The use of statistics for mischievous purposes has been easy because the government has not done enough to highlight its gains. Instead, too much time is spent on responding to mischievous interventions. It is time for the government to focus on highlighting the progress made, how it will be sustained, and how it will deliver real dividends to the people in the long term.
As of today, Nigeria is grappling with a profound structural imbalance. The country is experiencing a crisis of expectations versus reality, and the challenge lies in transitioning out of a failed system of social relationships. The fallout from this structural imbalance is manifested every election cycle. We’ve been experiencing it these past few weeks as political parties begin to gear up for the 2027 presidential election (see, for example, “Tinubu and the North”, Daily Trust, 4 August, and “Nigerians are hungry”, Daily Trust, 5 August).
|
|
Nigeria’s unique characteristics as a multi-ethnic and multicultural society, operating a less-than-balanced federal system, is at the root of the problem. An ideal federal system for Nigeria would be akin to Switzerland’s, but the country has deviated from this model since the adoption of the 1960 and 1963 Republican Constitutions. The transition to a presidential system of government in which states are subservient to the centre has not helped matters. The government has made some adjustments, which have been painful but unavoidable. These adjustments have given rise to various symptoms, and statistics have been misused to highlight the issues, as if the current administration is responsible for the underlying decay in some quarters.
The structural imbalance is complicated by disparities in various sectors, with the economic and educational disparities staring us in the face. The imbalance and disparities must be addressed through more creative means. Currently, statistics are being used as weapons of attack, and there is a need to contextualise them. Given limited resources, a new approach must be developed, focusing on immediate, medium, short, and long-term solutions that would yield transparent results.
|
|
|---|
Nigeria’s lack of a national democratic agreement among its political establishment and elite has contributed to the current situation. Such an agreement would provide a general navigating map, allowing for differences in emphasis and disagreements, while maintaining an overall consensus on the way forward. The absence of this consensus has turned a crisis that could have been transformative into a tool for attacking the government, as preparations are underway for another round of elections.
It was as well that the president’s media team immediately exposed the misuse of statistics by the distortionists (see Sunday Dare, “Responsible critique requires fact-driven narratives: A response to Daily Trust, The Nation”, 6 August and Tunde Rahman, “President Tinubu, the North and Distortions of Politics”, ThisDay, 10 August). True, one of the Daily Trust editorials provided some urgent tasks that the presidency must embark upon to ameliorate the hardships, yet it failed to explain why those hardships were necessary for the short-term.
An elite consensus on the way forward is necessary, but unfortunately, it is lacking. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s attempts to rally the republic, to borrow a phrase from Charles de Gaulle, is being sabotaged by ambitious politicians, who have engaged in scaremongering, using statistical distortions. This is not a trend that could be beneficial to the country or its people.
When President Tinubu’s government took office, it was faced with two alternative paths: (a) continuing as usual or (b) taking a decisive and bold step to address the damage. The administration chose the latter, more difficult but necessary option, and deserves credit for doing so. This decision has prevented the country from falling into a debt crisis and has enabled it to make gains in exports and federal allocations to the states and local governments.
The government must now break free from the destructive tendencies and take a robust position. It was as well that the president’s media team immediately exposed the misuse of statistics by the distortionists (see Sunday Dare, “Responsible critique requires fact-driven narratives: A response to Daily Trust, The Nation”, 6 August and Tunde Rahman, “President Tinubu, the North and Distortions of Politics”, ThisDay, 10 August). True, one of the Daily Trust editorials provided some urgent tasks that the presidency must embark upon to ameliorate the hardships, yet it failed to explain why those hardships were necessary for the short-term. Rather, it sought to inflame the masses through distortions of reality. Besides, the Presidency was already implementing some of the editorial’s suggestions before they were made.
Nevertheless, the government needs to determine the territory of public discourse and create a conventional wisdom that acknowledges the challenges, while emphasising the gains made and bright future that lays ahead. For instance, the gains in exports should be highlighted and explained in ways that show (a.) how they were made possible and (b.) how they can benefit ordinary people. The government should also point out how sustained export growth can strengthen the naira, and benefit an import-dependent society. Finally, it must be emphasised that it is not for nothing that major international organisations and finance institutions rated the president’s policy high and painted a robust macro-economic outlook for the country.
As a federal republic, state governments must provide the inputs that people erroneously expect the central government alone to deliver. The public’s aggression should not be transferred solely to the central government; instead, they should also hold state governments accountable for their responsibilities.
The use of statistics for mischievous purposes has been easy because the government has not done enough to highlight its gains. Instead, too much time is spent on responding to mischievous interventions. It is time for the government to focus on highlighting the progress made, how it will be sustained, and how it will deliver real dividends to the people in the long term.
For tactical convenience, the strategic imperative may have led the president to avoid the public accusation of governors for failing to show proof of the Federal Government’s social interventions in various sectors. However, in a functioning federalism, much more is expected of state governments than the centre. The reality is that state governments have not fulfilled their responsibilities, despite increased federal interventionist subventions social investment, and increased monthly allocations. The government needs to find a way of putting state governments on the spot, while making the public aware of their ineptitude across various sectors.
As a federal republic, state governments must provide the inputs that people erroneously expect the central government alone to deliver. The public’s aggression should not be transferred solely to the central government; instead, they should also hold state governments accountable for their responsibilities.
Bámidélé Adémólá-Olátéjú, former Commissioner for Information in Ondo State, is director of New Media and Corporate Communications of the All Progressives Congress (APC). Twitter: @BamideleUpfront; Facebook: facebook.com/Bamidele. BAO
