THE POLITICS OF ECONOMIC REFORMS IN NIGERIA: THE BUHARI ORGANISATION PROGRAMME AS A PAPER TIGER

THE POLITICS OF ECONOMIC REFORMS IN NIGERIA: THE BUHARI ORGANISATION PROGRAMME AS A PAPER TIGER






M.M. YUSIF
DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
BAYERO UNIVERSITY, KANO

May 2007





DRAFT: NOT FOR QUOTATION BUT WHEN IT IS USED I HOPE THE SOURCE WILL BE ACKNOWLEDGED


CONTENTS
CONTENTS............................................................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction..................................................................................................................................................... 3
Concepts and Context.............................................................................................................................. 5
Background...................................................................................................................................................... 8
Locating the Buhari in Nigerias Economic Development............................................. 11
The Buhari Programme-Project Nigeria..................................................................................... 14
Challenges for the Buhari Organisation................................................................................ 18
Beyond the Neo-Liberalism.................................................................................................................... 21
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................... 22
References......................................................................................................................................................... 24


Introduction
Nigeria has gone deeply into neo-liberal globalisation development programme. The economic policies have severely undermined all the gains of Nationalist Capitalist project in the country. The Agricultural and Manufacturing sectors of the economy have declined both in output and contribution to Gross National Product. Social services of education, health and other supports to farmers and Nigerians generally have fallen down.

Subsequently the “New Economic System” has marginalised particularly the workers and the middle class, therefore the politics of the economic reform has changed the face of radical politics in Nigeria. It seems that there is accommodation with the “New Economy” which is built on the principles of neo-liberal globalisation.

It is becoming clearer that there is a dire need of radical departure which must be based on opposition against neo-liberalism. How would this be is not easy to define. But as neo-liberalism has weakened the politics and perspectives of change of the workers and the middle class, class politics has appeared more precisely between the Nationalist and the internationalist sections of the ruling class.

A significant indicator towards this direction is seen on how, from the politics of 2003 elections to that of 2007, this dominated the terrain of democratic politics. Whereas both the major and the smaller parties are neo-liberal in their structures, membership and programmes, the Buhari Organisation in the ANPP has been putting a silent fight for change.

However, how is the ANPP/The Buhari Organisation reconciles the interest of neo-liberal globalisation with that of the need of change against neo-liberalism. The Buhari Organisation and its “Project Nigeria” contains this contradiction.

Comprised of politicians, extechnocrats, some academicians, many young supporters – especially among the “déclassé” in the urban centres and youth in the rural areas of Northern Nigeria. But with no sympathy of workers organisations and traditional and new left movements.

As a matter of comparative reflection with other countries in a similar search for change, electoral process should be accompanied with an articulated programme of alternative development discussed with all vital groups of the civil society, not merely a campaign manifesto like “The Bujari Project – Nigeria” which other candidates have the same in order to win the elections.

Nevertheless, we could still ask the question, what would be the economic and political direction of Buhari in power? Which of the following would we expect.
1. Bringing the state back
2. a smart partnership with neo-liberalism
3. Falling into the neo-liberal globalisation.

This paper is an attempt to assess The Buhari Programme called “Project – Nigeria” in the context of neo-liberal capitalism. We would pose once again a common question among Nigerian academics and the New Social Movement whether the “General” had ever attacked the neo-liberal economic structure and the undemocratic democratic system with clarity to come out with an alternative which could make great difference as expected by many Nigerians.

The central issue would be to locate the Buhari Programme in Nigerias economic system as well as to raise many questions as challenges for the Buhari Organisation Programme, especially on the neo-liberal system.
Concepts and Context
To assess the potential roles of the Buhari Organisation Programme in the economic reform and democratisation in Nigeria, it is of course necessary to define some terms for the purpose of the analysis at hand, as well as to introduce the general context of the problem to be treated.

A discourse on economic and political reform in the twenty first century must not throw overboard the issue of globalisation. To do that will create a hollow understanding of the problem, as the rich tradition of debate on reform in Marxian theory, which will give us clearer perspectives is calculatedly set aside in the Academic Industry in Nigeria.

Starting with clarification about the current globalisation, it is not a phenomenon decided on a table of conference by big powers and their transnational based corporations. But a great force in the history of human society which has developed over many years and metaphosed to the present form, of course politically governed by these global mafia and promoting their interests. Secondly, the current globalisation is not totally a new process which brings the end of history as claimed by Huntington (1997). Because it can still be tamed and transformed into another history.

Although globalisation is a contested concept, in this case it is used to denote a trend of becoming more global, of intensification of global capitalist expansion by increasing the interconnectedness of people and ideas – economically, politically, technologically and culturally across different countries.

Whereas the changes brought by globalisation are called many names such as post-modern, post-industrial, post-society, etc. to detract analysts from using the word revolution, in reality the changes it brings are revolutionary with for reaching transformation of economic and class relations globally and in respective national states (M.M. Yusif, 2007).

At economic level globalisation entails a significant restructuring of the economy based on neo-liberal principles. These principles are the economic objectives of early capitalism, now introduced to developing countries of the twenty first century. They include the logic of market system, opening the economy for competition, and a “little” state. In Nigeria all the objectives and guiding framework issued and implemented as Structural Adjustment Programme (FGN, 1986) have ended up creating neo-liberal economic society.

In a nutshell, this is what is called “Economic Reform”. This contains policies which dismantle state-controlled economy to a deregulated one. It is sponsored and monitored by international financial institutions – the IMF and the World Bank. On International Trade, the reform is regulated by World Trade Organisation.

As we are writing this piece we cannot ignore the fact that neo-liberal globalisation is still making headway with more reforms of the economy. The first generation reform is already concluded. The second generation reform which is now tackling the economy sector by sector has gone far. It has now been like a storm that is sweeping every thing in Nigeria to a greater or lesser extent, creating a society increasingly neo-liberal even in our religious and moral behaviour as well as in obedience to the ethics of our professions. There is also increasing poverty and inequality, and consequently slower economic growth of Nigerian economy.
This development logically produces many forces for and or against neo-liberal globalisation. From the beginning diverse interest groups – of students, workers, women, lawyers, medical practitioners, religious organisations, etc. had played heroic role in resisting neo-liberalism as Structural Adjustment Programme. May be these have dissipated their energies and other resources to carry on, that as the transformation of social relations shows, these counter-forces have become materially and organisationally week to sustain a great challenge to the neo-liberal interests. Therefore, the battle is left between the “Nationalist” section of the dominant class who are still not crashed by neo-liberalism, and the neo-liberal globalisation section of the ruling class.

Generally there is new debate raging in international academic circles for a on ‘New’ patterns of class politics and class struggle in Africa which centres on the relationship between the social forces representing the interests of transnational capital and those remnants of National capital (Robinson, 1998). This is given more credibility in the sense that activists both in the working-class and other poor class movements have diverted their struggles towards global anti-globalisation protests (David Seddon and Leo Zeilig, 2005).

In Nigeria, the ‘Nationalist’ interest may perhaps be traded in the history and politics of “General Buhari” and “The Buhari Organisation”. The December 1983 coup which vested power on General Buhari as the Head of State of Nigeria was seen by many commentators in the media, academic, policy makers, and even international observers as within the limited framework of development widely characterised as “Nationalist”, “National Capitalist” and “industrialisation” regime. Thus, the Buhari Programme for development of Nigeria which came in the middle of neo-liberal globalisation experience is expected to implement nationalist project to breakdown the neo-liberal agenda.

However, the “General” implemented the 1984/85 agenda as military head of state, indeed in a militaristic way. Now, he wanted to come on electoral platform, under a political party – The All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) which he joined for convenience of getting the presidential ticket.

Political parties are generally conceived as association of like-minded people with intention of capturing power to implement their programme. But differences have already appeared between the ANPP and Buhari/The Buhari Group within the party. The problem therefore will be what programme would the “General implement if he becomes the president of Nigeria.

Furthermore, it looks that globalisation has by no means rendered political parties irrelevant. First, in a global World of today, because of pressure from supra-national organisations, political parties in developing countries become less important for policy making and implementation. They are only reduced to patronage platforms. Secondly, the contemporary globalisation is accompanied by more recognised agents for democratisation i.e. the civil society which fans and push for neo-liberal democracy with all its limitations. Therefore, how would the political reform of the “General” looks like.
Economic Background
In a quarter of a century since independence Nigeria’s ruling-class, within the limits of foreign control of the economy created a Nationalist-Oriented pattern of capitalist accumulation (Bangura, 1985). During this period, especially from early 1970s to mid 1980s Nigeria witnessed rapid expansion in Banking and Financial Business, manufacturing, modernisation of the agricultural sector, the services sector etc. with full participation of the local capitalist class. In a deliberate and conscious move to broaden and promote the development of this class, the Nigeria’s state enacted the “indigenous Enterprises promotion” Decree to increase the participation of Nigerians in both small, medium and big foreign enterprises (Hoogevelt, 1980).
While this development paves way for rapid growth of workers, small industrialists, petty-traders and other labouring poor, these are accommodated in the system by provision of free social services such as education, health, and various kinds of subsides even to farmers who are living in the rural areas.

Although most of this period was under military dictatorship but Nigerians had relatively enjoyed wider political space in their relations with various arms of government. The Nigerian workers for example, under the leadership of Nigeria’s Labour Congress had seen its greatest potentiality as a force to be reckoned with. Indeed, it will not be wrong to argue that the Nigerian workers had the most successful industrial relations during this period.

It was equally to the advantage of other forces (the Nationalist section of the local bourgeoisie; the most internationalised section of it; the professionals etc.) who had played each other, and by the 1980s there was an impasse, which paves way for neo-liberal globalisation, in alliance with the most internationalised section of the local ruling class to takeover, giving another direction for development of Nigeria.

Development through this light has created new focus for developing countries. In Nigeria, as in other countries, the productive sector of the economy is relegated. The performance of the manufacturing section has therefore been less impressive. The annual increase fell sharply to 0.8% compared to the average of 10% in the previous two decades (UNIDO, 1998). This can largely be explained by the neo-liberal economic policies implemented by Nigeria. To capture the crisis of the manufacturing sector as a whole, such problems as low capacity utilisation; cost of production has gone very high; sale figures are on the decrease; the share of manufacturing employment had fallen; most of the industries have unfolded; etc. could be mentioned. As for the Agricultural sector we can observe that massive state intervention through big rural development and water projects and programmes are terminated, therefore, the withdrawal of the state has made it that Agricultural output continues to be constrained by lack of state concern. Again, in the increasingly liberalising system, social services are commercialised and privatised.

Economic policies under neo-liberal globalisation is generally dominated by economic requirements enforced by supra-national organisations. One of these is the World Trade Organisation which monitors and guides trade between nations. Nigeria which is a member of WTO is bound by all Agreements of this organisation. The Agreements on Textiles, Agriculture and Intellectual property directly undermined the industrialisation and increased agricultural development of Nigeria. While Agreement on services compelled member countries including Nigeria to dismantle state support of social services in order to allow big corporations to takeover.

Clearly there are groups that benefit from this economic arrangement. And there are many others whom for the sake of the nation reflects on the need of change. The Buhari, because of his refutation as a Military Head of State who refused to go for IMF/WB Economic Policy measures is seen by many Nigerias to provide the platform of “opposition and struggle” against the “New Economy”.

So people are following Buhari to get out of the difficulties that came with this economic system. In an interaction with street followers of Buhari in Kano, one boy of not more than 18years quickly intervened into my discussion with them and observed that what they wanted when the “General” wins the 2007 elections is to capture Dangote and execute him for his control of and costly monopoly of Nigeria’s market for essential goods.

The cry for change is inevitable, yet it is not clear what would be the economic direction of Buhari in power.
Locating the Buhari in Nigerias Economic Development
The General Buhari first emerged as a political figure in 1983 when the Senior Military Officers Coup against the democratic government of Shehu Shagari placed him as president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Coming at a time of rising economic crisis accompanied by political and administrative corruption, moral decadence, etc. the “General” was concerned with mismanagement of the economy and ethical deterioration of the society.

As he became the president at the time the economic crisis began to set in and alternatives were debated by various interest groups, including the International Financial Institutions, the General moved quietly against neo-liberal economic policies pushed by IMF and the World Bank. A slogan by the “General” which depicted his nationalist sentiment and which became popular especially among the middle classes is that “This generation of Nigerians and indeed future generations have no other country than Nigeria. We shall remain here and salvage it together”.

Thus, the rise of the “General” in 1983 is generally recognised as the emergence and ascendancy to power of the Nationalist and industrial faction of Nigerias local capitalist class (M.M. Yusif, 1985). So it is not surprising that the Buhari, as president of Nigeria 1983 – 1985, set the processes of restructuring the Economy to create favourable conditions which would promote capitalist accumulation industrially.

Predictably, the “General” became furiously determined, with authoritarianism of an army officer to create the necessary conditions for Nigeria’s “Industrialists Paradise”. This is embodied in the Government Policy paper (New Nigerian June 19th, 1985) titled “Objectives, Policies and Programmes of the Federal Military Government”. The section on industrial development as outlined by the policy paper are:
1. The Government will intensify efforts to promote private investments in industrial development
2. To emphasise increased local content of domestic output in its strategy of industrialisation
3. To place a premium on domestic technology particularly in the areas of fabrication of spare parts and simple tools
4. To improve technical manpower in aid of industries
5. Specify clearly the areas of industry reserved for public sector
6. To take into account economic criteria in granting loans for the financing of industry and retrieve all overdue loans to make funds available for more projects.
7. Continue to provide an improved basic infrastructures for industrial development
8. Increase the funding of industrial centres;
9. Pay particular attention to the development of Natural Gas and Petro-Chemical industries
10. Grant adequate incentives to local and foreign investors;
11. Set a time frame and targets for productive use of specified industrial inputs, spare-parts and components, particularly in the automotive industry;
12. Establish labour-intensive agricultural projects on a community and cooperative basis;
13. Provide adequate facilities and funding of Agriculture;
14. Providing incentives to viable small-scale industries;
15. Encourage even development of the country by dispersal of industries

The goal of Government policy was in every respect turned to achieve these objectives. For example, in the issuance of import licences greater portion of the available foreign exchange was to bring in industrial equipments. Secondly, Agriculture was deliberately promoted to give a cushion for industry. Thirdly, government came out with a comprehensive tariff and non-tariff policies in order to protect local industries. Lastly, the Nigerian workers under their umbrella organisation, the Nigerias Labour Congress were put under siege to stop them from disrupting the government’s industrial development programme (Uisif M.M. 1985).

That was General Buhari as Head of State of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1983-1985. Even as there is glaringly private local and foreign agenda and some elements of neo-liberal infiltration into that economic policy intentions, there was also “Nationalist” sentiment.

The economy, by 1985 looked promising (from macro-economic point of view), when the senior Military Officers disagreed with the “General”, which culminated in a counter-coup in August, 1985. This coup led by Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida is popularly called “IMF Coup” because he implemented in full scale the neo-liberal economic policies.

For fifteen years Buhari remained underground. He was only remembered for Human Rights abuse during his presidency. But most importantly he was remembered by the less privileged for confiscation of the riches and properties of looters of Nigerias economy.

The circumstances surrounding Buhari’s pursuit of power and the strategy he has adopted for achieving the power poses many questions worthy of note in the politics of economic reform in Nigeria. Two such principal issues are important. One is that what are the social forces that provide the base of Buhari search of power. Secondly, why is it that the Buhari campaign both in 2003 and 2007 elections did not seem to bring the support of radical and popular organisations in the country.

The above questions are for thought, to enable us reflect on the political and ideological character of the “General”. In 1983, most probably because the economic crisis did not deepen, Buhari embraced state interventionism in the economy, including ownership of strategic sectors and partial control of trade, financial operations and of the production of basic commodities.

By the year 2003, when his programme “Project – Nigeria” appeared as “Electoral Manifesto”, is the “General” the same political person as he was in 1983 – 1985.

Whether the Buhari of 1983 – 1985 is the same in 2003 and 2007, the problem is that the “Buhari-Project Nigeria” came as an electoral campaign manifesto with unforeseen implications such as (1) being in power would the mother organisation of the Buhari Group i.e. the ANPP endure with the conflicts the implementation of the programme may cause; (2) also would the core elements in the Buhari Organisation support the programme; (3) if Buhari must make alliances with other political parties in order to govern, would the parties accept the programme.
The Buhari Programme-Project Nigeria
At the out site of the 2003 Presidential Campaign, the Buhari Organisation published a document titled “Project-Nigeria”. Up to the time of writing this paper, just before the 2007 elections, this is the only known manifesto of the Buhari Organisation. So we take it as the Buhari Programme for his vision of change of Nigeria throughout his political career.

Meanwhile, what are some of the key elements for the expected economic and political reform of Nigeria by the “General”.
1. Macro-Economic Policies: The programme states that “the government’s economic management will be private sector led efforts of wealth creation to arrest the country’s economic decline (TBO, 2003:10).
The programme identifies the strategy to achieve the above objective as deregulation and liberalisation of the various sectors of the economy; encouraging export-promotion industries; lays emphasis on attracting genuine (Sic) foreign direct investments; and of course the “project-Nigeria” did not forget to mention strong public-private sector partnership in order to provide regulation, supervision and control where necessary (Ibid. 10).
Fiscal and monetary policies did not receive any attention by the programme which implies that the “General” would allow “Milton Friedman” to prevail in the management of the economy of Nigeria
2. Industrial Development: The size and importance of the oil sector, especially in term of revenue generation, clearly overshadows other vital sectors like industry and agriculture which are the pillars of any prosperous economy. The Buhari project intends to reverse this trend by promoting rapid growth in the nation’s industrial productivity, through both import-substitution industrialisation and export-led growth, for the resuscitation of the economy (Ibid. 12).
3. Agricultural Sector Development: This sector was the most important of Nigeria’s economy but the growth of petroleum industry has systematically resulted in the decline of the sector. However, the programme further notes that, it is still the largest employer of labour, based on small-farm production involving over two-thirds of the Nigerian population earning a living from the sector. And yet inspite of vast landmass, the sector is backward, incapable of making Nigeria self-sufficient in food (Ibid. 13).
The Buhari Organisation Project’s policy note is that the sector requires an effective support, “in terms of fiscal and policy actions that will enable the sector to play a dynamic role in the development of the nation’s economy, providing the means to achieving food security and a source, of rising income for most Nigerians” (Ibid).
The strategies for achieving this are wild as they include everything tried by all governments since independence, including revival of Agricultural projects, irrigation services, provision of extension services, and of course involving the private sector in funding and directing research.
4. Oil Sector Development: The oil sector is the major of Nigeria’s Economy. Although it contributes only about 13% of the nations gross domestic product it accounts for over 80% of foreign exchange.
Inspite of many problems of the oil sector, especially the foreign control of the sector, the Buhari project has only observed the problems of management; lack of linkage with the rest of the economy; and the poor conditions of refineries and other key infrastructures (Ibid. 23).
As usual the “General” would “create enabling environment for the extensive participation of the indigenous private sector in operations and ownership of the sector”. So that he can achieve the other objectives of linking with the rest of the economy, of restoring full capacity; and good management.
5. Education: The Buhari project observes that the “theme of educational policy will be quality education for development”. The objectives are identified as improved quality of education for all citizens; sustainable funding mechanism; national development (Ibid. 26).
The strategies are to address all the observable problems of education such as industrial disputes between Federal Government and Academic Staff Unions; rehabilitation and expansion of classes; curtailment of cultism on campuses; etc. (Ibid)
6. Government: The document states that “The persistent deterioration in the quality of governance and pervasive corruption in government and society have led to political instability and weakening of the social fabric (Ibid. 5).
Of concern by the programme is that corruption; lack of transparency and accountability to the people; total neglect of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria; etc. seem to not care with democratic governance (Ibid).
Thus, the “General” in power would have to give a new face to democracy by promotion of the rule of law; re-orientation of government agencies and institutions to make them more accountable to the people; reform of the judiciary; and most importantly to fight corruption (Ibid).
7. Science and Technology: The document rightly noted that science is the foundation of any development, but in Nigeria the critical instruments i.e. research and a sound basic education in sciences (Ibid. 37) are lacking. Therefore, the “General” in power would give priority to science education, encourage research for development as well as use of modern information and communication technology by government and industry.
Challenges for the Buhari Organisation
The challenges that would face the “General” and his group in the ANPP, if in power would seem more complex than campaigning to win the elections. This is because his hopes for social justice, fighting corruption, etc. may not materialise in the framework of the structure of the economy and state power in Nigeria.

After the defeat of “campaign for Democracy” in particular, Nationalism is deconstructed in Nigeria’s economic and political development. Therefore, being in power the “General” will meet many social forces, locally and internationally who are to protect their glorious benefits from the neo-liberal policies.

Elsewhere I have observed that the Buhari campaign had placed primary on issues of mismanagement of the economy; lack of good governance; etc. at the expense of issues on the “National and Economic Questions” in Nigeria. More so, both in the “Project-Nigeria” and in his speeches there is absence of deep thinking of theoretical nature, which implies uncritical acceptance of the neo-liberal practices.

Thus there remains the difficult task of developing a critique of the existing economic practices, to show a light for its review and corrections. Lack of this has given many inconsistencies and contradictions in the “Buhari project-Nigeria”. Furthermore, it appears without much significant difference with programmes of other political parties.

In deed, in order to transform the neo-liberal system, and in order to do it without generating conflicts and confrontation between the forces, there is need of serious thinking and strategising responses to the major issues such as industrialisation, trade liberalisation, democracy, etc. for example why must we not ran our economy on the same capitalist path without dictation by neo-liberal institutions; why would we not have our trading partners in the international market, without being a member of World Trade Organisation; why must we not regain control over exchange rate of our national currency; what of our power to regulate flows of capital; also to empower small-scale industrialists without interference by WTO.

Set in the above framework a “smart-partnership” with neo-liberal interest can be made without mortgaging our independence, power and sovereignty. This can create another economy working with neo-liberal forces but with cooperative policies to dismiss any perceived negative interests of neo-liberal globalisation on our economy.

Another major problem which must be reflected by the Buhari Group is that the state must be taken seriously. The structure of state in post-colonial society, as in advanced capitalist formation is organised to reproduce the political interests of the dominant classes by means of class struggle (John Holloway and Solpiccioto, 1977:11). So is it in Nigeria.

The view of state interventionism does not mean that the rule of capital is overthrown. But it can reveal the domination of some individual or fractions of capitals over others. If the “General” in power plays with state interventionism, it will only be showing fractional struggles between different forms of capital. But as a whole he will be reproducing the existence of total social capital with its conditions of exploitation of the Nigerian people.

Interestingly the role of the state in regulating and promoting development became highly ambiguous, in most developing countries, especially in sub-saharan Africa. With the growing awareness of the failures of the regulatory system, the role of the public sector in development became shattered by the local elites pushed by global neo-liberal interests. So the state has become neo-liberal both in its structure and organisation of its activities.

In the characterisation of the form of the neo-liberal state the Buhari Group must be conscious about the network of capitalist social relations which neo-liberal capitalism has come with. The current globalisation shows that capitalist relations are not strictly national and international relations. Therefore, to conceive of changes within the state which has embedded all these neo-liberal aspects must be well conceived to start it.

Turning to the other crucial issue is that the Buhari Group wanted to gain power by electoral process through a political party (The ANPP). Yes. A Political party is an association of people with a programme and a structure of mobilisation to sell its programme to the people in order to vote them in elections to implement its programme.

In the democratic and civil politics in Nigeria, no change from the old practice is clearer than in the formation, structure and functions of political parties. As political parties form the link between the people and the economic and political programme to meet their needs, they are expected to have internal democracy, so that they can do the same when they come to power. On the contrary these parties are merely associations of individuals investing to win elections. They hardly have got membership, territorial structures or programmes for development of the nation. Furthermore, as the scope for national policy-making becomes smaller in the age of globalisation, all these combined would undermine the effectiveness of the “General”, to use his party to implement his programme.
Beyond the Neo-Liberalism
When the “General” speaks during the campaign he “Screams”. A “Scream” of anger to bring social justice in Nigeria. Anywhere he is screaming to end corruption and mismanagement of the economy.

Although the Buhari Organisation Programme suggest the possibility of the change, but given the power relationships would the programme undo what is happening today? Or is it just a charismatic leadership that would change structure of relationships between forces. In this case a relationship which is built with a strong global interest.

The understanding of the structure of state power has been the critical point in whatever changes are expected to bring. It is observable in “The Buhari Project-Nigeria” that the programme still contains the old ways of economic and political management of the society. That is to say some imagined policies of state interventionism and old democratic form of governance. The question to ask the “General” is how can the old ways of doing things become sustainable to develop their independent course against the ‘New’ i.e. the neo-liberal.

To put the point explicitly is that it will become a matter of class struggle to do away with neo-liberalism. Still conscious that the working-class is weak and many other political forces to fight neo-liberalism are incorporated into this global system, the struggle for state power remains between the neo-liberal forces and the remaining Nationalist elements whom inspite of objectively being neo-liberal are expressing nationalist sentiments with hopes of turning the waves from neo-liberalism to nationalist capitalist accumulation.

The “General” is screaming to do that but is blocked in the web to come out and build strategy with organised grassroots support and alliances with other groups and organisations to achieve his goal.

Accordingly, from the beginning the campaign of the “General” could have been different. Instead of going round with “rented” crowds like all the other candidates were doing, the “General” should open “smart partnership” dialogue and consultation with various groups and interests in order to deliberate and share views and experiences which may pave way for alliances and organised grassroots supports. This will probably create conditions for another type of democracy, in contrast to this neo-liberal democracy which is not democratic, and which in turn may give another type of economy.
Conclusion
The analysis and argumentation in this paper is that the Buhari programme i.e. “Project-Nigeria” does not seem a consistent and well articulated package to address the fundamental problem of economic and political development in Nigeria i.e. the neo-liberal system.

There is no doubt that, inspite of reservations from big businesses, top Government Bureaucrats, big politicians, and some sections of the modern middle classes, the “General” received a lot of, but unorganised sympathy and support, especially from non-privileged sections of Nigerian people.

However, the sympathies are rarely channelled into organised formations and expressions so that in the events of winning elections their resources can be tapped in search of alternatives to neo-liberalism.

Nevertheless, some basic features distinguish Buhari from other politicians. These include that (1) Buhari is from whatever perspective you see him, undoubtedly honest. (2) during his tenure as Military Head of State, did not spare anybody found on corruption; (3) he rejected the IMF/World Bank stabilisation i.e. neo-liberal economic reform inherited from second Republic President; (4) he started economic development project of industrialisation on the model of the “Asian Tigers”. (5) that Buhari draws most of his electoral support from the poor not because he has shown alternative economic and political programme but because of his past record against corruption and mismanagement of the economy.

Though an intention to correct the ills of neo-liberal system, but the Buhari “Project-Nigeria” did not depart essentially from his 1983-1985 programme.

In acknowledging this it is important to observe that the Buhari Group failed to recognise the reality of the social, cultural, political and economic changes neo-liberal globalisation has come with, which needs new initiatives to deal with them.

Indeed, the inadequacy of this programme can be seen from how far they are from the New Economic Agenda described by Bade Onimode (1985) and the economic issues and questions raised by Eskor Toyo (2001) for the type of changes needed in the economy of Nigeria.

From a more perceptive political thrust the “General”, inspite of all what the non-privileged think about him, has not received even verbal recognition and solidarity from the organised labor, the remnants of the traditional left movements, the civil society organisations, the professional groups, etc.

Finally, perhaps the key task of the “General” if he had won the election is the creation of new institutional and organisational state structures to give new face to the undemocratic democracy we had gone through for many years. But wouldn’t this give fundamental divergence to an authoritarian value of a “General”? What about his political party? How is he going to relate with a “neo-liberal political party” to bring the desired democratic and economic changes.
References
1. Abba C. Kyari (2006). “Nigeria’s Economic Reform Policy within the concept of social justice”. ECPER Journal of Social Studies Vol.XI No.4
2. Alkassum Abba (1985), The Nigerian Economic Crisis: causes and solutions. Garkiya Corporation, Zaria
3. Bade Onimode (1985). “Government, Economic and political programmes, and the Nigerian people”. Mimeo.
4. Bade Onimode (1981). “Class struggle as a reality of Nigerian Development”. In Nnoli K. (ed.) path to Nigerian Development. Codesria, Dakar
5. Bangura Yusuf (1985). “Nationalism, Accumulation and Labour Subordination in Nigeria: 1970-1978”. Proceedings of the NPSA Conference, at University of Ilorin
6. Buhari Muhammadu (2001). “Military Class, Political Class and Good Governance in Nigeria”. Paper delivered under the auspices of Centre for Democratic Research and Training, Mambayya House, Bayero University, Kano.
7. Collins Paul (1981). “Public Policy and the Development of indigenous capitalism: The Nigerian experience”. Journal of Commonwealth and comparative politics, Vol.15
8. David Seddon and Leo Zeilog (2005). “Class and Protest in Africa: New Waves”. ROAPE Vol.32 No.103
9. Elmar Altvate (1978). “Some Problems of state interventionism”. In John Holloway and Sol Piccioto (eds.) State and Capital: A Marxist Debate Edward Arnold, London
10. Eskor Toyo (2001). The Economic Question in the Third World”. Paper presented at a lecture organised by Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) held in Bayero University, Kano
11. Hoogevelt Ankie (1979). “Industrialisation in Nigeria”. ROAPE No.14
12. Hugo Radice (1999). “Taking globalisation seriously”. The socialist Register.
13. Ifeanyi Onyeomoru (2003). “Globalisation and Industrial Performance in Nigeria”. Africa Development Vol.28 No.3
14. Ikoku S.G. (1985). Nigeria’s Fourth Coup de’tat: Options for modern statehood. Fourth Dimension, Enugu
15. John Holloway (2005). Change the World without taking power. Pluto Press, London
16. Mahathir Mohamad (2003). Globalisation and the new realities. Pelanduk publications, Malaysia
17. Monfred Bienefield (1988). “Dependency Theory and Political Economy of Africa’s Crisis”. ROAPE No.43
18. Mark Blyth (2003). “Globalisation and the limits of Democratic choice: Social Democracy and the rise of political cartelisation”. International Politics and Society No.3
19. Miles Larmer (2005). “Reaction and Resistance to Neo-Liberalism in Zambia”. ROAPE Number 103 Vol.32
20. Osoba Segun (1978). “The deepening crisis of the Nigerian Bourgeoisie”. ROAPE No.13
21. Othman Shehu (1984). “Classes, crisis and coup: the demise of shagaris regime”. African Affairs Vol.83 No.333
22. Robert Wade (Website). “Bringing State back in: Lessons from East Asias Development experience
23. The Buhari Organisation (2003) “Project Nigeria: the Buhari Programme”.
24. William I. Robinson (1998). “Capitalist Globalisation and the Transnationalisation of the state”. Paper presented at a workshop on Historical materialism and globalisation, University of Warwick
25. Yusif M.M. (1985). “The rise of industrial Bourgeoisie: The 1983 coup and the prospects of dependent industrialisation in Nigeria”. Proceedings of the NPSA conference at University of Ilorin.
26. Yusif M.M. (1985). “Economic crisis, Accumulation and class confrontation in Nigeria”. Paper presented at Department of Political Science Seminar Series, Bayero University, Kano
27. Yusif M.M. (2007). “Re-imagining state and society relations in the current era of globalisation”. Mimeo.