Wednesday, December 24, 2008

2008 - Another Wasted Year for the African Continent

As the year 2008 draws to an end, most people the world over are taking stock of the past year, assessing what was done right and what was done wrong. In the United States of America, there is an air of enthusiasm as the citizens are excited at the historic election in November of the first African American President, Mr. Barack Obama, whose inauguration comes up on January 20, 2009. Even as America experiences its deepest recession since the Second World War, there is palpable optimism and high expectations of the ability of President Elect, Barack Obama and his formidable team to turn the tide on the economic downturn.

If the optimism and excitement holds up all through 2009, America, and indeed the world may emerge from the recession sooner than later. After all, a significant determinant of economic fortune is consumer sentiment. A positive sentiment usually means more demand, which often jump-starts production to increase supply to meet the demand. Of course all these require an able team to midwife with delicate precision, and the overall sentiment is if any team can achieve this, it is that being assembled by President Elect Obama. Such is the magic of the man.

Across the Atlantic, on the continent that bore the man who sired Barack Obama, the sentiments are just as optimistic and enthusiastic. Obama’s unlikely story and eventual peaceful election is iconic of what the ideal should be, even for Africans. Obama symbolizes the hero in many an African folktale that saves the day and leads his people to redemption, something which most Africans desperately need to be rid of their tyrants. All Africans (on the continent and in Diaspora) should be proud of this fine young man and his achievements, as he has forever demystified age-old racial stereotypes and low expectations of the black man. In Obama’s word, “Yes we can.” Blacks can be anything they set their minds, all it takes is hard work and a people and system that are fair and conscientious. But there stops the import to Africans of the Obama ascension to the US presidency.

Mr. Obama just happens to be an African American who was elected to be the President of the United States of America come, January 20, 2009. His primary responsibility and allegiance is to the American people and its interests. Those interests may well be stability in Africa among others and the Obama administration, no doubt, would do anything in its power to achieve this if the American people so desire it. But in the final analysis, the responsibility for the stability and prosperity of African countries rests squarely on their leadership and citizenry. Whether it be the genocidal junta of Omar Al-Bashir engaged in the ethnic cleansing by the Janjaweed in Darfur, Sudan, or the maniacal and demented regime of 84-year old Robert Mugabe in his tyrannical bid to hold on to power in Zimbabwe, impervious to the pleas of the international community and the consequential ruin his sit-tight posture is wreaking on his country, the responsibility is squarely Africans’.

In the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Ugandan and Rwandan backed, Laurent Nkunda-led National Congress for the Defense of the People (CNDP) rebel army is in a civil war with the Angola, Namibia and Zimbabwe backed Joseph Kabila DR Congo government forces. This is a war involving six of the poorest nations of the world. Granted, Namibia has a GDP per capita of about $5,200, making it one of the richer African countries, but it has an HIV prevalence rate of about 21% in adults, one of the highest in the world. The other five countries have equally high HIV prevalence rates and some of the worst socioeconomic indices in the world, yet they squander their meager resources on a complicated and fratricidal war.

In Nigeria, while there is no full-blown war, the situation in the Niger Delta is just as dire. Rogue pirates and criminals parading themselves as environmental militants are on the prowl kidnapping, killing, extorting, sabotaging, blowing up oil installations and illegally bunkering crude oil with impunity while the corrupt and ineffectual government of Umaru Musa Yar’Adua sits pat. With the potential of being one of the richest countries in the world on account of its rich human and natural resources, Nigeria has been hobbled by its deeply entrenched level of corruption that guarantees it a spot in the top-tier of the most corrupt countries in the world each of the 15 years Transparency International has published the corruption perception index (cpi).

The story in South Africa is not much better, only earlier this past summer in May, South African youths took to the streets to maim, rape and murder non South-African black Africans, particularly those from Zimbabwe, Malawi, Mozambique, Nigeria, Ghana, Somalia and Ethiopia, who they erroneously blamed for taking up their jobs and using up government resources that would otherwise have been used to benefit South Africans. Many believed this rash of xenophobia was wrought and stoked by Mr. Jacob Zuma, the African National Congress (ANC) president and putative successor to the Kgalema Motlanthe led government when elections are held in 2009.

These are some of the sad tales of the African continent that bore Mr. Obama. The same blood that courses the veins of these lot flows through those of the President Elect. Yes indeed Africans are ecstatic at Mr. Obama’s election and even more vociferous about this are all the despotic and corrupt misanthropes in government all throughout the African continent (except perhaps Mr. Mugabe who hates everything western). It boggles the mind that these purloiners in power can recognize merit and a system and democracy that works while at the same time toil very hard to entrench chaos and turmoil in their countries in their bid to self-enrich and hold tenaciously on to power. To paraphrase Mr. Obama’s controversial pastor, Jeremiah Wright of Trinity Church, Chicago: “…not God bless African leaders, it's God damn African leaders…”

Thursday, August 07, 2008

Ribadu’s Demotion – Yar’Adua’s Betrayal

The demotion exercise supposedly carried out by the Police Service Commission which affected the former Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Nuhu Ribadu is clearly a vindictive assault on the fine officer, Ribadu whose stellar performance at the EFCC not only gained international respect for Nigeria in its fight against corruption, but gave hope to the millions of Nigerians who have been betrayed by their leadership, if only for the brief period of time.

This goes to prove that Yar’Adua is a lame duck of a President whose strings are being pulled by the various corrupt elements that helped to bring him to power and continue to influence the way things are run in Nigeria. Under Ribadu's leadership, the EFCC was able to investigate, prosecute and secure conviction of the perpetrators of one of the biggest fraud cases the world has ever seen (the Banco Noroeste case involving Emmanuel Nwude, Nzeribe Okoli and Amaka Anajemba). Also, for the first time, a sitting Inspector General of Police was indicted and convicted for corruption.

Indeed, so effective was the EFCC that the saying in Nigerian public offices was "The fear of Ribadu is the beginning of Wisdom." What made Ribadu so effective was the independence granted the agency by the Obasanjo administration. Even though Ribadu was an Assistant Commissioner of Police when he assumed office, his EFCC activities were reported directly to the presidency and not the Inspector General of Police. Removing this bureaucratic layer made the EFCC a highly effective organization, especially as it did not have to get approvals or orders from higher ranking police officers who are renowned for their high degree of corruption and sometimes were in complicity with the criminals under investigation.

This independence and attendant power bestowed on Ribadu officer bred in the higher ranked police officers jealousy, cavil and disdain. Snide remarks, accusations of selective justice and misconduct were rife. When the Yar’Adua government came into power, these police officers along with the criminal elements the EFCC was investigating (amongst whom were several state governors known to be instrumental to the Yar’Adua election to the presidency) increased their pressure on Yar’Adua, complaining about gross abuse of power by the EFCC. Yar’Adua bucked and Ribadu was pushed out of the commission under the guise of being sent on an advanced management course at the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS). Eventually, Ribadu was removed as EFCC Chairman.

Yar’Adua makes a big mistake by allowing the demotion. If anything, for the fact that Ribadu performed excellently at the EFCC, he should be exempt from the demotion, assuming there is any truth to the rationale being given for the exercise. The symbolism of this is that Yar’Adua is in cahoots with the various criminal elements that continue to bog down the Nigerian political landscape. Also, it confirms the lack of vision and ineptitude of Yar’Adua as a president.

Yar’Adua has nothing to show for the two-years plus he has been in power. The militancy in the Niger-Delta has escalated several folds, diminishing Nigeria’s oil production by up to 25% as the president’s brother heads the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC). Electric power generation is at its worst in 45 years, inflation is rife, crime rate has escalated, and there are food shortages and long lines at the petrol stations. The only difference between the Yar’Adua government and the Abacha junta is that Sergeant Rogers and other Al Mustafa goons are not on the prowl killing perceived enemies of the state, but with the growing army of political assassins, Niger-Delta militants and other criminal gangs, Yar’Adua does not need Al Mustafa’s goons to achieve an even higher degree of mayhem than the evil Abacha. At least during the Abacha regime, the Niger-Delta was not as dangerous as it is now. The evil General knew how to curb criminal militancy and had an independent mind, something Yar’Adua seems to be lacking amongst other leadership traits.

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Nigerian Ex-Governors Soup it out in EFCC Detention Cells

The recent arrest and subsequent arraignment in court of some ex-governors of the immediate past administration by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is a culmination of the much awaited show down between the commission and the indicted governors. So far the ex-governors picked up include Uzor Kalu (Abia State), Jolly Nyame (Taraba State), Saminu Turaki (Jigawa State) and Joshua Dariye (Plateau State). Chimaroke Nnamani (Enugu State) and Ayodele Fayose (Ekiti State) have been declared wanted and would soon be picked up. While Nnamani is hold up in the National Hospital Abuja undergoing treatment for what appears to be a specious and convenient ailment, Fayose’s whereabouts is unknown.

It is laudable of the EFCC to make good its promise to the Nigerian people of prosecuting these indicted ex-governors. While in office, under the protection of immunity conferred on them by virtue of their offices, many of these ex-governors had dared the EFCC to prosecute them. Loud-mouth boasts of how wealthy they were before assumption of office and how no one could do arrest them were made by many. Kalu was reported as having boasted in his characteristic crassness and bad grammar to have single-handedly bankrolled the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), insinuating that he was untouchable. “If the PDP was a company, I would own 70%.” (sic) – he is reported to have boasted. Now that they are out of office and have been stripped of the immunity protection of the office they are running scared, feigning ailments and crying like little girls who have lost their dolls.

Saminu Turaki’s cases particularly disheartening, being indicted for misappropriating about 36 billion Naira. This works out to an embezzlement rate of about 375 million Naira monthly, of the 8 years Turaki was in power in Jigawa State. Kalu is currently being arraigned on a 3 billion Naira embezzlement charge, but this may grow to as much as 59 billion Naira, the total amount for which the former Abia state governor is being investigated. Jolly Nyame, who is purportedly a man of the cloth (he is a reverend), has admitted to gross acts of corruption (1.6 billion Naira so far) and offered to return the stolen monies for some form of amnesty. Joshua Dariye, who is also indicted in the UK on money laundry charges linked directly to the EFCC investigation stands accused of embezzling several hundreds of millions of Naira in his care while he was governor of Plateau state.

Chimaroke Nnamani has requested to have his 5.6 billion Naira embezzlement indictment transferred to Federal High Court number 10 in Lagos in what appears to be a delay tactic, but that notwithstanding would only be postponing the judgment day as the evidence against him appears very strong. From his purported sick-bed in Abuja, Nnamani bleats some redundant “I am being persecuted” rhetoric, albeit trite and ineffectual, in his wishful bid for vindication.

These six ex-governors who are currently being prosecuted by EFCC make up only but a minority fraction of ex-governors who should be prosecuted. Bola Tinubu (Lagos), Peter Odili (Rivers), James Ibori (Delta), Lucky igbenedion (Edo), Abubakar Audu (Kogi) are some of the ex-governors that are being investigated by the EFCC. It is only when the full complement of ex-governors involved in corrupt self-enrichment, embezzlement and other financial crimes have been brought to book, that the EFCC would rightfully deserve all the praises it has garnered locally and internationally. It would also quell allegations of selective persecution, and rumours of a pact purportedly made by Ibori, Igbenedion and Odili with Yar’Adua for the former three to cede the PDP presidential ticket nomination to the latter in exchange for amnesty from prosecution by the EFCC. It appears Yar'Adua seeks to prove his independence from the OBJ led cabal as evident in his recent ministerial picks. If this is true, then we would sooner be seeing other erring ex-governors in the holding cells of the EFCC - Sweet Justice at last for the millions of hapless Nigerians whose lives have been nothing but a living hell by the criminal acts of these thieving ex-governors and their cronies.

Sunday, July 08, 2007

Three-Year-Old Tot Kidnapped in Port Harcourt, Nigeria

Last week’s kidnapping of three-year old Margaret Hill in Port Harcourt by a so-called Niger Delta Militant group gives patent lucidity to the extent of decadence and depravity of the criminal organizations prowling the Nigerian Niger Delta enshrouded in the dubious cloak of environmentalism and freedom fighting. The lukewarm and conciliatory approach of the Obasanjo government in past 8 years in handling the Niger Delta crisis has done nothing but to embolden these criminals and spurned several tens, possibly hundreds of criminal gangs who prowl the region maiming, kidnapping, disrupting oil production and extorting ransoms from the oil companies, government and private citizens.

Often, these ransoms are negotiated through intermediary negotiators, who in many cases, are in cahoots with the criminal militant groups and are just a component of the larger organized criminal industry. What exists now is an efficient criminal industry complete with symbiotic relationships between arms dealers, pirates, illegal oil bunkerers, kidnappers, negotiators and criminal politicians. Granted, not all negotiators and politicians are in cahoots with these criminal groups, but it would be difficult to make a case in the contrary for many of them. For example, the impeached former governor of Bayelsa state, Alamieyeseigha was known to have retained the services of MEND and other militant groups while he was governor to keep his political opponents in check in return for several millions of Naira (labeled security vote) paid out to these militant groups.

Indeed, Alamieyeseigha’s impeachment may have been partly responsible for the explosion of militancy in the Niger Delta. With their benefactor incarcerated, and government’s unresponsiveness to their demands for his release, these groups stepped up their activities in pursuit of other avenues for money. Kidnapping, bunkering and piracy came easy particularly as they were left unchecked by the Obasanjo government either by the lack of political foresight, attitudinal apathy to the plight of the Nigerian polity or a confused and convoluted bid to be politically correct.

The Yar’Adua government faces a Herculean job to undo the damage done by his predecessor’s years of inept management of the Niger Delta crisis. One can only imagine the anguish and grief the Hill family must be going through with their toddler daughter’s kidnapping. This is as good as any time for all well-meaning Nigerians to stop being tongue-in-cheek and out rightly condemn the despicable actions of these so-called Niger Delta militants. The Yar’Adua government should do all it can to ensure that the toddler, Margaret is returned to her parents unharmed, and promptly too. And after this is done, not only should the perpetrators be hunted down like the dogs that they are, but all other criminal Niger Delta militant groups should be brought to book for theirs is a criminal cause dubiously enshrouded in the legitimate cloak of environmentalism.

If the Yar’Adua government’s actions in the past couple of weeks are predictors of its future posture then it may well be that Yar’Adua seeks to pursue the “head-in-the-sand” posture of his predecessor, indicated by his release of indicted secessionist Niger Delta militant leader Asari Dokubo. It appears the charges of treason have been dropped against Dokubo, in return, Yar’Adua is paid back with the Margaret Hill kidnapping.

Monday, June 04, 2007

President Yar’Adua’s Sham Ministerial Nominees – a Putrid Parade of Purloiners

The manner in which the new president of Nigeria has chosen to nominate members of his ministerial cabinet is a sign of things to come. It is alleged that he has given the job of ministerial nominations to the newly elected governors of the PDP won states and as a result has had eight former governors nominated for appointment by their successor protƩgƩes.

Against this backdrop, it is evident that President Yar’Adua has decided to perpetuate the decadence of the "old brigade," particularly as names of ex-governors of inglorious repute such as Ibori and Udenwa are being touted for appointment. The way ministerial appointments work in most civilized societies is to seek out the most qualified persons in terms of experience, outlook, values and competence to head public ministries and agencies. Rather, Yar’Adua’s approach is a putrid parade of purloiners. Many of these folks are alleged to have been under investigation by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commissions for gross acts of graft while they were governors. Many were wholesale abusers of human rights and flouters of court orders. Lesser allegations than these have been known to end people’s political careers in more developed societies.

It is no secret that Yar’Adua’s nomination for the PDP presidential ticket hinged heavily on the lobbying efforts of James Ibori and Lucky Igbinedion, erstwhile governors of Delta and Edo states respectively. Perhaps it is to fulfill a quid-pro-quo agreement that Yar’Adua seeks to reward Ibori with a ministerial post. Lucky Igbinedion (suspected murderer of Francis Ida) too might sooner be rewarded with a plum parastatal chairmanship or Ambassadorial post.

If the Yar’Adua administration is to gain legitimacy in Nigeria, and indeed the international community, and truly make a difference and liberate Nigeria from the claws of corruption and mediocrity, it would be better served not to engage any of these ex-governors and other persons of inglorious repute in any capacity in the administration. Yar'Adua should seek to appoint men and women of proven calibre, intellect and integrity like Nasir El Rufai, Dora Akiyuli, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala and Nuhu Ribadu and not ones of proven mediocrity, corruption and ignominy such as the nominee ex-governors being touted.

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Letter to President Yar’Adua








Dear Mr. President,

Congratulations upon your inauguration and swearing in as the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. As you know, for the next few months, perhaps years, your government will be regarded as being in the penumbra of the Obasanjo regime given the situation that brought you into office. Against this you must toil to carve out a unique identity for yourself and administration. To do this, you must choose wisely your vision and the folks in your cabinet to drive this vision.

Dare I suggest that you must focus on these three things amongst other things – (a) Security, (b) Rule of Law and (c) Economic development.

Security – As you know, the most pressing issue facing Nigeria today is that of security. The situation in the Niger Delta in particularly dire, with the spate of kidnapping, murder and other criminal acts perpetrated by the so-called Niger Delta militants, who claim to be fighting the cause of environmental degradation in the region. Granted, there are grave environmental issues and injustice meted out to the indigenes of the Niger Delta, but these Nihilist militants it seems perpetrate their nefarious acts with self-serving intent as is evident in the many ransoms they demand of the government and oil companies in exchange for their staff abducted by these militants.

Mr. President, my suggested solution, which apparently fell on the deaf ears of your predecessor, is to go at this problem with the entire arsenal at your disposal, and that includes – negotiation, intelligence, developmental programs and military incursion. Standing at akimbo and adopting the “head in the sand” posture of Obasanjo only worsens the situation as it not only emboldens the criminal and rogue elements in the Niger Delta, but also breeds some “legitimacy” in the chaos. A well kitted and trained force of 10,000 should be enough to take care of this.

This might appear expensive in the beginning, as it would require the investment of at least a couple of billions of dollars to develop such a force, but it beats the estimated $6 - $8 billion lost last year to the nefarious activities of these criminals. Oil holds such a strategic importance not only to Nigeria but to its Western allies, particularly the United States which derives about 9% of its oil needs from Nigeria. Mr. Yar’Adua, the US will only be too happy to help you clean up the mess in the Niger Delta if only you ask.

Rule of Law – Mr. President, your predecessor, Obasanjo made some half-hearted attempt to achieve this. While he gets kudos for instituting the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), and by all means you should keep this stellar agency, Obasanjo appeared to be partisan and selective in his application of the rule of law. Some people appeared untouchable if they enjoyed the patronage of Obasanjo or the PDP. For example, that illiterate thug in Anambra state, Chris Uba should have been made to face the full weight of the law when he organized the kidnapping of the Anambra state governor, Chris Ngige in 2005. Lamidi Adedibu, the cantankerous murderous leprechaun in Ibadan should have been arrested for the various criminal unrests he instigated and criminal possession of INEC machines and materials. By letting these and other beneficiaries of his patronage break the law unscathed, Obasanjo perverted justice and deepened the average Nigerian’s mistrust for the rule of law to the point of hopelessness and utter disdain, driving people to take law into their own hands.

Mr. Yar’Adua, correcting this perception by the impartial administration of justice and restoring the Nigerian’s faith in the rule of law is the only way your government would stand a chance. Do not don the crude vindictive garb of your predecessor, let the law take its course, and be quick to right wrongs as soon as they are discovered.

Economic Development – In its 47th year since independence, Nigeria is still one of the poorest countries in the world, despite her huge potential. Few countries in the world have the human and natural resources of Nigeria, yet Nigeria lags behind these less endowed nations because of years of perennial mediocre and rogue governments, that have mismanaged and systematically plundered the little wealth accruing to the country through the oil industry, while stupidly neglecting other sectors of the economy.

As the price of oil soars to record high levels, and would likely continue to do so for the next decade or more, Nigerian stands at the cusp of an opportunity to turn its fortune around. This it can do only through good governance that is committed, accountable and able to develop and execute developmental programs and systems which will improve infrastructural and social amenities that will engender economic development.

Mr. Yar’Adua, yours is a great responsibility and the sooner you get at it with the right team and inspirational, visionary leadership, the sooner you will be able to make a difference and justify your title as President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Be decisive, wise and bold in all that you do in your executive capacity. Think Nigeria first, not PDP, unlike your predecessor and you will be fine.

Good Luck!

Sunday, April 29, 2007

Dariye – Supreme Court’s Pronouncement Proves the Judiciary’s Independence

The Supreme Court’s upholding of the Federal Court of Appeal’s ruling of the reinstatement of Dariye as governor of Plateau State based on his unconstitutional impeachment hints at the much-desired independence of the judiciary from the legislative and executive arms of government.

In as much as Dariye has been indicted for the perpetration of ignominious acts, namely embezzlement, money laundering and international bail jumping, the fact that his impeachment was effected by only 8 members of a 24-member house legislature nullifies the process and therefore renders the impeachment void. No matter how strong the evidence is against him, Dariye could only have been constitutionally impeached by a two-third majority of the house, that is, by a vote of at least 16 members of the 24-member house. This however was difficult to achieve, given the choke hold Dariye had on the members of the house by their complicity in the wholesale acts of graft pervading the Plateau State government and compounded by the defection of 14 members from their party (PDP), therefore automatically losing their seats.

As alluded to in previous posts on the NigerianPolity.blogspot.com blog, the right thing to do would have been for INEC to declare the seats of the cross-carpeting legislators vacant and conduct run-off elections to fill them. With the full complement of the house in place, the constitutionality of Dariye’s impeachment would not have arisen.


That Dariye seeks to return for the remaining one month of the term speaks to the depravity of the man and how dearly his sort holds the immunity protection of section 308 of the 1999 constitution as a shield against prosecution. From hiding, hunkered down, Dariye now bleats some cheap rhetoric whose banality is as Rabelaisian as it nauseating against the backdrop of the depth of profanity to which Dariye has plunged the office of Governor and the concept of democracy. Perhaps Fela Anikulapo-Kuti was right in his farcical contrivance of the etymology of the word “Democracy” from the Nigerian Pidgin English phrases – “Dem all Crazy” and “Demonstration of Craze.”

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Nigerian Elections – Politics of Thuggery and Chaos

This past couple of weeks has been illuminating for the non-initiate as regards the means and ways of politicking in Nigeria. Ballot boxes snatched, voters and security agents maimed and killed, riotous protests, arson, armed gangs of thugs, soldiers and police using coercion to force people to vote for their benefactors, polling booth officials maimed or killed, and an attempt to blow up INEC headquarters in Abuja. All these are scenes reminiscent of a D-rate Nollywood movie, except it was enacted in real life. One might sooner be safer it seemed, in Kabul, Mogadishu or Faluja.

Nigerian politics has become a do-or-die affair where the only rule of the game is survival of the fittest, regardless of crudeness or brutality. The extent and level of violence that marked the April 14 and April 21 elections is enough to have the elections canceled since they were not in any respect free and fair. The daunting security and logistical issues facing the INEC made the commission inept.

The Atiku Abubakar ruling of the supreme court came only a few days to the election, making it almost impossible to amend the 60 million ballots to include Atiku Abubakar on the list of candidates. In the end the commission settled for a sticker. Also, the hostile nature of communities in opposition strongholds all over the country, particularly in the Niger Delta made it a precarious endeavor for INEC officials to administer elections in these areas (indeed some were reportedly killed). Add to this, the dire transportation situation in Nigeria and what you have is a near impossibility to have the elections commence on time all over the country. There are reports of elections commencing as late as 5:00 PM in certain states and even an extension of voting into the next day, April 22, 2007.

In the end, INEC released a result declaring Yar’Adua as the winner and the elections as free and fair. Yar’Adua probably truly won the elections since the PDP has the largest following in Nigeria. However, the chaotic and violent conduct of the election gnaws at the legitimacy of this victory. If the elections were not free and fair, should the results hold? Some quarters believe it should since all parties were involved in the display of violence and chaos. What thinks you?


Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Kalu's BBC Interview

Did anyone catch a glimpse of the interview Orji Uzo Kalu gave to the BBC last week? It was a tragic display of the crudeness and lack of finesse that has characterized the Kalu-led government of Abia State. It was full of bombast, an arcane, mislaid arrogance and patent ignorance.

When the anchor man, Allan Little tasked Kalu about the allegations of fraud leveled against him (being on the top 10 list of the EFCC), he claimed he was a very wealthy Nigerian before he became governor. He made a spurious claim of his company, SLOK, employing over 17,000 Nigerians. All investigations by the writer revealed that this is not true. SLOK employed only about 150 people before Kalu became governor according to sources. The way to prove this will be a look at the Nigerian Inland and Revenue Services books to see how may employee tax returns were remitted by SLOK. Kalu's solution for the Niger Delta problem is also half-brained. He does not seem to have a grasp of the problem facing the Niger Delta. He made no attempt to define or put the problem in context before proffering possible solutions.

This interview gives a good depiction of Kalu's standing and grasp of issues. Allan Little asked him about the issue of refuse dumps and heaps taking over the streets of Aba and how the place has been in dire need of sanitation for the past eight years. Kalu said it was not his duty to ensure the refuse dumps were cleared, but that nevertheless, he had this cleared about three months back. Allan Little was befuddled that in the eight years that Kalu had been governor it was only three months back that he had this done. Kalu just shrugged and repeated that it was not his responsibly. It begs the question - "What then is the role of a governor if he cannot provide a clean and sanitary state?"

For a man who is vying to be president Kalu seems to be so preoccupied with self-aggrandizement and embezzlement that he is oblivious of his responsibilities. This means if he is elected president, Nigeria can be a humongous refuse dump for all he cares.

For more on Kalu's kleptocracy see: - The Rape of Abia, a Tell Magazine Report.

Monday, February 12, 2007

Leadership and Economic Prosperity

I was going to write about Leadership and its role in economic prosperity in the third world before I came upon this McKinsey Quarterly interview with Michelle Bachelet, the new Chilean President. Her insights illuminate the role of key government officials in economic development and well being. Her vision of a free market Chile where people are free to pursue their aspirations of wealth creation while assured of security and protection for the vulnerable is one that every African leader should adopt.

Enjoy!...

McKinsey Quarterly

Economic Studies: Productivity & Performance

Interview

Promoting growth and social progress: An interview with the president of Chile

Michelle Bachelet discusses her views on the roots of political upheaval in Latin America, and the link between economic development and the fight against poverty.

Gonzalo Larraguibel and Marcelo Larraguibel


2007 Special Edition: Shaping a new agenda for Latin America

Michelle Bachelet, President of Chile, is one of Latin America’s most prominent leaders. A moderate Socialist who has pledged to combine pursuit of the country’s free-market policies with social measures to narrow the gap between rich and poor, her actions and pronouncements are of special interest to the outside world at a time of turbulent political change elsewhere in the region.

Bachelet’s life and political career have been significantly shaped by Chile’s troubled recent past. Detained and roughed up in 1975—two years after the late General Pinochet came to power in a military coup—she spent a period in exile, first in Australia then in the German Democratic Republic (the former East Germany), before returning to Chile in 1979. Like others on the left, she was active in the battle to restore democracy to the country in the late 1980s.

A trained surgeon who has also studied military strategy, Bachelet first came to national political prominence as health minister in the government of her predecessor Ricardo Lagos, where she initiated an in-depth review of Chile’s health care system. Subsequently appointed the minister of defense, she was credited with reforming the military pension system and modernizing the Chilean armed forces.

One year after her election victory as candidate of Concertación, the center-left coalition that has held power since 1990, President Bachelet faces a range of social and political challenges. The economic outlook appears robust—with GDP growth expected to rebound in 2007—and healthier-than-expected budget revenues last year (fueled by record-high copper prices) have raised hopes for social change. Political preoccupations have included street protests, a forced Cabinet reshuffle just three months into her term, and corruption scandals. On the external front the Bachelet Government has continued Chile’s pursuit of free-trade agreements (FTAs).

In this interview in the Presidential Palace in Santiago, Michelle Bachelet talked with McKinsey principal Gonzalo Larraguibel and McKinsey director Marcelo Larraguibel about the climate for foreign investment, political upheavals elsewhere in Latin America, and the changes needed to make her vision a reality.

The Quarterly: How do you view the rise of populist governments in Latin America and the reduced enthusiasm in some countries for free markets and free trade? And what do you see as Chile’s wider role in the region?

Michelle Bachelet: Latin America is facing an important moment. There have been 12 elections in the past year, all of them democratic, which represents a wonderful success and development of the regional political system. At the same time, economic and social indicators for the region are improving. However, there are countries where people are uneasy about the process of economic liberalization, because structural economic reforms were not accompanied by the social policies that were necessary. Therefore, many people in the region have been disappointed and are looking to see what else can be done.

The problem has not been with open economies per se but rather the lack of action in addressing poverty and social injustice. Chile has had its own experience—combining political stability, sound macroeconomic policies, and social cohesion—and we believe you cannot have one without considering the other.

When you ask about the role of Chile, it has been to share our experiences with our counterparts in Latin America. Many other leaders have been interested to know more about the experience of Chile. For example, we have brought together businesspeople from different countries and have tried to support countries that are interested in the skills our teams have acquired in negotiating FTAs. We have 54 of them, after all, giving us access to markets of 3 billion people throughout the world. We talk to colleagues about the complementary benefits these agreements can bring.

The Quarterly: Do you think other countries could give the region a bad name with their recent actions?

Michelle Bachelet: Every country has the self-determination and sovereignty to decide on their economic policies, and I would never speak about what others have done. I think that the best thing I can do is support them, continue to work with them, and be available to help.

Like any group of countries such as the European Union, Latin America has many different political, historical, and economic situations. We have been working on a South American Community, and some people even talk about a common currency. Looking at the EU, that would be a wonderful future goal. But today we have diverse countries, some with high external debt, others with low, some with very open economies, others less open. I still believe in integration, and there are working groups across the continent studying how to better connect our infrastructure and other topics such as social protection, energy, and education.

The Quarterly: What is your vision of the sort of country you would like Chile to become in ten years?

Michelle Bachelet: I would love Chile to be regarded as a modern society with a modern system of social protection and an open economy, both regionally and internationally, and also to be seen as a player on the world stage. Not, of course, in the sense of throwing its weight around, but rather as a contributor to the task of global development. We want Chile to be a country where you can find all the conditions needed to create wealth and innovate, but at the same time one that protects the vulnerable and looks after those with liabilities or those who started too far behind to benefit from the opportunities and possibilities we have here.

Over the past 16 years we have emerged from a difficult history to build a country that has political stability, economic stability, and social cohesion. In addition to social justice, everything we do is intended to promote a better quality of life and greater dignity for our people. You cannot have winners and losers—everyone has to win.

The Quarterly: It’s been almost a year since you were sworn in as President. What achievements from the past 12 months have you been most proud of?

Michelle Bachelet: I think the Chilean people clearly perceive the distinctiveness of our administration—democratic strengthening, economic growth, and social protection—which is very much in the spirit of the Concertación de Partidos por la Democracia. In our opinion, there is no incompatibility between growth and a more equal distribution of wealth. Indeed, we are convinced there is a virtuous relationship between the two. International experience shows that extreme inequality is not just unfair and a source of social tension but also reduces the dynamism of the economy. Countries lose the main motor of growth—the capacity to innovate and to take risks—and populism arises.

Concrete policies in the first year have included bills for the protection of children, reform of the pension system, educational reform, new ways to encourage entrepreneurship, and a new approach to housing that not only focuses on construction but also incorporates security, health care, and child care. In the first year we have doubled the number of public nurseries and child care facilities, which had not changed much in 30 years. We have to fight inequality from the very beginning of people’s lives, and this initiative also creates better conditions for women to take jobs. The challenge we have is to enable everyone to respond to the opportunities provided by globalization, which are increasing constantly.

Another positive aspect is that in 2006 we ratified and enacted our free-trade agreement with China—now our second-biggest commercial partner, after the United States—as well as our Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership with New Zealand, Brunei Darussalam, and Singapore. We successfully negotiated the same type of agreement with Japan. We also signed two additional free-trade agreements with Colombia and Peru and opened negotiations with Malaysia.

The Quarterly: Can you tell us more about the important levers that will turn your medium- and long-term vision into a reality?

Michelle Bachelet: Equal opportunities from the beginning would be one slogan, and education is the main issue here. We need to move from where we are now—with everyone guaranteed an education under the constitution—to the point where everybody gets an education of excellent quality. This is not just a matter of social justice; education is a vital economic agent. More still has to happen on coverage—notably for the 9th through 12th grades and kindergarten, where only 90 percent of children attend. We have specific goals for each age group. The same goes for higher education: about 650,000 people attend universities and colleges today, compared with about 77,000 in my day, but to develop innovation in science and technology we need to double that number. We have a particular problem in Chile because of the shortage of people with technical qualifications: in most countries the ratio is ten technical graduates for each professional. Here things are the other way round.

Education is also fundamental in attracting foreign investment, particularly in the regions of the country where we do not always have enough people with the necessary skills.

The Quarterly: It’s the reform of the pension system, though, that has probably attracted the most outside attention. How will that evolve?

Michelle Bachelet: Twenty-six years ago, we made some important reforms, as you say, that have been copied in other places. The old system, based on fixed compensation, also known as a defined benefit, was replaced by an individual capitalization system, or defined contribution, and managed by private entities.

That has brought several benefits for Chile, but we now realize that there were some significant gaps. We therefore need to find ways to make the pensions industry more competitive and transparent, introduce proper incentives to foster individual and collective savings, and ensure that every citizen receives a reasonable pension. The latest reforms represent a new architecture of benefits based on the integration of these three pillars. What people did not foresee in 1981 was the way people now move between jobs, perhaps only spending nine months in one place, with a period of unemployment in between. Women have been discriminated against, and young people do not think ahead as much and have made fewer contributions. A lot of the original assumptions proved overly optimistic. It was thought that the replacement rate—the amount of pension as a proportion of final salary—would be 80 to 85 percent, but it has turned out to be much lower: 51 percent for men, less than 30 percent for women.

The Quarterly: What are your other plans to improve the competitiveness of the Chilean economy?

Michelle Bachelet: One key area is innovation, around which we are developing tax incentives to encourage more industry participation. By OECD1 standards the 0.7 percent of GDP that Chile invests in research and development for science and technology is not only low, but over two-thirds of it comes out of public expenditure. The private sector contributes very little. Our aim is to get industry more closely involved with universities, science centers, and biotechnology research centers so we can add more value to our products. Our economy is very dependent on natural resources—copper, pulp and paper, and the fishing industry represent 54 percent of exports—and we need to do more than just produce more of them.

There are some encouraging signs. I recently saw how Codelco, the state-owned copper business, has been developing advanced techniques to produce copper in a more environmentally sustainable way. The salmon-farming industry is creating new vaccines and special medicines for this species. Similar developments are happening with mining supplies and through genetic engineering in forestry. The wine industry is looking to develop premium bottles. And we are also targeting agribusiness and tourism, which has great potential given our beautiful geography, highway infrastructure, and safety record.

In all this we see business clusters as a key mode of innovation, along with increased collaboration between the public and private sectors. We are also prioritizing small and medium-sized businesses, and we are considering a range of other initiatives, including a simplification of the tax system that has just passed through the Senate. These businesses account for 70 to 80 percent of employment here, but we can do much more: if you look at Sweden and other European countries, the export capability of these enterprises is much higher. Medium-sized businesses, for instance, are responsible for 50 percent of exports there, whereas ours account for only 3 percent of the total.

The Quarterly: What is your view of further privatization in Chile? For example, would you consider the privatization of minority stakes in state companies?

Michelle Bachelet: My government is not contemplating new privatizations, among other reasons because state-owned companies such as Codelco have demonstrated that they already function very well. What we want is to improve corporate governance in public companies—their transparency, management, professionalism, and the value they add for their owners, the people of Chile.

The Quarterly: What is your view of public-private partnerships in Chile for the development of areas such as infrastructure?

Michelle Bachelet: Public-private partnerships have been fundamental in the improvement of roads, ports, and airports. The mechanism of concessions2 to the private sector not only has allowed more funds to be invested in public assets, thereby improving the country’s integration and competitiveness, but has also been used to redirect limited public financing to activities with a high social impact. These are generally not profitable if one does not take that social impact into account. Concessions have also redefined the way in which public institutions work and think, allowing them to focus not only on the production of goods and services but also on their wider purpose to serve the needs of citizens. For the period of 2007 to 2010 we aim to invest more than $2.2 billion in concessioned infrastructure.

The Quarterly: That brings us to your own leadership style, notably in Chile. Do you think you bring a different perspective to change than what the country has experienced in the past?

Michelle Bachelet: It’s always difficult to say if some attributes are gender linked or more personal to women and men. I know women who are very hard, who act like a man and tell you, “If you don’t act like a man, you are dead.” Equally, I know men who share my style. I have made a conscious choice that I will pursue a leadership style that can be strong and authoritative but can retain “womanly” attributes, if you will. That is why I push for social dialogue, because I think the best thing for the economy and the people is for everyone—owners, managers, and workers—to sit down and see how we can move forward together.

When developing the latest pension system reform, for example, I set up a commission of intellectuals and practical people—those with know-how and different political perspectives. Many people laughed and said it was because I was unable to make decisions. They were completely wrong. The same thing has been done with education and childhood reforms. In both cases there has been wonderful work that has enabled the government to make decisions based on all points of view. I admire Denmark’s permanently standing Globalization Council, which consists of groups representing different parts of society, seeing how they can improve competitiveness and address social and human-capital challenges. Ultimately, this way of working results in better and quicker decisions. It is also important here because the issues we are discussing are not just for a one-term government to decide. Political parties and representative democracy are very important, but they are not enough. We have to move further.

The Quarterly: Finally, what is your message to foreign investors and CEOs looking at Chile and the region?

Michelle Bachelet: Trust Chile, believe in Chile, and invest here. It is a stable, fairly low-risk country, and we have developed serious and responsible policies. We will continue along the path Chileans have chosen democratically. Although we have done it well for the past 16 years, we are ready to make a new leap forward.

An example of responsibility is the two external funds created in response to the structural budget surplus caused by high copper prices. One is to finance the new pension system, since we know that the ratio of retired people to the productive sector is going to get bigger over the next ten years. The other fund, based on the Norwegian model, is to separate social benefits from the ups and downs of the economic cycle.

We are working on greater transparency and consistency in applying rules to local investors. We are also working very hard to get rid of any corruption—we are aware that one rotten apple can destroy the whole crop, but I do not think corruption is part of the Chilean way.

We are optimistic about the next year and probably the next two. We are working hard to ensure sustainable growth that will get us back to the normalized level of economic growth that we have had for many years.

About the Authors: -

Gonzalo Larraguibel is a principal and Marcelo Larraguibel is a director in McKinsey’s Santiago office.

Notes

1 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

2 The law on concessions permits the government to grant private companies the right to invest in, construct, and exploit, for an agreed period of time, projects that would otherwise have to be financed and managed by the public sector. So far, these projects have included airports, dams, hospitals, jails, ports, and roads.

Copyright © 1992-2007 McKinsey & Company, Inc.