For the past few weeks, I have restrained myself from commenting on the controversial issue of subsidy removal. I've heard many pundits, commentators and columnists utter their criticism against what was once the consensual position of the political and economic elites: subsidy removal.
Up until May 29 when the president-elect declared in his inaugural speech that "subsidy is gone", the standard position is that subsidy is unsustainable and its cessation imminent. One then wonders, what exactly changed between then and May 29?
The unadulterated truth is that Nigerian elites are mired in the cultural trait of critique. It's adulatory and progressive to critique whatever it is the government does. This critical mindset confers the elites a celebrity position that they identify with the masses and ordinary, struggling Nigerians. It's a typical virtue-signalling approach that has its root in cultural Marxism, whereby every position held by the establishment is brought to questioning and ridicule -- regardless of the singsong praises such position enjoys before being adopted by the power-that-be.
It's no secret that the three leading presidential candidates -- Atiku, Obi and Tinubu -- held similar position that subsidy has to go, and it has to go "immediately". Now, rather than lauding the courage of the president for the political determination to uphold his campaign promises, social commentators (and even economists) are now claiming that such position is antithetical to the general view. This is hypocrisy. Added to that is the irony that subsidy removal was once a populist policy that the leading presidential candidates could push as their political talking points without the fear of losing potential votes.
I don't mind the criticism that the government should have rolled out palliatives and social welfare programmes before putting an end to the era of subsidy. I can understand the feeling of those who claim that the aftermath of the policy is biting hard on the masses, and there's a need to cushion the effect through government intervention.
This is a reasonable position to hold. However, no one believes that the removal of subsidy won't have a short-term adverse effect on the prices of goods and services. But the intelligent position is that on net balance those short-term discomforts will in turn unleash the latent potential of the oil sector and create room for competition, all the while ridding it of its inherent corruption and the malpractices embedded in subsidy.
We've seen in recent days how prices of premium motor spirit, PMS, have increased in neighbouring countries such as Benin, Mali, Togo, Ivory Coast and Ghana. This is owing to the fact that these countries benefit massively from our subsidy programme through the intermediary of black marketers. Put differently, our oil products are subsidise not only for Nigerians, but for other African nations.
As a result, Nigerians are left high and dry, victims of record-high inflation, insurmountable public debt and unemployment, while other nations enjoy effortlessly cheap PMS to boost their own economy. This is how inherently corrupt and lopsided the subsidy era was. For the elites who shout the loudest against corruption and corrupt systems in governance, shouldn't this be a big win for them? Not at all. To laud such policy will be giving up their psuedo-morality that they are against the tide.
I know some people might accuse me for being partisan or pushing a narrative to ally with the ruling government. Granted that such possibility is inevitable, I must however point out for clarity sake that I've never at any point supported the ruling party pre or post-election. I never voted for Tinubu. Hence, the speculation that I'm only reiterating my party line is not only false, but also disingenuous.
One doesn't have to support the ruling party to appreciate a policy that works. That is the crux of this article -- that while criticism is a welcome development in any democratic system, it also has to be constructive, objective and nonpartisan. If all the opposition does is criticise without offering a more palpable solution, then we're not after nation building.
No matter how one twists and turns it, subsidy removal is a good thing for the Nigerian economy; it's particularly a good thing for the oil industry that has been mired in corruption, opacity, unaccountability and wastage for several decades. For the oil industry to be rejigged to become a wealth creating industry it once was, subsidy has to go. There's a saying that one must crack a few eggs before one makes an omelette. I think the newly elected president is doing exactly that. The cracking is never comfortable, but who doesn't like an omelette for breakfast?
We will fault the government when the time comes, but to speak against a good policy simply because one is trying to be politically correct or play opposition is simply out of principle. While we are at it, another brave move from the president is the unification of the naira in the foreign exchange market. Here's another big blow dealt against corruption in the monetary and fiscal sector. With multiple exchange rates out of the window, those who maliciously benefit from arbitrage and rent-seeking can kiss their fraudulent enterprise goodbye.
The elites must realise that Nigeria is bigger than their obsessive attempt to score cheap political points at the detriment of nation building. The position that the only acceptable convention is to be unconventional doesn't do anyone good, except the elites themselves. The arrogance of always wanting to be right borders on narcissism as well as intellectual dishonesty.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
After eight years of Buhari's abysmal leadership, it is a no-brainer that whoever is at the helm of affairs of the Nigeria state has some tough decisions to make. If Tinubu is rising to the occasion to make these tough decisions, the least we can do for our nation is to offer constructive criticism, not blatant rebuke that he's working against the masses.
The strategic move to revamp both the macroeconomic and monetary policy in Nigeria by the president was once the consensual position of the elites. Now that they've been granted what they wished and clamoured for, they should stop acting as though their wishes didn't come true. The bourgeois view has now been adopted by the political class; it's glaringly pretentious for the bourgeoisie to act like they didn't know exactly what they ask for.
Besides, it does no one any good if we continue to perpetuate and reward corruption and fraudulence simply because we want to uphold the status quo of elitism. Subsidy removal is a positive economic move; and no amount of virtue-signalling is sufficient enough to brush stroke it as calamitous.
