Blog

Successive administrations in Nigeria often begin their tenure by identifying and confronting perceived demons or mysterious forces, which they use as a measure of their political strength and to define their government’s character. These forces are held responsible for all the nation’s evils, becoming the scapegoats for the country’s challenges. From coup speeches to inauguration addresses, each administration points out the mistakes of its predecessors and promises to address them. The previous government is portrayed as the embodiment of all problems.

During the last administration’s eight-year rule, they had a particular target: “16 years of the Peoples Democratic Party.” Former President Muhammadu Buhari, known for his anti-corruption stance, extended his accusations even to legitimate businesspeople. His anti-elitist rhetoric led his devoted supporters to develop anti-enterprise and anti-wealth attitudes. The talakawa mentality adopted by some believed that anyone doing well or not aligning with their views was “corrupt” and responsible for Nigeria’s unfortunate state. As a result, some individuals lost their businesses due to relentless scrutiny from the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.

Buhari’s populist policies, which aimed to bring down the rich and powerful corrupt, ironically pushed millions into poverty. These policies gained the support of a resentful multitude, thinking they were assisting in the fight against corruption.

I was intrigued by Bola Tinubu’s recent speech where he finally addressed the nation about his economic agenda. However, I couldn’t help but notice that in items three to five of his speech, he brought up the usual Nigerian demons, mentioning how subsidy money was being channeled into the pockets of a select group of individuals who posed a serious threat to the fairness of the economy and the integrity of democratic governance. He emphasized that Nigeria couldn’t achieve its intended societal goals as long as these powerful yet unelected groups held significant sway over the political economy and governing institutions. Additionally, in item number 10, he referred to the defects in the economy benefiting a tiny elite, whom he described as the “elite of the elite.”

I found it perplexing that Tinubu mentioned these individuals without identifying them or providing accountability. It seems pointless to share such information without following up with actions. It’s no revelation that the political class often includes corrupt individuals, so what’s new? If he couldn’t identify these people and their influence, why bring them up at all? The lack of clarity raises questions about his moral responsibility and accountability for addressing the issue.

We deserve to know the identities of these powerful “elites of the elites” who seem to hold more influence than the current president and even past leaders who attempted but failed to remove fuel subsidies. Even Tinubu’s chief of staff, Femi Gbajabiamila, suggested that this mysterious cabal is more powerful than the government and security agencies, which raises questions about the source of their power.

It is challenging to accept that these elites only control one aspect of the economy, and the removal of fuel subsidies might not necessarily diminish their overall influence. Politicians’ cryptic language turns political figures into metaphysical forces, and the consequences of this confrontation with unseen forces may manifest in the physical realm, affecting the general populace.

It is not a critique of the fuel subsidies removal policy; rather, the concern lies in how politicians use coded language to discuss economic problems. The removal of subsidies might have been necessary, but the decision was likely influenced by the interests of successive governments rather than the well-being of the masses. The “elites of the elites” mentioned by Tinubu are not spectral figures but rather individuals involved in shady dealings with a corrupt government, exploiting legitimate means to siphon public funds.

Despite using metaphorical terms, Tinubu cannot convince reasonable individuals that these “elites” are untouchable specters. He, as a long-standing politician, cannot distance himself morally from the widespread corruption in Nigeria. His actions and political history speak louder than his rhetoric.

Indeed, when Tinubu discusses the corruption of these elites, he slyly employs the passive voice, avoiding the need to identify a specific subject responsible for the heist. Using the active voice in constructing the sentence would have required pointing to a subject that could implicate his own circle, which is a responsibility he cannot afford to take on.