It is axiomatic that the vast majority of the people of this nation have been witnessing untold and untoward hardship or unprecedented economic challenges since the very moment the incumbent president was sworn in and given the mantle of leadership of the country. One needs not to be a financial expert or an economic analyst to know that this primordially emanated from his immediate stoppage or instantaneous removal of the fuel subsidy. This, previous governments had tactically parried because of its multidimensional socio-economic consequences on the poor masses and the society at large. The immediate fuel subsidy removal must have been applauded by those who understand the opaque politics and the modus operandi of the fuel subsidy management which was actually benefiting some cabals close to the corridor of power far more than the masses or underprivileged citizens of the nation. However, the resultant pretty critical situations cannot but illicit or necessitate some fundamental questions, begging for answers, coming from even those who strongly believe that Mr President has the best of intentions and plans aimed at ensuring systemic cum systematic transformation and sustainable societal development based on his antecedents. Therefore, these germane questions form the bedrock or interrogative topic sentences of the following paragraphs of the body components of this topical write-up.
Could the idea of an immediate declaration of fuel subsidy termination in the maiden inauguration speech of Mr President have been the only Hobson’s choice available, especially at a very critical period when people were expecting cataphoric allusions to better days or good times to come as opposed to, and as the panaceas of, the anaphoric predicaments of the ugly past? Could the unvarnished fact of the immediate subsidy removal was not euphemistically presented to the teeming masses, even if it must be presented right there and straight from the shoulder so that its obviously unwonted and seemingly vertiginous effect would not be too devastating for the people’s right from the outset of Mr President’s democratic administration? Could Mr President not avoid being perceived from the very beginning as a seemingly messianic leader who paradoxically started adding to the people’s heavy burdens when they were expecting a burden-bearer leader who would reduce their tasks, bring them succour, put smiles on their faces and make life more bearable to all and sundry? Could the sudden-death blow of the immediate oil subsidy removal declaration not be prevented on a day that should have marked the rekindling of hope for societal betterment without allowing this to turn many people’s joyousness or joyfulness to joylessness and jubilation or celebration into desolation?
Was it not possible to systematise or systematically arrange the fuel subsidy removal so as to spread the implementation over a given period of time considered logical enough to make the effect minimally and gradually felt by the people? Was it impossible to spread the subsidy removal over the first four quarters of the first year of Mr President’s administration such that there would be twenty-five per cent (25%) fuel subsidy removal every quarter of the first year? Was it, not Mr President himself who did a critical evaluation of the possible implications of the fuel subsidy removal years back when he was just hoping to be the number one citizen and he unequivocally submitted that it would be disastrous or catastrophic to suddenly remove the fuel subsidy because it would negatively impact on the masses? Was the sudden fuel subsidy removal part of Mr President’s manifestos or political agenda presented to the people as components of his action plans which were used to solicit the votes of the electorate? Was the introduction of the sudden fuel subsidy removal ab initio not tantamount to getting the people unawares or hitting them below the belts at a time when they could do next to nothing because they were not prepared for the sudden blow of the executive arm of the government?
Were there not some of the great nations of the world like the United, Kingdom, United States, France, Germany, Canada etc that were still subsidising certain products or services for the benefit of their citizens so as to make such essential items affordable for the people and to make their people reasonably comfortable? Were these countries that are sensitive to the plights of their citizens and are committed to meeting the pressing needs of their people even if it means subsidising them, persistently pressured by the key international financial or monetary organisations like World Bank (WB) and International Monetary Fund (IMF) to suddenly stop or remove the subsidies so that those items can be sold and bought locally at the same rates they are sold and bought at international markets? Were there not some oil-rich nations like Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Russia, United States etc still subsidising fuel as the exceptional benefit still enjoyed by the people for being citizens of such oil-rich nations or for residing temporarily or permanently in those nations when Mr President came on board via the instrumentality of the electorate’s votes and suddenly pronounced the immediate removal of fuel subsidy?
Did Mr President not have the option or opportunity of adopting, employing or utilising a democratic approach to the implementation of the fuel subsidy removal that reasonably or adequately informs the generality of the people beforehand, since to be forewarned is to be forearmed based on a popular proverb, such that the decision would eventually be presented as an all-inclusive, quite comprehensible, popular position and people-oriented government policy? Did the present government not feel that it would look or sound somehow autocratic in a democratic socio-political milieu to just declare that the long-enjoyed fuel subsidy would be suddenly terminated without the concerned citizens having a foreknowledge of this or without preparing the minds of the innocent people in advance for the unprecedented development that is susceptible of multidimensional consequences? Did Mr President not take cognizance of the fact that he repeatedly promised to abide by fundamental democratic ideals or principles that represent the sine qua non of effective governmental administration when he was soliciting the support of the people who eventually rightly utilised their franchise to grant him the opportunity to become the nation’s numero uno citizen? Did Mr President’s government remember that democracy is the government of the people by the people for the people based on Abraham Lincoln’s age-long definition?
Was it not possible for the government to first put in place and ahead of time measures that would help to ameliorate the foreseeable and inevitable socioeconomic consequences of the sudden or immediate fuel subsidy removal which would translate to putting the horse before the cart and not vice versa? Was it not possible to take a little time to study the situation of things very critically and when equipped with gospel truths and unvarnished facts, then employ the proper planning principles promoting/permitting perfect (but preventing poor) performance before the hasty declaration of the immediate stoppage of fuel subsidy graciously put in place to make life bearable for the underprivileged masses, though claimed to be eventually abused or mismanaged? Was it not better to first flood the roads of major towns and cities of the nations with buses locally manufactured or assembled to suit our environments to commute or transport people from place to place possibly pro bono or at highly subsidised rates such that even private vehicle owners would also opt for the public transportation because of the comparative cost effectiveness? Was it not in order to already ensure the availability of alternatives to petrol and the provision of other palliative incentives before the immediate removal of the petrol subsidy that has negatively impacted on prices of virtually all other essential products and services nationwide?
How will the government of the day sustain the loyalty of the people or retain the unalloyed support of some staunch supporters who have been badly battered or whose families have been negatively affected or impacted by the consequences of the sudden fuel subsidy removal forcefully implemented from the outset of the present democratic dispensation? How will the patriotic citizens of this great nation who have always believed so much in Mr President and have entrusted their votes and hopes to him not begin to see him in a relatively bad light or start to perceive him as someone behaving as if he is oblivious of the people’s past struggles and supportive roles and who therefore may be unmindful of the confidence reposed in him by the suffering masses whose burdens have been amplified instead of being miniaturised? How will the image of the government at all levels of the present democratic administration not be affected by the incessant cries of the suffering masses across the length and breadth of this nation which have kept resonating or reverberating with the aggravating consequences of the sudden fuel subsidy removal implemented last year? How will the people continue to believe the sudden fuel subsidy removal was truly done in their interest unless there are sudden positive changes and the decision starts yielding good results bettering people’s socio-economic conditions?
Can the prices of various products or commodities and services that have skyrocketed because of the fuel pump price hike orchestrated by the sudden fuel subsidy removal implemented by the present government still nosedive and normalise to turn the hands of the clock of our economic situation back to status quo ante, that is, where they used to be? Can the law of gravity that posits that whatever goes up will surely and eventually come down still be valid or applicable in our country’s present economic condition where the prices of various essential items have been increasing and not decreasing as if we are in the space where things released into the atmosphere just keep going up except when stabilised with very weighty elements or heavy substances? Can one remember any instance or anytime that prices of various products or services were forced to rise astronomically that they all eventually returned to normal or previous prices after the needful have been done by those at the helms of governmental affairs in line with the persistent demands of the people? Can the present unpleasant economic situations or realities still paradoxically bring pleasant surprises of better days or good times to come the ways of all well-meaning citizens as always promised by Mr President?
ALSO READ: Russia election: World leaders react to Putin’s victory
Are the targeted oil business cabals or magnets the ones really seriously affected or feeling the brunt of the economic hardships resulting from the sudden removal of the fuel subsidy that is responsible for the present exorbitant prices of petroleum products having multiplier effects on the prices of all other commodities? Are the peasants and underprivileged citizens that the government of the day ought to be supported where possible to make things better for them, not the ones wailing because having desired three-square meal has become a mirage and it is now synonymous to camels trying to pass through the eyes of needles using a typical scriptural metaphorical allusion? Are the people siphoning and feeding fat on the fund earmarked for the fuel subsidy not already super rich to feel the prevailing economic hardships emanating from the persistent hike in the prices of various essential products and services having utilised proceeds of their ill-gotten wealth to establish diverse businesses in other fields and climes? Are all and sundry even truly equal within the context of fuel subsidy removal, just as proclaimed in George Orwell’s satirical “Animal Farm”, since it is only the masses that buy fuel with their hard-earned money while the people in government make the pretty harsh policies and taking devastating decisions don’t as they live mostly on taxpayers’ money?
How will the teeming citizens of this nation not continue to be desperate globetrotters searching for greener pastures of other climates, countries or continents with the present continuously dwindling or deteriorating socio-economic conditions continually worsening because of the skyrocketing prices of essential products and services resulting from last year’s sudden fuel subsidy removal? How will brain drain, euphemistically regarded as human capital flight, not continue to deprive our nation of the inputs of outstanding professionals like medical doctors, registered nurses, qualified engineers, prolific cum scholarly academics and ICT experts among others due to their massive exodus to other climes with far promising future and much better living standards? How will our own country metamorphose from its present less developed status or position to a fast developing nation just like Malaysia and Singapore when the best brains and skilful hands produced and badly needed for its systematic transformation or sustainable development are flying to other nations that want to fortify their economies so as to ensure all-round development and for them to continue to be far above and ahead of other nations? How will home be truly homely when the costs of basic necessities of life are soaring and prices of essential commodities keep escalating almost everyday?
When will the present workers’ minimum wage be pragmatically reviewed by the government as realistically determined by the body saddled with this responsibility in line with the provisions of the labour law or the minimum wage act such that it will be in tandem with or reflective of contemporary global trends and socio-economic realities of the time? When will the long-expected new minimum wage that will definitely be confronted by maximum economic challenges already present and waiting to neutralise its effect in double-quick time be implemented to cushion the severe effects of economic hardships brought by price escalations invited by the sudden fuel subsidy removal since last year? When, serio-comically speaking, will the eventual workers’ take-home pay be able to take them home, especially for those working in places relatively far away from homes and who will usually think twice before going home because the values of their take-home pays after various statutory deductions are nothing to write home about in the first instance? When will salary earners be obliged to the benefits of democracy and good governance by not just being given minimum wages but living wages that will enable them to conveniently meet their needs and those of their families and also have something meaningful to save consistently for the rainy days? When will the present democratic government protect the interests of workers by putting in place price control boards so that the hard-earned salaries of workers will not be devoured by the uncontrollably high prices of essential commodities and services making them to work like elephants but to eat and live like ants.
The above-explicated fundamental questions capture the key issues bordering on the sudden fuel subsidy removal bothering the minds of many concerned citizens weathering the storm of its subsequent quagmire. These querulous questions are far from being rhetorical as they are begging for appropriate answers and immediate responses as panaceas to the socio-economic challenges and unprecedented happenings that started manifesting after the sudden fuel subsidy removal last year. It is crystal clear that it is not yet ‘Uhuru’ with the various things happening nationwide since the Mr President took the nation’s mantle of leadership though he is believed to be having a good intention which in the legal parlance is considered equal to the act in some cases ceteris paribus. So, it is now imperative for the government to be looking very well before leaping and to be mindful of the possible implications of crucial policies so that these will not continue to negatively impact the innocent people who deserve nothing but the best as patriotic and loyal citizens.
Samson Oluga, PhD
and then