The anatomy of Nigeria’s ‘progressive’ politicians
Political ideology or orientation means very little in Nigeria, yet no political label is more widely used than “progressives”. While hardly any Nigerian politician calls himself or herself a “conservative”, several describe themselves as “progressives”. Elsewhere, particularly in the US and the UK, politicians proudly call themselves “conservatives”. Of course, there is a world of difference between conservativism and progressivism, and any allegiance to either must reflect a person’s political beliefs and the party and policies he or she would support. Which is why a Labour Party member would rarely join the Conservative Party in the UK, or a Republican become a Democrat in the US. And, in these countries, voters know what to expect from a conservative or a progressive politician or government.
Of course, some could argue that this discussion is otiose considering the fluidity of party affiliation and allegiance in Nigeria. A politician may be loyal to the All Progressives Congress (APC) today and, tomorrow, to the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), and vice versa. Indeed, it’s interesting that virtually all the candidates in the PDP presidential primaries last year, including the winner, Atiku Abubakar, were in the APC just a few months earlier. But let’s assume that there are Nigerian politicians who genuinely like to describe themselves as progressives, and that, after separating the wheat from the chaff, the APC is essentially a progressive party. So, what attitudes and policies should one expect from Nigeria’s progressive politicians and government? But, first, what is progressivism?
Well, progressivism is a philosophy based on the idea of progress and the need to improve the human condition. While conservatism is resistant to radical change, the greatest tool of progressives is reform. Progressives usually see themselves as radical reformers, with a modernising and structuralinstrumental agenda. The periods of greatest reforms in the US and the UK were the periods often described as the “progressive era”. So, a progressive politician or government that is not passionate about reforms is not genuinely progressive.
Now, the Buhari government is a “progressive” one, at least by self-definition. But it is not a reformist government. Of course, like all progressive governments, it is statist, believing that government can be a tool for change. As the former British prime minister, Tony Blair, says in his memoir, A Journey, progressive parties always believe that if they have power “they will use it for the benefit of the people; and the more power, the more benefit”.well, the Nigerian progressive party, APC, has had power for nearly four years, yet there is little evidence that the people have benefitted from the use of that power. This is not because the APC has no good intentions; its leaders are very religious, some are even preachers. The problem, though, is that the APC’S brand of progressivism doesn’t recognise the relationship between social justice and economic efficiency, i.e., if you want to increase common welfare you must run the economy in a way that generates economic prosperity.
The APC government is a pro-poor party, pursuing “propoor economics” through social intervention programmes. But progressive governments must be pro-middle-class, pursuing middle-class economics. Tony Blair, a progressive politician, said in his book, referred to earlier, that the old Labour party “wanted to celebrate the working class, not make them middle class”, adding: “But middle class was precisely what your average worker wanted himself or his kids to be”.
Think of it, every Nigerian graduate wants a job in which he or she can be well-paid to start a good life, rather than receiving N30,000 (about $82) a month under the government’s N-power programme, and no market woman wants the indignity of collecting N10,000 (about $27) Tradermoni from government! But graduates can only be well-paid and market women have money to do real business if the economy is growing and generating prosperity, which can only be achieved through market reforms that spur entrepreneurship and private sector development. Yet, Nigeria’s “progressive” administration is fixated on government-led economic development rather than on private-sector-led growth that creates jobs and reduce poverty.
Furthermore, progressive politicians in Nigeria are less concerned about inequality; at best, they want to reduce extreme poverty by giving a pittance to people rather than transform their lives through policies that take them from poverty to prosperity. A key belief of progressives is that the problems of society, such as poverty and inequality can best be addressed by providing good education, a safe environment and an efficient workplace. But how is Nigeria’s progressive government improving the quality of education and healthcare in this country? How is it ensuring a safe environment and reducing the number of people who are working but can’t make ends meet because they are in low-productivity jobs, and because working Nigerians are not earning a living wage, a core belief of progressives?
In Lagos State, Nigeria’s model “progressive” state, despite being the fifth largest economy in Africa, with a GDP of $136bn, poverty and inequality are so widespread. According to the World Bank, 2 out of 3 people in the state live in slums, and, in the words of the Financial Times, in Lagos, “Nigerian’s millionaires and billionaires share a city with people living in indescribable squalor”.progres- sivism is anathema to elitism, but Lagos State is governed, more or less, in an elitist way. A few years ago, while speaking in London, Dr Kingsley Moghalu, now presidential candidate for the Youth Progressives Party (YPP), took a dig at the elitist nature of Lagos State government’s programmes by asking: “Where is the Eko Atlantic for the poor”, in a reference to the government’s Eko Atlantic project.
But if Nigeria’s progressive politicians and government have fallen short of the progressive ideals in terms of expanding the middle class and reducing poverty and inequality, what about institutional and political reforms? As noted earlier, the progressives transformed American politics and government during the first two decades of the 20th century. Similarly, in the UK, most of the institutional and constitutional changes happened under the Labour or Liberal party. In recent years, it was the Labour government of Tony Blair that created devolved governments in the UK, transferring powers to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and creating a mayoralty for London. The same Blair government created the Supreme Court as a distinct entity from the House of Lords, where the highest court used to sit. Truth is, progressives are principled reformers and modernisers.
In Nigeria, however, the “progressives” pay lip service to political and institutional reforms. Take even bureaucratic reforms, has the Buhari government done anything to reform Nigeria’s inefficient public sector, including the seemingly untouchable customs service? Why is President Buhari, a supposed progressive, so opposed to the political restructuring of Nigeria? Why is it that all the “progressive” politicians who used to advocate restructuring vociferously in their NADECO days have gone quiet, or even changed their tune, now that they are in government? If any party or government should be mobilising Nigerians to reform Nigeria’s federalism, it is the APC and the Buhari government. But Buhari and the APC are the obstacles to restructuring this country.
Recently, 71 members of the House of Representatives introduced a bi-partisan bill to return Nigeria to the parliamentary system of government, but Professor Itse Sagay, a presumed progressive, lambasted them, calling those who advocate returning Nigeria to the parliamentary system “ignorant”, “mischief makers” and “foolish”. Appealing to his authority as a constitutional lawyer, Prof Sagay painted a terrible picture of the parliamentary system, using the UK system as an example. But almost everything he said about the UK parliamentary system, including his description of the Speaker of the House of Commons as the figure-head, was wrong. Surely, if he had been following the Brexit issue in the UK, he would have known that the Speaker is not subservient to the Prime Minister, and that the parliamentary system works. Nearly 153 out of the 193 membercountries of the UN, and 32 out of the 50 sovereign states in Europe, practise the parliamentary system. How could a true progressive not see the merit in the parliamentary system? But Nigeria’s progressives say one thing out of government and something different in government.
‘