The Danger Of Minimum Government

By IfeanyiChukwu Afuba

A number of events and issues related to the recent increase in pump price of fuel in the country highlights the nature of minimum government – and the dangers thereof.

The price hike to N1030 announced on Wednesday, October 9, 2024, took effect even before federal and state governments had started paying the hard – fought, paltry minimum wage of N70, 000. The new price regime by the government owned NNPCL, it is to be remembered, was being enacted even before the mass transit vehicles promised to alleviate the effects of subsidy removal had been provided.

The latest increase by NNPCL came in just one month of the last upward review from N617 to N897. As The Punch (Friday, October 11, 2024) aptly observed: “…in the less than 17 months of the current administration, the price of petrol has risen by over 430 percent from May 29 when it took over the reins of power.”

Yet, the Tinubu administration’s reaction to general outcry over the suffocating increase was not an attempt to pacify the populace but to reject responsibility for the situation. According to Daily Trust (Thursday, October 10, 2024), the Minister of Information and National Orientation, Mohammed Idris, stated that the “NNPCL made the decision in response to prevailing circumstances in the energy industry, emphasising that it did not act on any instruction from the federal government, as the government can no longer fix prices of petroleum products, in line with provisions of the Petroleum Industry Act.”

The Minister’s reaction does not go beyond a legal maneuver. It says nothing about the promise to Nigerians on August 15, 2023 by President Bola Tinubu through the Special Adviser, Media and Publicity, Ajuri Ngelale that there’ll be no further increase in pump price of petrol. Minister Idris’s response did not come to terms with the fact that the Petroleum Industry Act is not cast in stone. Right here in this same country, the doctrine of necessity was invoked to make Goodluck Jonathan acting President in 2007 when Umaru Yardua was incapacitated as President. Minister Idris would not contend with the bigger question of what then is the essence of government if it would only stand aloof when socio – economic conditions are unbearable for the population.

This apartness between modern society and government is a reflection of the ideology of limited government. It is a model that relates to the population as factors in economics rather than as constituents in governance. In much of the Third World, especially, Africa, the reign of this ideology has seen the retreat of government in social interventions and therefore drops in standard of living for the majority.

Although the concept of limited government dates back to the Enlightenment Period, by 1980, the Western capitalist order was expounding new waves of market forces political – economy. This mental export campaign served to lay the foundation for globalisation. With the gospel of regional integration flourishing at the same time; the promise of a big international market loomed large. This setting fitted with the interests of the advanced, industrialised economies of the West. High levels of technological advancement matched with functional public services relieved government from social pressures of development. The private sector had enabling environment and capacity to invest in the economy both for local needs and export.

The private sector prescription has proven to be a grave misfit for much of Africa. Given the acute dearth of public infrastructure in a typical developing country; the low purchasing power of the average citizen, application of the market forces policy has impoverished the citizenry and lowered their standard of living. It has resulted in the absence of vital infrastructure and public works as Governments sit back proclaiming the imperative of Public Private Partnership (PPP). Where some degree of infrastructure had been achieved before the uncritical acceptance of this neo liberal movement, they swing from states of deterioration to poor maintenance. For our governments, complacency has become a normal. In the early 1980s when government’s sense of social responsibility was relatively strong, it took the Shagari – Ekwueme administration three years (1981 – 1983) to construct the Onitsha – Enugu expressway, with impressive finishings of rail guards and markings. Rehabilitation of the same road started as far back as Jonathan’s Presidency is still dragging on today, after ten years.

Now, because the IMF, World Bank and other financial super powers categorise spending on social welfare as wasteful, leaderships in developing countries rush to withdraw subsidies and impose a string of taxes in their place. From independence up to mid 1980, university education in Nigeria was a matter of public institutions accessed by many as a result of government subsidies. In the second republic, almost all State governments paid bursary award to undergraduates. The argument that population explosion has made a return to days of government intervention impossible is specious. Our governments’ retreat from social welfare responsibility is a function of will, priority and corruption. What difference did the massive inflow from Paris Club Debt Forgiveness/Reduction as well as oil windfall of the Obasanjo and Jonathan periods make in the socio – economic condition of Nigerians?

The most potent danger of governments’ holiday making is the rise of non state actors with destabilising agenda. As the cliche goes, nature abhors vacuum. A feeling of abandonment makes a population susceptible to influences. Many a security analyst have linked the spate of banditry in the north to widespread poverty. Similarly, the gangsterism of kidnapping and ritual killing ravaging the society would not easily thrive if people were not desperate.

At the very least, federal and state governments should join hands to prosecute a frontal war against hunger. Given it’s multiplier effect in the economy, Government should subsidise the cost of petrol without tolerating corruption. It’s the considered view of the renowned economist, John Maynard Keynes that government spending can stimulate the economy. And indeed, that Government has a duty to intervene in the economy in the public interest.

Afuba is Director, Public Administration Circle, Awka.