The hunger protests

On May 29, 2023, the first day of his presidency, Bola Ahmed Tinubu poked his finger in the eye of a formidable and powerful cabal made up of fuel importers with deeply entrenched self and group interests. The cabal had defeated every president before him who attempted to end fuel subsidy and put an end […]

On May 29, 2023, the first day of his presidency, Bola Ahmed Tinubu poked his finger in the eye of a formidable and powerful cabal made up of fuel importers with deeply entrenched self and group interests. The cabal had defeated every president before him who attempted to end fuel subsidy and put an end to the continued fleecing of the nation by men and women who made their wealth and fortunes from ripping off the country and its harried citizens.

In taking this fundamental decision the president made two critical errors of judgement, one of the head and the other of the heart. His error of the head stemmed from his rather innocent assumption that the country was tired of the continued debate over the fuel subsidy and would readily share in his belief that to end it was the sane path; and to continue with it was a timid approach to a problem that needed a solution, not molly cuddling. The fuel subsidy regime was corrupt and was a major leakage in a system that resembles a sieve. The World Bank and the IMF shouted that for years from the roof top. To continue with it was not to help the people but to continue to pamper and enrich the powerful cabal at the expense of the people.

For the new president, it was a no no. I fully voted for his decision. I believed then, and I believe now, that it was right and proper. All decisions, like all indecisions, cause pains. If a government fears to take harsh decisions or stick to them, it is not a government worthy of the name.

I knew there would be consequences, but I believed the president and his economic team were prepared for them. Tinubu believed it would take courage, and indeed so, to address the issue once and for all. He wanted to make it clear to the people where he stood on this vexed and lingering issue. He wanted to show that he would do what he considers to be in the best interests of the people and the development of our national economy. He counted on our collective support. Then the whispers of discontent arose. The president panicked as if he did not reckon with this possibility when he took the decision to end the fuel subsidy.

• UniJos to peg academic staff promotion criteria on research grant won
• Eclipse Theatre Troupe eyes Guinness Record with Lagos theatre marathon

This led to his error of the heart and forced him to act after the fact. The easiest way for a government to sabotage itself is to allow itself to be sold on the oft faux idea that its decision, taken in the interest of the people, is actually anti-people. To convince the people that the removal of fuel subsidy was not anti-people, Tinubu took the advice of his minders and offered palliatives to the people through the state governments. He gave each state government N5billion to be given out to the people as palliatives. With some money in their pockets with holes, the people would be happy and applaud the government of the people instituted by the people. It was the continuation of the faux welfarism of the Buhari administration that helped to mint new billionaires but pushed the people deeper down the hell hole of deprivation.

I thought the president made a grave error of the heart by being persuaded that the people needed palliatives, in the politically correct parlance, to cushion them against the fall outs from his decision. I knew he was throwing money at a problem. I knew that the money would be stolen, and the people would be cushioned against nothing but left clinging to their common currency – a forlorn hope. I also knew that egged on by his minders and their business compradors, the step he took would whet the people’s appetite for more and more palliatives and in essence defeat the removal of the fuel subsidy. I refer you to the 50 per cent transport subsidy last Christmas season.

Now, we have come to this: the current hunger/hardship protests in some states. Democratic governments fear such protests because they are taken as evidence of the people’s discontent. It can be combustible. This forces a government into a panic mode because pleasing all of the  people all of the time is considered the dividend of democracy.

No one can be untrue enough to himself to deny that there is hunger in the land – as it has always been and always will be. Nor can anyone deny that there is hardship in the land – as it has always been and will always be. It is life in capital letters. It is the business of government to make life less brutal for the people. When the masses cry, they cry from the feeling that the government instituted by them has neglected them.

No government fails to listen when the masses voice their discontent. The standard government reaction is to downgrade the protesters to miscreants merely carrying out the bidding of its enemies. There is a sense in that. Enemies lurk everywhere in all governments, dictatorial or democratic. The standard government response serves notice that the government knows its enemies and is prepared to take them on.

Mass protests may look like the same, but they are not the same. It is not in all cases that the voices belong to the masses, but the hairy hands belong to the enemies. The standard response may be right in some cases but wrong in others. One solution does not fit all mass protests. Two important points can be made here. The first is to resist the obvious temptation to attribute the protests to the fuel cabal striking back using the masses. If the cabal has the capacity to work up the masses to take to the streets, then it is to be feared. If the government is forced by the protests to roll back its decision on fuel subsidy, then the hard times will have a longer shelf life.

Two, labour is taking advantage of the protests to issue an ultimatum to the government to end the hardship and the hunger. It wants the government to roll back its decision, restore the fuel subsidy and let the good times roll again in the land. If the protests spread to more states, they will force the government to react in the only way it knows how – and that is to pour more and more money into the bulging pockets of state governors and their acolytes in the name of palliatives.

Every mass protest leaves its mark on the society. They may not achieve their objectives, but they never fail to make a government give into concessions that assuage feelings but aggravate the existing problems. The so-called SAP riots of 1988 forced the Babangida military regime to abruptly end a well-thought economic policy. The country regressed into building a modern national economy on a weak foundation. We are still paying the price.

The release of the 102,000 tons of grain and rice ordered by the president from the strategic reserve will do nothing in a country of 216 million hungry people. But the decision qualifies as a response to a problem by the president. If the cost of fuel is the problem, let the president and his economic team find a short-term solution it. Revive at least one moribund oil refinery. Let the NNPCL import more fuel with whatever is earmarked for palliatives. Whatever the president and his economic team choose to do, they should not make the palliatives the solution.