Lagos — The truth is that President Olusegun Obasanjo who until 1998 when he was released from incarceration for a fathom coup was simply an Army General who ruled Nigeria from 1976 to 1979.
But with the exit of the military from the commanding heights of Nigerian political leadership, following the sudden demise of General Sani Abacha, the then military Head of State, a window of opportunity for Nigerians to get a new lease of life via democratic system of governance was opened in 1999. By some twist of fate, the lot fell on Chief Olusegun Matthew Okikiola Aremu Obasanjo, a retired Army General, and celebrated chicken farmer, who hails from Owu, a quaint little town near Abeokuta in Ogun State.
For a man with such a largely undemocratic pedigree, eye brows were raised as to how an ex-Army General would fare in a democratic dispensation. But to the amazement of some and to the chagrin of others, President Obasanjo in five years has morphed into a political dinosaur reviled and revered by his adversaries and loyalists respectively.
Rather fortuitously some of the political moves of President Olusegun Obasanjo in the past five years of practicing the presidential system of governance in Nigeria, bear large resemblance to those of President George W. Bush of the United States of America, a country whose political system Nigeria chose to adopt when it returned to civil democracy. Apart from being accomplished Farmers Bush, a proud owner of a farm in Crawford, Texas and Obasanjo, proprietor of Temperance farm, Ota, coincidentally, both President George W. Bush and President Olusegun Obasanjo were elected into office in 1999 and 2000 respectively on weak mandates. In the case of President Obasanjo, he was perceived as an outsider whose lack of experience in partisan politics was considered a liability and President Bush ostensibly due to the controversial manner by which he got his mandate particularly because of a vote count that many Americans believe was less than transparent. But unlike Obasanjo whom Nigerians were ready to give the benefit of the doubt, having become weary of long military rule, George Bush Jnr. was not given a chance by Americans until the unfortunate incident of terrorist attack in New York and Washington DC Sept. 11 2001, which shook America to its very foundation. Following that horrific attack, the man formerly referred to as a whimp at the nascent stage of his administration is now referred to by critics as “Toxic Texan” and admirers as a hero courtesy of the drastic measures he has taken to ìbring Justiceî to terrorists particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq. Obasanjo who was for a lack of better term, a lame duck in view of the persistent impeachment threats that were hanging over his political neck like a toga during his first tenure largely due to his political naivety, is now a gladiator, intolerant of opposition within his political party, the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, the Labour Unions and by extension long suffering Nigerians. Intriguingly, despite their seeming unpopularity owing to their reformation and transformation policies, both President Bush and Obasanjo have contrary to the predictions of political pundits, been re-elected into office with overwhelming and unprecedented votes in the United States and Nigeria. While Bush has included tax cuts, partial privatization and war against terrorism as well as democratization of the Middle East as priorities, Obasanjo has concentrated on public sector reforms as reflected in the monetization of perks and privileges of workers, withdrawal of government subsidy to public utilities, privatization and the unification of Africa via African Union, as his raison-detre. The fallout of the reform of both Presidents who were high on promises in their first and second coming is that their policies have unfortunately been largely unpopular hence both have to a large extent polarised the citizenry of their respective countries. For instance, instead of President Bush’s promise of a policy of a humble but strong foreign policy, he has indeed pursued an aggressive policy that has left the world deeply divided along religious and economic lines resulting in the United States being loathed if not demonized abroad. Similarly, Obasanjo who had promised Nigerians succour after fifteen straight years of military rule is believed by many to have further aggravated the suffering of the masses because it is under his watch that the largest number of withdrawal of subsidy in the price of petroleum products that are critical to the survival of the average Nigerian has been recorded. In what looks like a harvest of coincidences both President Bush and Obasanjo are managing economies with similar ailments -budget deficits. While Bush has been saddled with the burden of running the United States economy with a burgeoning deficit estimated to be 2.3 trillion dollars, Nigeria’s Obasanjo has been managing the ailing Nigerian economy with a huge deficit equivalent to 1.5% of GDP as of September, 2004. Just as, the US deficit is believed to have been exacerbated by the cost of executing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Nigeria’s deficit is hinged on the expensive cost of operating a bloated presidential system of government and large scale corruption.
Expectedly, Presidents Bush and Obasanjo have vowed to tackle their budget deficits head on as both are taking steps to ensure more fiscal responsibility in 2005. For instance, President Bush is looking to reform America’s complicated tax code through his Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT Initiative and Obasanjo on his part hopes to reduce profligacy through the Fiscal Responsibility Act and Public Procurement Act which the Minister of Finance Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala and Dr. Oby Ezekwesili of the Due Process Office in the Presidency have just presented to the National Assembly for passage into law. In what appears like a positive volte-face, both leaders of the world’s greatest democracy and most populous black democracy have become more conciliatory in their stance on issues. President George Bush of United States, who led his country into a war against Saddam Hussein’, Iraq on the excuse that the country was stockpiling Weapons of Mass Destruction, WMD in spite of opposition by majority of the world, especially Europe, has now soft-pedaled by admitting that indeed there is no WMD in Iraq hence it is now soliciting assistance in rebuilding a country it had destroyed with impunity from the United Nations and countries like France, Germany, and Russia which it had spurned. By the same token, President Obasanjo who had vowed to wage “war” against those opposed to his reform measures especially the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC) has also adopted a more accommodating approach by reducing the pump price of some petroleum products which he had hiked to the consternation of Nigerian workers who registered their protest by embarking on industrial action. In the light of the foregoing, parallels in the patterns of actions by Presidents George W. Bush of the United States of America and Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria, analysts have now come to the conclusion that both leaders are cut from the same cloth.
In the light of the current apparently more liberal approach to implementing reform and transformation policies by both leaders who were thought to be unyielding hardliners, should the world expect that between a more humble George W. Bush and a more conciliatory Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria, the world, Africa and indeed Nigeria would be a better place in 2005? Incidentally, President Obasanjo’s recent visit to Washington DC, USA, the seat of power of the leader of the world’s largest economy under the auspices of African Union (AU) of which he is currently the chairman tend to suggest that both leaders are likely to work more closely in 2005.
Considering that both leaders tend to have identical ideological orientation, it is expected that the African Union chairman would not have difficulties in selling the New African Initiative for progress and Development, NEPAD to the leader of the free world and the largest economy in the world.
This optimism derives from the fact that under President Bill Clinton, President Bush’s predecessor in the White House, Africa benefited from the African Growth and Opportunity Act, AGOA programme which allowed Africans to export a variety of products to the USA, tariff free. Given that the NEPAD initiative is an African equivalent of the marshal plan which the U.S. initiated to save Europe, particularly France after the 2nd world war, Foreign policy watchers are convinced that the AU president’s auspicious visit would yield positive dividends. Undoubtedly, Africa deserves American and indeed the world’s support for the emergence of the continent from the clutches of poverty, acquired immune deficiency (AIDS) scourge and inter-tribal wars which have ravaged it.
Obviously, it is in acknowledgement of the dire economic circumstances of Africans that Mr. Gordon Brown, Chairman of British Labour Party during his recent tour of four African nations re-echoed the need for a marshal plan for Africa. While expressing disdain for trade agreements with Africa which is usually skewed in favour of the European partners which he insists should be reviewed to foster growth and development of the continent, he unequivocally indicated that trade justice rather than aid is what Africa needs to emerge from the woods. This is underscored by the fact that the industrialized world is known to be heavily subsidizing their Agricultural and Industrial sectors while compelling Africa to open its markets. Interestingly, British Prime Minister Mr. Tony Blair had earlier expressed similar sentiments in his essay published in the January 1st edition of the Economist magazine. This is auspicious, because, the Prime Minister’s positive disposition to Africa is at a time when Britain takes over the chairmanship of the G8, Forum of the eight most powerful and industrialized countries in the world. With Britain’s current leadership of the European Union, EU the organization whose members form the bulk of the parish club, a body Nigeria owes its largest foreign debt, Africa and indeed Nigeria can now heave a sigh of relieve that at last, the industrialized world is about to admit that the impoverished continent is part of its world.
As the recent sudden increase in the price of crude oil in the international market, following threats from an ethnic militia group in the oil rich Niger Delta Area of Nigeria has demonstrated, we all live in a global village, implying that what affects the part, affects the whole. So, if America and indeed the rest of the industrialized society should help pull Africa from the brinks, they will be doing so as a guarantee for their own future too.
Onyibe is Commiissioner for Information, Delta State