I'd simply allow anyone who watches the clip to think along certain margins. The wise money, I've often heard economists argue, is always on subsidising what can be a money earner for the government. Therefore, they insist on subsidising production rather than consumption. When you begin to subsidise commercial transportation because, as the commonsense argument holds, you want to make the right argument about oil (I doubt the Americans and the English are ignorant of what a litre costs though) and because you don't want demonstrations and protests when you deregulate, when you begin to subsidise transportation for that reason, how does that earn for the government? What happens to small and medium scale businesses that will be choked out of business because they simply can't operate in that climate? Will they also be subsidised next?
Then, car owners? Those who need to get from point A to point B for their businesses to run efficiently without the hassle of public transport? Ooh, everyone should abandon their personal cars and all use public transport? It is unimaginable the chaos that'll cause. Perhaps it is imaginable. Just think about it. On the other hand, maybe we should subsidise that as well. That's the new economics now. Subsidise It. Even while we're tightening out belts oo.
The focus shouldn't be on what to subsidise or cut subsidy on but to make more efficient services that ought to run autonomously without hitches. A more efficient supply of electrical power that ensures industrial manufacturing isn't hampered, good roads that allows goods produced here get there without hiccups and a transport system that you can boycott one and pick the competition to protest price hike in one or the other helps everyone better.
The Senator will also want more money to be given to States. Brilliant. Think along this margin on this one. The argument of political eggheads is that we run an awkwardly obtuse Federation. In true federal practice, the autonomy of constituent units is respected enough for them to be earning and keeping what they earn, contributing just enough for the federal government to run defense, welfare and government at the centre. They, unlike us, do not run to the centre for larger or smaller handouts.
The point is, the focus shouldn't be a "sharing formula" or on shrinking one for the good of the other. It is the relic of a military past that should be consigned to the trash. True federalism is the solution. And there's no better place to make this argument than at the National Assembly. What he's here suggesting suffers the same malaise as he accused everyone but himself of suffering. It is merely looking at symptoms while the ailment is draining the life away.
As presently constituted, the governors can't legislate on certain things that curtail infrastructural development of their States though they are conferred with powers, rights and obligations. Their short list of exercisable powers, rights and available powers limit their ability to meet some goals and running to Abuja, cap-in-hand, is often the only legal means to address it. I wouldn't want to go into the academic delineation of Exclusive, Residual and Concurrent Lists here but suffice to say that even as the Chief Security Officer of his State, a state governor isn't in-charge of the Police assigned to the State. Abuja itself, tied to this Constitution, also has limits to how far it can go to "share" (or to use the revered Senator's choice of phrasing "shrink"). Only last year, it was berated for bailing out States that couldn't pay salaries.
The work to be done to get Nigeria on the path of true progress isn't piecemeal. But it is doable. However, it won't be accomplished "overnight". I'd refrain from using "Mickey Mouse" steps but if the holes from where previously borrowed and earned sums leaked away our collective patrimony are not blocked before the humongous USD30trn the good man urged us to borrow arrives, then, I'm very sorry for the debt servicing that the next generation of Nigerians will inherit. Leakages have to be blocked and secured first, I'd assume.
Plus, there are other factors that play into borrowing than just the said amount and one would've thought the gentleman knowledgeable enough to know this. Or is borrowing to run a business that different from that done to run a country? I'd let the economists dissect that.
There's passion in his convictions, no doubt, and passion has its uses. But it seems, talking (so that they will not say I did not talk) was the intent here. Oops, sorry, I said I wasn't going to make that inference. My bad. Adding the tight-faced shushing of Dino was icing on the cake for me. Bravo Senator, bravo.
No comments:
Post a Comment