The Philosophy Of Vision 2010 Of General Sani Abacha’s Military Administration
Introduction
The struggle to
accelerate the pace of socio-economic development in Nigeria is a daunting the challenge which dates back to the colonial days, with the launching of the
famous “Ten-year Plan of Development and Welfare” for Nigeria by the colonial
administration (Akpakpan, 2004). Although very minimal progress (except in the building of few schools) could be ascribed to this period1, it provided the
springboard for further economic reforms and „planning‟ of the Nigerian
economy. The underlying consensus was (and still is) that the existence of the government in an economy is to promote societal welfare. Economic policies
represent a set of a contract between the government and the various
socio-economic groups in society.
A social charter or contract is said to be
implied as to the people (citizens or principal) “surrender” their sovereignty and
collective resources to a group of other people (governments or agents), who in
turn to make policies and deployed the available resources of the state to ensure
the common good. In order to properly organized and managed the use of
resources to achieve desired goals and objectives, governments normally
initiate economic frameworks, blueprints, roadmaps or plans which guide and
coordinate economic activities within the economy. Thus, from 1960 to date,
several plans and economic policy reforms aimed at putting the country on the right track has been undertaken. For instance, four consecutive development
plans were formulated and implemented between
1960-1985.
The
first plan was launched in 1962 and due to the disruptions and distortions
caused by the political
crises, military coup and the ensuing the civil war of independence by the Biafrans, it was extended to 1970. This was
successfully followed by the second (1970-1974), third (1975-1980), and the
fourth (1980-1985). But in spite of these laudable efforts, evidence in the
country tends to suggest that these plans failed to achieve the desired
targets of socio-economic transformation of the economy, partly because of poor
implementation and where they were vigorously implemented, achievements tend to
be disappointing. As shown by Olaniyi (2004), Nigeria‟s GDP growth rose from
about 2% in the period 1966-69 to 7.6% in 1970-79, but dipped to 5% in the
period 1980-83; inflation rate increased from 3.8% in the period 1966-69 to
15.4% in 1980-83. In another study, Uwatt (2004) showed that unemployment
increased from 2.4% in 1960 to 10.4% in 1979 from where it reduced to 3.4% in
1983, but disappointedly rose again to 8.2% in 1985. Similarly, the poverty level
increased from 28.1% in 1980 to 46.3% in 1985 with about 17.7 million and 34.7
million Nigerians wallowing in poverty respectively (see FOS,1996).
General Sani Abacha Administrative Economy
With the change
in the country‟s leadership from Babangida to Abacha via a short-lived Interim
Government of Shonekan, a comprehensive and well-articulated framework, tagged
“Vision 2010” was put forward for Nigeria. Sadly, after a year or so, the
vision 2010 dream was abandoned and the social welfare of Nigerians continued
to decline (Akpakpan, 2004:22). With the return of democratic rule in 1999,
other series of economic reforms were designed to address the structural and
institutional weaknesses that have characterized the Nigerian economy. Such
reforms were even more necessitated by other emerging challenges of the 21st
Century globalized world, one of which is the commitment of the world to
accelerate development towards the achievement of the Millennium Development
Goals (MDGs) by 2015. Such a quest and desire to keep pace with other countries
of the world have seen Nigeria moving from one economic framework like the
National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS) to the current
Vision 20:2020, from which she desired to be one of the top 20th economies in the
world by the year 2020. Unfortunately, Nigeria‟s socioeconomic progress
especially with regards to improving the living standard of the generality of
Nigerians still seem to remain largely unimpressive and discouraging (Bulus,
2005).
With the various
economic policy reforms or framework so far formulated and implemented in
Nigeria, current situations in the country should naturally lead one to ask:
Why has socio-economic development in Nigeria been elusive? What lessons (if
any) can we draw from past policy development plans and framework? Currently,
there is growing thought that the „big size‟ of the state is the cog in the
wheel of Nigeria‟s development, and therefore current policy reforms tended to
place much emphasis on the market-driven economy. Again, the question is: Can
Nigeria rightly rely on the market to guarantee her socio-economic progress?
The trust of this paper is to seek some plausible answers to these questions.
This contribution is done in four more sections, in addition to the present
section. In the next section, we present the theoretical framework for the
study. Next, we undertake a detailed examination of the various economic policy
reforms or frameworks adopted in Nigeria. Thereafter, we draw some reflections
on the lessons of past plans/framework. The last section offers some concluding
remarks.
National Development Plans Of General Sani Abacha Military Government
Since independence, Nigeria has
grappled with at least four national development plans. The earliest attempts
were the 1946-45 “Ten-Year Plan of Development and Welfare for Nigeria”(with
plan revisions,1951- 55) and the 1955-60 plan (later extended to 1962) which
were framed by the colonial administrators. However, it has been argued that
these plans “were not plans in the true sense of the word…(but) a series of
projects which had not been coordinated or related to any overall economic
target” (Olayide, 1976:721). The main concentration was the development of
physical infrastructures such as railroads, motor roads, seaports to facilitate
trade between the colony and Britain.
In essence,
Nigeria‟s First National Development Plan was introduced in 1962 and it spanned
a period of 7 years (1962-1968). This was followed by the second (1970-1974),
third (1975-1980) and fourth (1981- 1985) which all had five years duration.
These plans contain some desirable milestones and socio-economic aspirations of
the country. For instance, the objectives of the Third National Development The plan was to ensure an increase in per capita income, (more) even income
distribution, diversification of the economy, reduction in unemployment, and
balanced development (Anyanwu, et al., 1997:408). It was during these periods
that Nigeria experienced the oil boom which enabled her to embark on ambitious
industrialization projects as the main strategy for development. But the
economic conditions of the country were threatened when the global oil prices
crashed in the early 1980s. The situation was also compounded by another
serious problem: food crises arising from the neglect of agriculture. The government responded by adopting a set of desperate short term measures
including heavy food importation and external borrowing. External debt in the
country rose phenomenally from $559.2m in 1975 to $24043.0m in 1986
(Akpakpan,2004:21).
However, by 1986, the government
regarded the fixed five-year planning model as “unrealistic” for the management
of the Nigerian economy and decided to adopt a three-tier planning system
comprising:
1. A 15 to 20-year perspective plan
which (was to) provide a clear vision of where the economy should be at the
end of the period as well as addressing the key policies and actions that will
be required to translate these “visions”
into reality;
2. A three-year rolling plan3 which
would derive its bearing from the perspective plan and be subject to annual
modification to take account of rapidly changing internal and external
environments as well as the resources profile of the economy and ;
3
An annual budget which would draw its
inspiration and program from the rolling plan. Many (e.g. Nwankwo, 2003; Muo,
2006; Asiodu, 2009) still believed that if Nigeria did not tinker with the
planning strategy, the country could have fared better. In fact, there is a growing the consensus that Nigeria had a golden opportunity (through the oil windfall), to
turn the tide of her socio-economic misfortunes in the 1970s and 1980s using
the planning strategy. However, a combination of various distortions including
an overly ambitious industrialization program (that was heavily import
dependence), military coups, political unrest, neglect of the agricultural the sector, excessive foreign borrowing, widespread corruption and economic
mismanagement caused the economy to rather experienced a prolonged period of
economic stagnation and decline. As revealed by Todaro and Smith (2003:73),
Nigeria‟s per capita GDP which grew from $90 in 1968 to $1020 in 1980 (more
than 1000% increase) was “reversed in the 1980s, so that by 1994, GNP per capita
had declined by more than 70% to $240, the same level as in 1972”
The Vision 2010 Of Gen Sani Abacha Military Regime
Eventually, SAP
was subsequently jettisoned as the regime of Gen. Sani Abacha (1993-1998)
abandoned some aspects of the economic package and pursued what it called
“guided deregulation”. In spite of characterization to the contrary, we have
the assurance of the then Minister of Finance that:
“…Our the nation is ready and endowed to benefit fully from the wisdom of
the market. The
philosophy of guided deregulation was never intended to delay
the “reign” of the market forces as has been unfairly suggested… It is our own response to the need to ensure that
economic growth did not lead to economic grief”( Ani,1998).
This
was another bold attempt by the Late Gen. Sani Abacha regime to transform the
Nigerian economy into “a united, industrious, caring and God-fearing democratic a society committed to making the basic needs of life affordable for
everyone … by the year 2010”. The vision 2010 was regarded as one of
the most comprehensive and well-articulated documents on how to unlock the huge
potentials of Nigeria and transform her from an under-developed economy to “an
African Tiger” by the year 2010. The plan of action was partitioned into four
major horizons: immediate (October- December 1997); short term (1998-2000),
medium term (2001-2005) and long term (2006-2010). The vision 2010 document,
which took one year for the 250- member committee headed by a seasoned
technocrat – Chief Ernest Schoeneman- to produce, contained comprehensive
objectives, policies, procedures, and road-maps for achieving desirable targets
in virtually all sectors of the economy. For instance, it established several
desirable milestones in areas such as GDP (10% growth rate), inflation (<
5%), population growth rate ( less than 2%), education and health (20% and 10%
of the budget), human development index (0.80), etc. (FGN,1997). The poor
socio-economic state of the Nigerian economy compared to other nations which
the vision sought to improve is shown in Figure 1 while Table 1 shows other
projected social indicators for attainment in the year 2010.
However,
barely nine months after the committee submitted its reports, Gen. Abacha died
suddenly amidst heated controversy over his plan to succeed himself. Before he
died, many Nigerians saw the vision 2010 as “a beautiful infant in the hands of
a cruel mother- a misbegotten child”. However, the question of whether the government
of the day could have implemented the plan or not, and to what extent, remains
a subject of debate. Gen. Abubakar, who succeeded him gave himself 11 months
to hand over to a civilian administration. This left him with no time to do
anything with regards to the plan nor introduce any economic reform than to
conduct an election which eventually produced Gen. Obasanjo in 1999. The
emergence of Obasanjo put paid to vision 2010 document and it remains “a
mere vision” as it was abandoned without much consideration for its merit
or lack of it. Many analysts believed (and some still do) that if the vision
was faithfully implemented, it would have been our surest route to
socio-economic el-dorado. In response to the criticisms that trailed the
repudiation of the vision 2010 document, the administration decided to create its
own blueprint and framework for the transformation.
No comments:
Post a Comment