is very critical, but we now have to identify the components of such a structure. We all know that a
constitution for a people, which is closely modeled after their culture and tradition, is more likely to work.
But if the constitution and the selection process embedded in it are alien to the way leadership emerges in that
social setting, there are bound to be problems.
The rudiments
of the rule of law, as embodied in the constitution, should also reflect the sense of justice in the social system
for it to be easily applicable and sustainable. So what I am saying is that we may all agree that, perhaps, we
do not yet have the structure we need, but if we can circumscribe very closely, the social etiquette, habits and
so on of the people, then it is likely that other things will easily follow. We talk of federalism, self-determination
by component units, devolution of powers, and what you might call a just fiscal system. But certainly, the issue
of equality before the law, the issue of an even selection process for elective positions and appointive positions,
for movements on the merit scale through the civil service are equally important. With a structure that clearly
defines these, a legal framework that allows effective function by apportioning corrections, penalties -- what
have you; then one can say that there is a good structure.
But that
is really very far from what we have now with the current system. As I said elsewhere, if you want examples of
how not to run a country, you will get all those examples here in Nigeria. There are no legal standards, no
merit standards and no succession standards. Nothing is specified. There is no code of conducts. Expectations are
pretty wild.
Q. There are people who blame Nigeria’s problems on borrowed systems.
Some say we suffer a hangover from colonialism. But, is it not safe to say that at the time Nigeria was emerging
from colonialism, it had elements of the attributes you describe; elements of merit, decorum...is there not some
contradiction there?
A. Well,
the important question, perhaps, is: at what point did we deviate so much from what we thought we had learnt? Let
us, if you will, examine Francophone and Anglophone countries on the continent. There is no denying the fact that
until recent events in Cote d’Ivoire, the Anglophone, with few exceptions, seem to have quickly moved on from what held over from the
colonial system. Let us once again focus on Nigeria. I think when one identifies the point at which the country began to deviate one discovers the
occurrence of some natural phenomena -- increase in population with less than commensurate increase in wealth and
employment opportunities. And with the expansion of various leadership cadres, there is bound to be an increase
in competition because, as we say in standard economics, the growth of supply was much slower than the increases
in demand. Therefore, a leadership has to exist that has a minimum understanding of how to bring all these to parity
-- not by suppressing demand, and not by unduly increasing supply. So you see, the issue of leadership not understanding
the dynamics at play, and how to deal with these dynamics is a problem. Because once there is a bifurcation between
effort and reward, the system begins to fall apart.
Q. Was this scenario what culminated in the military coup? Because people blame this dislocation
on the military; that Nigeria lost it all during the military years?
A. Again
it is a very difficult question. And we must continue to fight this tendency to say, voila -- we have the answer…when
we are addressing essentially socio-political dynamics. Invariably, there might be several contributory elements,
and the weight of such elements at any given phase will change over time. By 1966, our population was increasing
at a high rate; although we were approaching the threshold of the oil and gas revenue, it took us time to do so.
We were better then at managing the resources we had to expand opportunities in education, health, etc. Ten years
later, however, it became a different kettle of fish. There was a fair sense of unity and therefore a common sense
of outrage at some of the things that were happening at the political arena. This explains why the 1966 coup was
hailed. I wasn’t here, but through the media we had the impression that Nigerian people seemed to be very happy
with it, because it was like calling the society and the leadership to order. But again, there was a leadership
failure. Even so, we shouldn’t be too one-dimensional. Let us just say that the leadership could have emerged to
put things in perspective and prevent a reinterpretation of that event. But what happened to reinterpret that event
so successfully that within a year it was now seen, not as a force for correcting leadership for the whole of society,
but, to some extent, as ethnic politics in a leadership setting? Why was that possible? It was possible because,
at the time already, the expansion of opportunities was not moving in tandem with expectations. The availability
of positions and prospects did seem -- to the ordinary Nigerian -- that unless one was fighting under a certain
rubric—ethnicity, religion and region of origin— things would not be coming one’s way.
Q. You made a transition
from your career as an economist into partisan politics, and aspired to run for the Presidency. Can you tell us
what your motivating factor was?
A. Well,
I call it a certain naivety. But it was really trying to address the question of the problem of Nigeria being,
narrowly defined, that of leadership. I always believe that when Nigerians see an even-handed leader, they may
quibble and quarrel for a while, but if he stays steadfast, they will rally round. So I had the notion that, first,
one could bring about a more efficient management, because, one didn’t feel tied down by any particular preferences
based on ethnicity, regional origin, linguistic or religion. With a country that is by world standards, endowed
with agricultural, mineral, oil and gas resources, manpower, land space, access to technology, access to financing
to complement your own, Nigeria was ready made for very rapid development, provided leadership was even-handed.
Being even-handed means that the importance of the legal framework is recognized by the leadership; there is adequate
protection of society, appropriate correction procedures, and orderliness as a spur to investment and peaceful
transitional changes. These bring an essential sense of order to bear; these were the concepts I thought I combined.
I don’t
know whether the problem was in not being able to reach our people at the grassroots to explain these things; where
our culture meets the modern world; how rural development may be organized, how various skills are re-emphasized:
first-rate weaving, carpentry, artisanship to steeling demand and supply so that goods that typically go to waste
can be preserved and distributed locally and abroad. I continue to feel that it would have been a great opportunity
to give this kind of leadership to the country.
But it
was not so much politics I was talking about! I suppose that, in some other clime, it would be said -- oh yes,
the country was lucky; there was such and such a guy who seems to have had the training, the international and
domestic exposure in the private sector. I was in consulting, in the government sector; I taught at the university,
I worked at the state level, then at the federal level in Finance (twice!) in Planning and Transport. I returned
to the private sector working at the restructuring of banks -- you name it. So to answer your question what was
my motivation? As I said, this was not politics. Others will play the politics game, but I truly felt great concern
about mobilizing all our resources to the benefit of our people. All the pamphlets I gave out were socially based on my own agenda for the country. That is the way
I saw it.
Q. Typically, however, the
ideas people generally advance as qualifications for leadership appear to run far from what you advocate! Nigerians
tend to think in terms of a turn-by-turn leadership process or leadership influenced by one’s geographical place
of origin and religion; which boil down to the saying that a country gets the leadership it deserves. Does Nigeria short-change itself by pandering to these sentiments?
A. Well,
it is a chicken and egg situation; but let me back up somewhat. I was, I must confess, always irritated when the
issue of “Igbo Presidency” was first brought up. But I recognized the relevance, and always said: yes…but that
should not preclude the Igbo from selecting someone who adequately meets the requirements for leadership. I even
said I thought it was an insult to think that selecting an “Igbo President” would define, in some way, who would
then become Nigerian
president. Given the demand for geographical and ethnic “turn-by-turn,” given the historical picture, yes of course;
but that should not affect the fact that we still need to vote in someone, truly committed and farsighted, who
can then make it possible that in a few years from now there will be no need for the “turn by turn” process. We
would hopefully focus squarely on programmes and their effective function.
Then going
back to your question more specifically, as I said it is a chicken and egg thing. Is the society that is looking
for this parochial selection process or is it that the leadership has not educated its following to understand
that what is really important is not religion or ethnicity or region or whatever? I think they are like the two
sides of the same coin.
Q. Politicians have found
that they have to appeal to these sentiments to become voted into office. So they have no interest in educating
the ordinary people.
A. Yeah.
But as I said earlier, I believe strongly that if you had an effective leadership, it would make a definite difference.
Let’s be honest to ourselves. Chief Awolowo was vilified for all sorts of things, but there was a fairly national
feeling that he was a good economic manager. Dr Michael Okpara possessed the same image of people marching across
the country to vigorously appeal for rigorous enterprise, orderly development, and camaraderie across ethnic, state
and regional lines, and above all, people who were capable of setting up and running efficient systems. Those two,
just to mention, were already getting there, and it was merely a matter of time. If we had continued along those
lines, believe me, we would have become successful had they been allowed to do so. However, this is where we may
now say the military truncated things. It can never be overstated how far the military putsches set us back, however,
it is more our reaction to such interventions that really caused the damage than the original intent of the military
putsches. It depends on how you look at it. I think any committed leader can help in getting us away from all these
primitive expectations of a leader just pandering to a constituency.
Q. What was your experience
in the field as a politician? What did you discover was particularly wrong with our system of recruitment of leadership?
And do you think the system, as it is, can produce the type of leadership that you are talking about?
A. No it
cannot; I think the issues are very stark. I talked the other day about aspiring to a civil institution which has
a mandate that can be sprung to action by any
violation of our laws. Such is in place in many societies. Let us take the case of the United States of America. The Police spring to action if anyone
is being harassed or ultimately killed. They do not need further instruction from any quarter. This is their mandate.
There is an investigative arm that is free to deal with whatever is discovered, whoever is involved, in the course
of an investigation. No one
and no action
is above the law. There should be civil institutions that are accepted by the entire polity whose actions should
not depend on the whims and caprices of any local potentate, be he or her a local government chairman, traditional
ruler, governor, senate leader, President…whatever.
So for
us to be able to throw up a leadership, after we set the rules for running for office -- whether as an independent
or through a party platform -- we ought to have such a legal framework as a part and parcel of every step of the
process, within the political party, the local government, the state, the judiciary, the police, the army and the
Navy.
Q. Soon after 1999, a Democracy
Assessment was undertaken in Nigeria. What emerged clearly from the report was that, as a result of prolonged military rule, most democratic
institutions are either non-existent or extremely weak. Institutions such as political parties, the National Assembly,
the electoral process and the electoral management board, and the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC,
were all found to be in fragile state. But five years on, people believe that a lot of work could have been accomplished
in these areas. Unfortunately, the evidence is that five years into democracy, these institutions have been further
weakened. What is your comment on that?
A. I agree
entirely with that. But what needs to be explored, at length, is this; we have clearly captured the fact of a dearth
of institution building, but what have we not captured,
what are we still not contemplating? We can also capture a need for a restructuring process for strengthening institutions.
But I think we have to go behind that. I have mentioned the importance of legality, the importance of the judicial
process, the importance of civil awareness-rights, obligations and responsibilities. We are not yet focused on
how to build that up. But even more importantly, we need to revisit the issue of the growth of expectations, the
growth of the means to satisfy expectations. Therefore the very slow growth confidence-building in the individual
has prevented him from perceiving his god-given, civil right, to exercise his freedom; in other words, he needs
to be spared the overbearing sense of hanging onto someone else, or public institutions, or onto public entities
for appointments and this and that. What I am driving at is that the failure of the economic system has also reduced
the ability of people to feel confident to exercise their civic rights and responsibilities.
So you
could be building these institutions on one hand, but where are the basics? Unimpeded public access to water, safety/protection,
jobs, to self-actualize – the power to do your own thing on your own farm, buy your own bicycle or motorbike, buy
the car you want without having to be a councilor -- you can freely express your view about how your village is
being run, about how your society is being run, about who is to represent you at the state or federal capital.
Q. Did
you find any converts ?
A. You
see, after I spoke at the debate, people came up to me, and said that I raised the debate to a level they had never
heard before. Of course there was a lot of enthusiasm there. But you ask me; how much, really, did they spot the
simple connection? However, I think that from the way people reacted to me in so many circles, there is, certainly,
recognition of the fact that we are very far from where we ought to be. But again, the dependency syndrome that
has been fostered by lack-lustre and sustained underperformance, has coloured a full appreciation of the importance
of saying -- this is the way it should be.
Q. Will
you run again?
A. I think
it will be foolish of me to even think about it without a significant change in some of these indicators I have
mentioned. I said to somebody jokingly that, well if somebody gave me N500 million, maybe I would think about it.
Presumably I will buy so much media time. The fact is that without going through these things in a very conscious
manner, the nation is never going to emerge! You see; there is nothing in the development text that says every
country has to develop. There is nothing! When I was an undergraduate, you will be surprised at some of the countries
that were in the footnotes as countries that will never make it. Just over night they were able to discover minerals,
oil, gas…just the way we did. And some of them are among those that are trying to join the nuclear club these days.
And there are other countries that, without oil and gas, were written into textbooks as peasant farmers, yet; voila!
They have modern ideas! They responded to market forces, which we thought we re-invented in the eighties! All they
needed was the leadership to now take them along in terms of economies of scale to pull these revenues and create
ways of valorizing these produce, enhancing their prices, enhancing their incomes so that they can provide improved
education and skills for their children, so that their children may be doing the same farming, but with a different
level of technology and a different skill in terms of production output and income.
What
can Nigerians expect from the Sovereign National conference?
A. Well,
I worked with a group called The Ethnic Nationalities Forum on this. The ethnic constituencies should freely select who their leaders are, through their organizations
or whatever way they want to. Let them freely decide what the issues are, drawing from their recent experience.
Let them have the opportunity with the active support (now I know this is idealistic) of the government in terms
of providing logistics, because this is a national task, and it will be a great legacy for the leadership that
supervises this sort of thing, not by imposing on this conference, who should be there, or by imposing on what
should be discussed. People should by now be competent to know what the issues creating all this bloodletting,
this incessant squabbling are. So we have called for a Sovereign National Conference involving Ethnic Nationalities.
Now what
are the issues? The issues are -- given our social structure, our habits, if you like, our Africanness, our Nigerianness;
given our abilities to receive at different degrees, all these influences coming from the external world -- what
form of government will enable us to build on our own, modernize to increase productivity, enlarge and create opportunities
for science and technology in every field of Endeavour so that we are in tandem with rest of the world? What kind
of system do we need? Do you want a provincial set up? Do you want a zonal set up? Do want a parliamentary, presidential,
or a concoction of various elements? What kind of federalism do you want? The emphasis should be on a measure of
even development.
Q. There are two fears about a conference based on ethnic representation. One is that in some places,
like Borno state, for example, if you walked a kilometer, you would come up with 300 ethnic groups. The second
fear is that if representation is on ethnic basis it becomes some ethnic slugfest that will probably have no end.
Obviously most of the issues you raised can be discussed without ethnic representation.
A. But
putting it in another way -- by not making any effort to address the source of the friction one is afraid of, one
is really making it more likely that whatever is finally decided upon will not attend to those fears. Two, we have
seen the agenda brought out by the government and the one brought out by other groups advocating an ethnic nationalities
conference; it is amazing how much of the same thing they really are talking about. None of the issues I have addressed
has any particular ethnic flavour to it; but it is better to give the ethnic groups the opportunity to air their
views.
Q. There are some kites
being flown; that the presidential system is expensive; that multiple tiers of government add to the cost of presidential
system; that may be collapsing the number of states is the answer. How do you react to this?
A. I think
it is all a gross simplification, and an attempt to abstract from the core of the problem. Surely, with the right
discernment we could take a presidential structure and tailor it to our present and prospective resources. The
fact that we have not been able to do so is not the fault of the presidential system. It is not the presidential
system that says we should be buying Toyota Land Cruisers for ministers instead of the Peugeot. It is not the Presidential
system that says we should have sixty ministers and 120 advisers and assistants, or that we have to build 8-bedroom
houses for directors. We are blaming on the system, our own inability to manage, and our lack of imagination in
some of the larger actions that we take. The blame should really be on the leadership, and our inability to cut
our coat according to our cloth. You can abuse any system unless you are quite clear about your priorities. It
is a lack of priorities that has given rise to our commitment of so much to recurrent expenditure, loud capital
expenditure, proliferation of institutions and conspicuous consumption. We blame it on the presidential system.
In fact all of these can quite easily happen in a parliamentary system.
Q. Which was why we transitioned
from a presidential from parliamentary system, in the first place…?
A. Precisely!
We didn’t change our basic perception of a sense of well being, and life more abundant (which we coined when we
thought we would be more prudent). It is the life-more-abundant syndrome that we took to the presidential system,
and what aggravated our profligacy.
Q. Ethnocentricity and religious
bigotry have played a role in destabilizing the country. Recently, the National Population Commission came up with
a fantastic solution, which is to eliminate ethnic origin and religion from the data forms for the 2005 population
census. Does that make sense to you?
A. It does
not make sense to me. What is tragic is that what should just be a necessary statistic, necessary in terms of completing
a descriptive picture, should be highlighted to a point, it becomes a political issue!!! I don’t know how it even
arrived at that level. I think that this is just what the problem is. If you say ethnic origin and religion is
important, then you have to explain why you think it is important. If you say not, then there must be a reason
why you think it is not important.
Q. You have been Minister of Finance twice, Minister of Transport,
as well as Planning, mostly under military rule. Was there anything arising from the “commandist” nature of the
military that made it impossible for the economy to work under you?
A. Well,
surprise, surprise! Let me just say that my candid opinion is that one of the lucky things we have in this country
-- and a lot of people may disagree with me, particularly when you look at the stories that have emerged from the
Abacha regime and the Buhari period -- is the relevance of our culture even in a military setting. You can see
it. We need the approval of the traditional ruler; we have to consult the traditional rulers!!! What I am saying
is this; our military experience has not really been the typical militaristic, repressive, grinding experience.
Therefore, we cannot, to a very large extent, blame the military for shortcomings in economic policies and implementation
of programmes. By the time you do the analysis, you will find a very curious mixture where, with the right ideas,
the determination or the will to move on them, that the military might have performed better than in the rancorous
political era. There was therefore a lot of leeway for the civilian expertise component to do their thing, rather
it suffered from a lack of confidence to do so successfully. It was the limitations of civilian professional experience
and understanding that was more responsible for the deficiencies of economic performances rather than the “commandist”
element in military regimes.
Q. But that is not the impression we have!
A. How
do you mean?
Q. The
Structural Adjustment Programme, SAP, failed!
A. (Laughs).
You and I have gone over this several times. And you haven’t learnt a thing since we last talked about it!
Q. You know that in Nigeria, there are more “experts” in economics than those who are really the experts. In our university
campuses, there are millions of “experts” who know what is wrong with our economy! And the greatest whipping horse
here is the World Bank/IMF. People who have that kind of perception, especially in discussing any policy which
tends to move away from what we have been doing wrong, dismiss such policies as World Bank/IMF. Is there anything
inherently wrong with World Bank/IMF economic policies as they relate to Africa?
A. (Chuckles).
Well, I have described this as the eighth wonder of the
world! I think there is so much misunderstanding and lack of expertise in the economic analyses, not just in Nigeria, but also in many of the Sub-Saharan
African countries. I remember as part of a team setting up capacity building initiative as a consultant to The
Bank, I think this was in Zinbabwe; the word went round that I was the SAP man from Nigeria! But let me say that
the notions have been so misplaced, and these wrong notions have pervaded the place. There is absolutely nothing
inherently evil in World Bank/IMF policies. I think I belong to that tradition that is welded to economic excellence
and applauds what succeeds. And what succeeds is a cause for celebration in the Fund and in the Bank! So clearly,
the notion that it is when there is weeping and gnashing of teeth that the latter feel fulfilled could not be farther
from the truth!
Now, coming
specifically to the Nigerian case, what really went wrong? Let me just put it very simply after all these years
one has talked and written about this. We astounded even ourselves by the way we chose to adjust our rate of exchange.
That was the first error; we took the wrong decision. We compounded it by not seeing that it meant that we should
have funded that system. We further constrained our ability to correct the first mistake by expressly refusing
the funds we needed for the system.
Q. That’s the IMF loan?
A. Yes!
It was a big disaster! The Bank tried to cope but they could only come up with so much, even against continuing
opposition! And when the exchange rate kept dipping because of inadequate supply to demand, strangely enough, local
experts could not face up to the reasons why. Then we compounded the first two problems by setting up two rates
of exchange, that is, the dual exchange rate. We committed all these errors on our own to the consternation of
the discerning world, which threw up its hands and said: well, that’s what the country has decided it wants! If
one intervenes, it will be viewed as imposing. By then, I had been moved (from the Ministry of Finance) because
it was said that I was supporting the use of IMF resources! In truth, I was supporting just a discreet adjustment
rather than a trading in which we were not putting enough funds. And by the time we created two different rates
that continued to widen, corruption now reigned as people saw that they could buy cheaply and sell dear. We sent
the wrong signals about price formation to the entire system. Now, you are a fool if you go and invest for seven
days’ production, not to talk of three years’ production, when you can invest in the morning and reap so much profit
in the afternoon. But what surprised me was the lack of understanding by my Nigerian colleagues!
Q. Even Robert Stiglitz,
the Nobel Laureate in economics, who is now at Columbia, and who has consulted for World Bank, said at his Pius
Okigbo lecture in Enugu that even at his level, he is confounded by some of the prescriptions that World Bank and
IMF give to African countries.
A. No,
no, you see, I had to talk with Stiglitz. He found it very difficult to understand what was going on, because this
was like irrational behaviour on our part. He couldn’t understand it at all. Faced with specific policies, it was
impossible for him not to worry about things going awry. For instance, he and I were discussing Argentina’s debt, and he said suggested that
it was when the IMF stopped lending to Argentina that it began to grow! There are a lot of people who accuse him of not realizing that he may not
fully understand the local milieu. He is a brilliant economist, quite alright, but you see, the point of IMF/World
Bank prescription for austerity or anything else, the presumption is that there is a minimum critical local input
that will take advice and translate it into local conditions. But where there is an inability, and where the recommendation
that comes from the IMF and World Bank goes in without local variation, of course, it may not fit, because of so
many other factors.
This was
my regret, because I have implemented these projects in developing countries; I had the Nigerian experience because
of the work I had already done before, and therefore, it was easy for me to see how even with the structure of
our economy, what we needed was to convince the world that we knew that our exchange rate was too high, that we
needed a minor adjustment. Then we would have opened ourselves up to an inflow of new investment from new money,
and gain money for rescheduling our debt, or even receive debt relief or debt cancellation. You didn’t have to
expose the entire economy to open trading of the currency.
Q. Every time I listen to
you, even as a layman, what you say appears clear to me. Yet you seem to be the only apostle amidst your colleagues;
is there a real fear of being on the so-called unpopular side, or are other economists in the country simply playing
politics?
A. Unabashedly,
I will say macro economics which is really what we are talking about, although it is a continuum from micro, is
not just a matter of correct theory, but also about exposure and practice. So there are two things. It is either
people do not have the theory right, or they don’t have enough exposure. Then there is the question of the politics.
It is like the mistake of talking about imperialism. So it is, again, a lack of exposure to imagine that you can
simply pass the IMF/World Bank off as part of the imperialist basket. That is old hat. But frankly, if my colleagues
knew the consequences of the things they were saying, I don’t think merely the politics would have made them continue.
So I have to conclude that a lot of it is lack of understanding. So I don’t care whether it is a PhD or whatever.
Similarly, we can come out with righteous anger and say that we are not getting enough aid compared with other
African countries. If they understand, they should see how ironic it is. Because we are the ones who don’t really
want the aid.
Q. The
general fear about borrowing is that some of the money may end up in private pockets!
A. Precisely!
Now, who is going to change that? I was saying just the other day that -- if Obasanjo’s government, with all the
posture of high expertise; the Ngozi Okonjo-Iwealas and Soludos of this world…and with Obasanjo’s posture as a
strong leader who has his own ideas -- cannot help us overcome this fear of “pocketing” money we receive as aid,
then who is going to do it? Why does this issue come up only when we talk about borrowed funds? Our own funds,
too, should be subjected to the same standard. And we should take it as a challenge, not a deterrent! Our people
are suffering terribly! There are no jobs. There is not even any basic technology. Look at our transportation.
The whole place is overrun by okadas (commercial motorbikes); everyone is on okadas, even pregnant women and children…riding okadas!
What happened to our public transportation system; what about our trains! Shouldn’t we have trains? Oh, the fear
is that some people will pocket the money needed for various projects. I remember feeling insulted whenever people
said that, because coming from my tradition, I never thought along those terms.
Q. Now that you have seen
the National Economic Empowerment Development Strategy, NEEDS, document, what is your view about it?
A. Well,
I spoke at the launching of the NEEDS document, saying that I attended, because I was elated we had done some painstaking
planning. I praised the launching of the document; it had a body to it, in terms of the structure. I think, possibly,
this would be the first time I would be giving a real critique of the document. Because of the administration,
politics, the governance, I can say that, may be, something is happening, although I cannot say the same for the
States Economic Empowerment Development Strategies, SEEDS, and certainly nothing seems to be happening, either,
with the Local Government equivalent, LEEDS. It will not be unfair of me to say that I have been a little bit disappointed
that we have not struck out boldly. I am glad we are talking about private investment, but the state of our economy
requires that government should still take the lead in several areas. We have no business pussy-footing about spending
on power. We have the wherewithal to fund a modern power network, may be in six zones, using our resources.
Q. Perhaps the problem is
having a short-term view of a long-term project -- “the project must be accomplished in the four years of my regime
so that I can take credit?”
A. I think you are absolutely right. But I would be more comfortable
if that were the case, but the micro-dynamics was better understood, and it would be just a fear of what the records
will say for a particular person’s finite period. Because, clearly, when we are talking of roads, power and transportation,
all of these require a twenty to twenty-five year-term horizon. Once one has the unanimity (and this is where these
conferences should be useful) one can then explain to the people why there might be some temporary inflation. The
people might be able to appreciate this when they see that jobs are being created.
Q. What is your view on
deregulation and privatization of the public sector, especially the deregulation of the oil sector, which targets
local consumption being imported?
A. You
know I am the author of virtually all of these things. I wrote a paper in 1985 dealing with all of these things.
Deregulation does not just refer to the oil sector; in reality, it refers to the economy. So that is the first
thing. Even if one is referring to a sub-sector of the economy, deregulation does not mean allowing some people
to import finished goods. Deregulation means the ability to open up the forces behind demand and supply. If you
just deregulate an element of supply, which is the import source, and you don’t provide for how the domestic supplier
will also respond to the price and the demand; that is not deregulation! That is creating distortion.
Q. Looking at you in totality,
you are certainly a product of your early life and the kind of education you had. What was life like for you as
a young man?
A. Well,
I had a very lively early youth. I started school briefly at my hometown; I might have been born in Zaria, but
my mother traveled home, so that I would be born in Ebem, Ohafia. I started school there then I quickly came to
-- I think Oyo or Ibadan. But it was in Lagos that I really began school. My father was very encouraging; I moved
through many schools, because he felt the need to constantly test me. I was always first in the week, first in
the month, first in the term, you know. He sometimes found this difficult to believe, and so, I would be moved
from one school to the other. I attended Ladi Lak Institute Yaba -- Gen. Ike Nwachukwu was there -- then Colony
Public School, St Jude’s. From St Jude’s, I went on to Kings College.
You see,
at the time, there was so much exuberance; there were no limitations. You felt you could do what you wanted; so
long as you were bright, yo