THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF CHANGE:LESSONS FROM AMERICA FOR THE BUHARI’S ADMINISTRATION IN NIGERIA

By Zik Gbemre

In a democracy, a general election is a referendum on the statusquo. The incumbent says that things are okay or getting better and we need tostay on course. The opposition says that things are not okay and we need achange or make changes so that things can get better. When things are not okayor when the incumbent and his team are seen to be performing well, the tendencyis that the opposition will win. Thus, opposition politicians usually campaignon the platform of “change” or some variant of it. It works in many cases when mostvoters find the status quo undesirable. This is what happened on March 28, 2015and April 11, 2015 when the All Progressive Congress (APC) not only won thepresidency but also took control of both the Senate and House ofRepresentatives as well as xx out of 36 States of the Federation, thus endingthe 16-year rule and domination by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and itsdream to rule Nigeria for 50 years!

The daunting task before the APC now is how to implement the“Change” it promised and satisfy the electorate, so that it can retain controlafter its current 4-year mandate. The party and the new President MuhammaduBuhari have been inundated with suggestions on what changes to implement andhow to implement them. However, most of the suggestions have not been based onthe theory, experience and best practices of socio-economic and politicalchange management. Cynics have argued that there is very little that Buhari cando to change Nigeria and that he is doomed to fail because he will be operatingunder a democracy where there are checks and balances, and because Nigeria isessentially “unreformable”. Withdetermined and effective leadership change is possibly and happens underdemocratic governments. In fact, political history is replete with“democratic Revolutionaries” who have implemented fundamental changes or“democratic revolutions” in their countries even within the constraints ofdemocracy.

In this open letter to President Buhari and the APC leadership, Dr. Emmanuel Ojameruaye (who is the President, Capacity DevelopmentInternational, LLC, with contact details: +1(602)628-0792, www.capdevinternational.us, PhoenixAZ, USA), and also a public affairsanalyst and expert in capacity development, proffered some suggestions for the effective management of the Change Agendain the next four years based on lessons from the United States, specificallyfrom the presidencies of Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933 – 1945), Ronald Reagan(1981-1989) and Barrack Obama (2009-2017). The choice of the United States(US) is based on the fact that it is one of the “best practice” cases andgreatest advocate of democratic governance. It is our hope that the lessons from the US will assist in shaping andmanaging the Buhari Revolution in Nigeria. We will begin by looking at theconcept of change in the context of the results of an election. Then we willbriefly look at some of the changes implemented by the three US Presidentsmentioned above and some of the challenges they faced as well as lessons fromtheir presidencies. Finally, we will present our suggestions for the Buhariadministration.

Change:

The term change is both a noun and a verb. As a verb, change means“to become different” or “to become something else” or “to become transformedor modified”. As a noun, it means “an act or process or result of changing” or“a transformation or modification or alteration”. Thus, when a politician promises “change” during an election, it meansthat he is going to do certain things differently or he is going to transformor modify or alter certain things and the end result will be better than thestatus quo.  The change processinvolves transitioning from a state or position A (status quo) to state B(ideal/target) and the difference (B – A) is the change. Moving from A to Bwill obviously take some time and will require planning, resources and severalsteps. It is also important to track,monitor and evaluate the movement or transition by using specific performanceindicators (metrics) to ensure that the transition is progressing well. It isalso important for the results to be sustainable. That is, once state B is achievedit must be maintained or improved upon so that the system does not slide backto state A.

The promised “Change”is normally made up of many changes. A politician will not win an election if hepromises only one change. Voters expect several changes as part of the Changeplatform. For instance, the Nigerianvoters expect President Buhari to significantly reduce corruption,  instill discipline and high morals within thecivil service and government circles, significantly improve security (i.e.,reduce kidnappings and armed robberies, and eliminate Boko Haram and otherinsurgencies), end the perennial fuel scarcity, improve public governance(transparency, accountability, performance, effectiveness and efficiency), significantlyimprove the reliability of public electricity supply, and improve publicinfrastructure – roads, water supply, sanitation, etc. All these and moreshould form part of a comprehensive Change Agenda. Each of these elements ofthe Agenda will require several implementation steps. The various changes cannotbe implemented in one fell swoop or simultaneously without “overheating” theeconomy and polity. Therefore, sequencingof the changes is required. In order words, the change agenda must effectivelybe managed. Change management deal with the identification of the variouschanges that have to be made and the steps involved in each, how these changeswill be implemented, the sequencing of the changes and steps, harmonization ofthe changes, identification of the resources for implementing the changes,behavioural change communication during the process, monitoring and evaluationof the changes taking place, and ensuring that positive and sustainable resultsare achieved at the end. A “Change Czar” reporting to the President may be requiredto coordinate the changes and overall management process.

DemocraticChanges Or Revolutions In The United States

The history of the United States of America (USA) is replete withPresidents who have implemented fundamental changes –which we will call “democratic revolutions” – in thecountry and overseas. In this section, we will describe some of the significantchanges that occurred in the US following some general elections in which theopposition party won the presidency. We will discuss three spectacular casesand draw some lessons from them for the Buhari administration. The first caseis that of Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR),the 32nd President of the US who won a record four presidentialelections ruling from March 1993 to April 1945 when he died in office. Eventhough he had lost the use of his legs due to polio in 1921, Roosevelt won the DemocraticParty presidential ticket to contest the 1932 elections. In his acceptancespeech, he laid the foundation for his Change Agenda when he stated that “Ipledge you, I pledge myself to a New Deal for the American people… This ismore than a political campaign”.  Hewent on to defeat the incumbent Republican President Herbert Hoover in theNovember 1932 election at the depth of the Great Depression. The votersexpected him to deliver changes that will pull the country out of theDepression and improve their lives. After he was sworn into office in March1933, Roosevelt and the Democratic Party formed the New Deal coalition by mobilizingthe poor as well as organized labor, ethnic minorities, urbanites, and Southernwhites. During his first 100 days in office, Roosevelt spearheaded majorlegislations and issued several executive orders that instituted the New Dealwhich included several programs designed to produce relief (government jobs forthe unemployed), recovery (economic growth), and reform (through regulation ofWall Street, banks and transportation). He also created numerous programs tosupport the unemployed and farmers, and to encourage labour union growth.

He worked with Congress to repeal the Prohibition and this addedto his popularity and helped him to win reelection by a landslide in 1936. TheUS economy improved rapidly from 1933 to 1937, but then relapsed into a deeprecession in 1937–38. Of course, he had opposition to his New Deal, both fromhis own Democratic Party and the Republican Party. The bipartisan ConservativeCoalition that was formed in 1937 blocked all his proposals for major liberallegislation (apart from a minimum wage law), and abolished many of the reliefprograms when unemployment practically vanished during World War II. However,most of the regulations on business continued until they ended between1975–1985, except for the regulation of Wall Street through by the existingSecurity and Exchange Commission. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation andSocial Security and several smaller programs which he established are stillalive till today. Roosevelt appointedpowerful men to top positions but he made all the major decisions, regardlessof delays, inefficiency or resentment.  On Roosevelt administrative style, the historianJames M. Burns concluded that:

“The president stayed in charge of his administration…by drawingfully on his formal and informal powers as Chief Executive; by raising goals,creating momentum, inspiring a personal loyalty, getting the best out ofpeople…by deliberately fostering among his aides a sense of competition and aclash of wills that led to disarray, heartbreak, and anger but also set offpulses of executive energy and sparks of creativity…by handing out one job toseveral men and several jobs to one man, thus strengthening his own position asa court of appeals, as a depository of information, and as a tool ofco-ordination; by ignoring or bypassing collective decision-making agencies,such as the Cabinet…and always by persuading, flattering, juggling,improvising, reshuffling, harmonizing, conciliating, manipulating.”

The second case is former PresidentRonald Reagan of the US who also implemented significant and enduringchanges during his tenure as the 40th President of the United States(1981-1989). Amid a weak economy and the Iran hostage crisis that called forstronger leadership, Ronald Regan, the Republican Party presidential candidate,defeated the then incumbent President Jimmy Carter of the Democratic Party inthe US presidential election on November 4, 1980. Although Reagan did not usethe “Change” mantra, it was clear from his campaign promises that he planned toturn things around when elected. In his campaign he stressed lower taxes tostimulate the economy, less government interference in people’s lives, states’rightsand a strong national defense. Desirous for a change, Americans voted massivelyfor Reagan. He received 50.7% of the popular vote as against 41 % for Carter,carried 44 states (out of 50), and secured 489 electoral colleges to 49 forCarter. The Republicans also captured the Senate for the first time since 1952,and gained 34 seats in the House of Representative which however remained underthe control of the Democratic Party. In his inaugural address, on January 20,1981, Reagan dwelt on the country’s economic problems and argued that “In this present crisis,government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem”.Immediately he was sworn into office, he sprang into action to implementpolicies that reflected his belief in individual freedom, liberalized economy,expanded military, and termination of communism. He implemented several economic initiatives including the so-calledsupply side economics, dubbed Reaganomics, which is based on tax rate reductionto spur economic growth, control of the money supply to curb inflation,economic deregulation, and reduced government spending.

The economic policies led to a reduction of inflation from 12.5%to 4.4%, and an average annual growth of GDP of 7.91%. During his presidency,federal income tax rates dropped significantly with the signing of the EconomicRecovery Tax Act of 1981, which lowered the top marginal tax bracket from 70%to 50% and the lowest bracket from 14% to 11%. In 1982 he signed the Job Training Partnership Act in support of hisjob creation program which initiated one of the first public-privatepartnerships in the United States resulting in the creation of 16 million newjobs. He also announced the “War on Drugs” in 1982 to curb the increasing“crack epidemic” in the US. He ended the price controls on domestic oil whichhad contributed to energy crises in the early 1970s. The price of oilsubsequently dropped, and the 1980s did not see the fuel shortages that the1970s had. His policy of “peace through strength” resulted in a recordpeacetime defense buildup including a 40% real increase in defense spendingbetween 1981 and 1985. In his famous address on June 8, 1982, to the BritishParliament, he said, “the forward march of freedom and democracy willleave Marxism-Leninism on the ash-heap of history” and on March 3, 1983, hepredicted the collapse of communism, stating, “Communism is another sad,bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages even now are beingwritten”.   The same month, hecalled the Soviet Union “an evil empire”.

During his reelection bid in 1984, Reagan campaigned on the notionthat it was “Morning again in America” implying that more positive changes arein the offing. Because of his good performance and positive results of thechanges introduced during his first term, he won a landslide with the largest ElectoralCollege victory in American history. Foreign affairs dominated his second term,including ending of the Cold War between the US and Soviet Union.  Reagan recognized and took advantage of thechange in the direction of the Soviet Union under Mikhail Gorbachev, andshifted to diplomacy, to encourage the Soviet leader to pursue substantial armsagreements and persuade him to allow for more democracy and free speech thatwould lead to reform and the end of Communism. He reached a nuclear disarmamentagreement with Gorbachev. Speaking at the Berlin Wall on June 12, 1987, Reaganchallenged Gorbachev, saying “if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for theSoviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to thisgate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall”.  Due to Reagan’s efforts and his positiveengagement with Gorbachev, the Berlin Wall was torn down in November 1989, tenmonths after Reagan left office, and the Cold War was officially declared overat the Malta Summit on December 3, 1989. Two years later, on December 26, 1991,the Soviet Union was dissolved and its 15 constituent “republics” (Russia,Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Estonia, Belarus, Moldova, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, etc)were “liberated” to form their own independent countries. The East Europeancountries also regained their “freedom” from the strangle-hold of the SovietUnion.

Reagan also implemented several domestic initiatives. Forinstance, in 1986, he signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act to dealwith the immigration problems in the US. The act made it illegal to knowinglyhire or recruit illegal immigrants and granted amnesty to some three millionillegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982, andhad lived in the country continuously.  In order to cover the federal budget deficits, his administration borrowedheavily both domestically and abroad, raising the national debt from$997 billion to $2.85 trillion. Reagan described the increase in national debt as the “greatestdisappointment” of his presidency. Nonetheless, Reagan held an approvalrating of 78% when he left office, matching those of Roosevelt and later BillClinton, the highest ratings for departing presidents in the modern era. Reaganhas since become an icon among Republicans and ranks highly in public andcritical opinion of US Presidents.

Several factors contributed to the success of the so-called “Reaganrevolution” – the set of his political and economic initiatives – whichapostles of change must learn to follow.  Firstly, hewas a great communicator. Secondly, he was a great alliance builder, a great“engager” and a great negotiator.  Hebuilt alliances with other world leaders, especially with Margaret Thatcher ofthe United Kingdom. He engaged his political base and Republican leaders in theUS as well as Democratic leaders in Congress and foreign leaders, especiallyMikhail Gorbachev. Thirdly, he was a firm but friendly and jovial leader. Evenhis “enemies” and opponents admired. Fourthly, although he was a dogged leader,he was willing to adjust his strategies and views.  For instance, during his visit to Moscow in 1988,a journalist asked him if he still considered the Soviet Union an “evilempire”, he replied “No. I was talking about another time, anotherera”.

The third case is that of PresidentBarrack Obama, the 44th President of the US, and the firstAfrican American to occupy the White House. He announced his candidacy for thePresident of the US on February 10, 2007, usingthe “Hope and Change” mantra and with emphasis on rapidly ending the Iraq War,increasing US energy independence and reforming the healthcare system. He defeatedHilary Clinton in 2008 to become the Democratic Party presidential candidate.He then went on to defeat the Republican Party candidate, John McCain, whom heportrayed as a man of the status quo and a mirror image of outgoing President GeorgeBush, a Republican. Obama won the presidential election on November 4, 2008 with365 Electoral College votes compared to 173 for McCain, and 52.9 percentof the popular vote compared to 45.7per cent for McCain. In his first few days in office, Obama issued executive orders andpresidential memoranda directing the U.S. military to develop plans to withdraw troops from Iraq and ordered theclosing of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp (Gitmo). However, Congressprevented the closure of the camp by refusing to appropriate the required fundsand preventing moving any Gitmo detainee into the U.S. or to other countries.On his 9th day in office he signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of2009 which relaxed the statute of limitation for equal-pay lawsuits, thusfinally prohibiting gender-based wage discrimination. Five days later, hesigned the reauthorization of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program(SCHIP) to cover an additional 4 million uninsured children. In March 2009,he reversed a Bush-era policy which had limited funding of embryonic stem cell research.

During his first two years in office, Obama took severalfar-reaching actions and implemented many initiatives including the following:a) He signed into law the economic stimulus legislation (called the AmericanRecovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) and the Tax Relief, UnemploymentInsurance Reauthorization, and Jobs Creation Act of 2010 to overcome with theGreat Recession; b) After much controversy, he signed into law the Patient Protection andAffordable Care Act of 2010  (oftenreferred to as Affordable Care Act or “Obamacare”) aimed at increasing the quality and affordabilityof health insurance, lowering the uninsured rate by expanding public andprivate insurance coverage, and reducing the costs of healthcare forindividuals and the government. The law also introduced mechanisms likemandates, subsidies, and insurance exchanges and requires insurance companiesto cover all applicants within new minimum standards and offer the same rates regardlessof pre-existing conditions or sex; c) He signed the Dodd–Frank Wall StreetReform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 which brought the most significantchanges to financial regulations in the US since the regulatory reform thatfollowed the Great Depression of the 1930s; d) He appointed two women to serveon the Supreme Court in the first two years of his Presidency, including thefirst Hispanic Supreme Court Justice, bringing the number of women sittingsimultaneously on the Court to three, for the first time in American history; e)He ended US military occupation of Iraq by bringing all her troops home. Hehowever increased US troop levels in Afghanistan; f) He ordered the militaryoperation that killed America’s most-wanted, Osama bin Laden and also increasedthe use of drones to eliminate several Al Qaeda leaders; h) He signed a newSTART arms control treaty with Russia and tried to “reset” US-Russiarelationship;

Unfortunately, during the mid-term Congressional election inNovember 2010, the Republican Party regained control of the US House ofRepresentatives as the Democratic Party lost a total of 63 seats. Obama saidthe result of the election was “humbling” and a”shellacking” and he acknowledged that it was in part due to the factnot enough Americans had felt the effects of the economic recovery and otherinitiatives he had introduced during his first two years in office. On April 4,2011, Obama announced his reelection campaign for 2012 and thanks to keepingfate with some of his promised changes, he was reelected in November 2012,defeating the Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, who campaigned on reversing orgutting some of the changes Obama had introduced during his first term. Obamawon 332 Electoral College votes and 51.1 percent of the popular vote, thusbecoming the first Democratic president since Roosevelt to twice win themajority of the popular vote. He was sworn in for a second term on January 20,2013.

During his second term, Obama promoted domestic policies relatedto gun control and immigration reform. Frustrated by the unwillingness of theUS Congress to come up with a legislation to fix the country’s immigrationproblem and in fulfillment of one of his outstanding campaign promises, hedecided to issue an Executive Order on November 19, 2014 to address someaspects of the immigration problem while waiting on Congress to act. Amongother things, the Executive Action: a) “offers a legal reprieve to theundocumented parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents who have residedin the country for at least five years, and removes the constant threat ofdeportation; b) “expands the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)program that allowed young immigrants, under 30 years old, who arrived aschildren, to apply for a deportation deferral” and to remain in the US legally.In foreign policy, he has ordered US military re-involvement in Iraq in responseto the threat by ISIS “terrorist” group and has initiated a process to end UScombat operations in Afghanistan. He has also taken the first steps tonormalize relationships with Cuba.

The verdict is still out on the Obama Revolution and on whetherhis initiatives have been successful or will outlive his tenure. One thing thatis clear is that he has faced more opposition to his change initiatives than Rooseveltand Reagan, and this was reflected in the decline in his approval rating overtime, and the loss of control, by his party, of the House of Representatives inthe 2010 election, and of the Senate in the 2014 election. All these have notonly blunted the impact and speed of implementation of his change agenda butalso called into question the sustainability of the changes when he leavesoffice in 2017. Despite the setbacks andopposition, President Obama has remained faithful to his program of change, andhas earned a place in the pantheon or hall of fame of democraticrevolutionaries. There is no doubtthat latent or overt racism may have accounted for some of the opposition tohis change program and his person. For some people, it is akin to a situationwhere their hatred for the messenger overrides their love for the message.

However, there is no doubt that there are certain things he shouldhave done to increase the acceptability of his initiatives. Firstly, he has not been a very effective communicatorof the benefits of the changes to the American people. The opposition(Republicans) seemed to have been more effective in communicating the“negatives” and alleged dangers and failures of some of the initiatives. Forinstance, rather than call the president’s health care program by the official  name (Patient Protection and Affordable HealthCare, which is positive), they decided to call it  “Obamacare” – in a rather negative andderogatory sense – which masks the “protection” and “affordability” elements ofthe law. Unfortunately, President Obama, his party and the public haveembarrassed the name imposed on the program by the Republicans. It is notsurprising therefore to see an uninformed voter saying that he hates Obamacarebut loves the Affordable Healthcare. In fact, the Obama’s case illustrates the difference between oratory andeffective communication in the theory of change. While most people agreethat Obama is a very good orator, many think that he is not an effectivecommunicator. Oratory can help to win anelection, but you need effective communication and leadership skills to selland successfully implement your change agenda.

Secondly, it has been alleged that President Obama did notadequately engage the Republicans and other groups who may be adverselyaffected by his change agenda before the enabling laws were made and during theimplementation. In a democracy, it isimportant to give the opposition (minority) a “voice” even though the majoritywill ultimately have its way.  Thirdly, it appears that the changes are toomany and are not optimally sequenced. For instance, given the controversy and opposition to the Affordable Act(ACA), Obama should not have made it a priority during the first two years ofhis administration or he should not have allowed it to become law without the supportof a single Republican lawmaker. Signingsuch landmark legislation at the beginning of his administration without asingle Republican support created “bad blood” that has devilled that law, andhas led to various legal challenges to it. Perhaps, instead of the“omnibus” ACA. The President should have adopted a “piecemeal” or “gradualist”approach in reforming the healthcare system beginning with the generallyacceptable components of the ACA and moving the controversial components to hissecond term. Fourthly, the President was over-optimistic about the preparednessof America for change.  He underestimatedthe power of inertia in people, organizations and systems.  For instance, at the University of Cairo in2009, he called for a “New Beginning” in the relationship between the US andIslamic countries and the promotion of Middle East peace. Six years on, thesehave remained elusive. Ditto the promised closure of the Gitmo prisoncamp.  Notwithstanding the challenges and upsets Obama has faced inimplementing his Change initiatives, history will show that many of the changeswere necessary and that he did his best to improve the American and the World,and thus deserved the Nobel Peace Prize he was awarded in 2009.

LESSONS FORTHE BUHARI ADMINISTRATION:

In addition to some of the lessons that have been highlighted inthe above review of the “Change” agenda of three great US Presidents, thefollowing are some additional lessons for the Buhari Administration as itembarks on its mission to cure the ills of the country and make the country trulygreat through its Change Agenda.

Unanimity is almost impossible in a democracy. There will always be opposition to anyproposed change. Although some people want a change, others may resist it. The “apostle”of Change must try to address some of the concerns of those who will resist thechanges he is intending to make; otherwise they can become a wrench in thewheel of change, and can ultimately scuttle the change. As a minimum, theopposition should be allowed to have their say if they cannot have their way.Therefore, the Buhariadministration  should be mindful of thefact that many of the people benefitting from the status quo,  including some members of APC, the oil“cabal”, etc,  will oppose some of theproposed changes and will stop at nothing to thwart the changes.  The administration must therefore devise aclever way of communicating or engaging with them, and to assuage their fearswithout compromising the changes.

In a democracy, the powers of thePresident are limited. Even though he can use “executive orders” to effect somechanges, it should be as a last resort on a temporary basis. All major changesmust be approved by the legislature and backed by an enabling legislation,ideally with the support of some members of the opposition or other(non-ruling) parties. Thus, theBuhari administration must guard against changes that are “unconstitutional” or not backed by legislation or a “temporary” executive order. To this end, the first order of the ChangeAgenda of the administration should be to catalogue the first set ofchanges/initiatives it intends to implement and verify if they areconstitutional or consistent with existing legislation. If not, theadministration should prepare appropriate enabling bills and send to theNational Assembly for debate and approval, and ultimate signing into law beforethe implementation. Where the debate is taking too long (as in the case of thePetroleum Industry Bill that was only passed into by Only The immediate past Houseof Representatives just few hours to the end of their tenure), the Presidentcan sign executive orders to implement some aspects of the proposed changes asPresident Obama has done in the case of the immigration problem in the U.S.

The Buhari Administration needsto form a Change Coalition by mobilizing the poor, farmers, labour unions,student unions, and civil society organizations, religious and ethnic groups fromvarious parts of the country to support the change initiatives similar to what Rooseveltdid in the US. If those opposed to the changes know thatthere is popular support for the changes they will be less likely try todisrupt or sabotage the changes.

People do not like cosmeticchanges or old wine in new bottles like we have often witnessed in virtuallyall the sectors of the Nigerian polity. People want and expect real changes or innovations. Therefore theBuhari administration must demonstrate that the proposed changes are realthrough verifiable results.

The actions of the administrationduring its first 100 days are very critical and will indicate its sincerity andcapability for change.The administration must therefore identify and take some concrete actions thatwill deliver visible changes (so called “low-hanging fruits”) during the first100 days and set the tone for subsequent changes. Such actions should focus on some of the areas that of immediateconcern to most Nigerians now, namely fuel crisis (scarcity of petroleumproducts), electric power supply, corruption and insecurity. For instance,on the fuel crisis, the administration should free the economy from thestrangle-hold of the private importers of petroleum products by takingadvantage of the low price of petroleum products in the world market to abolishany form of fuel subsidy, monitoring the activities of the importers andmarketers to prevent price gouging by imposingstiff penalties including withdrawal of licenses of offenders, importationby Pipelines and Product Marketing Company(PPMC) (to bridge gap and compete with private importers) and increasing domestic refining of petroleumproducts.  For each of the areas ofchange, a short-term program of action (activities) with deliverables/targetsshould be worked out.

All the promised changes cannotbe implemented in one fell swoop or simultaneously. Thus, it is important to prioritizeand sequence the changes and the steps. The APC Manifesto posted on the party’s website (www.apc.com.ng ) lists well over 100activities or actions in 26 sectors or areas the party intends to carry out ifthey win the presidency. The 26sectors/areas span virtually all the sectors/areas of the economy includingagriculture and food security, war against corruption and national orientation,transportation, power supply, education, healthcare, Niger Delta, politics andgovernance, code of conduct, etc. However, on the same website, the APC“Roadmap to a New Nigeria” document lists several targets and sub-activitiesunder ten program areas/key activities, namely create job; fight corruption; free relevant quality education; restoreagriculture; housing plan; healthcare for children and adult; social welfareand plan for the less advantaged; roads, power and infrastructure; managementof natural resources; and peace, security and foreign policy.

In a strict sense of the word,both the Manifesto and the Roadmap are not plans but campaign documents. Theadministration now needs to harmonize both documents and transform them into afour-year National Development Plan (NDP) that will span all the sectors/areasof the economy and a smaller four-year Change Plan (CP) that will focus on thereal changes the administration plans to undertake and want to see happen bythe end of its first term. Both a listing of all activities and sub-activities,implementation schedule, resources required for execution, performanceindicators, targets and means of verification.  Of course, the CP is different from, but constitutesan integral part of the broader NDP. Whilethe NDP covers all the sectors of the economy, the CP focuses on plannedchanges. The Annual Budgets will be derived from both the NDP and the CP.In this way the Annual Budget will become the instrument for allocatingresources to implement the CP and NDP.

Change is measurable, and shouldbe monitored and evaluated periodically. This means that performance indicators should be identified for all the desired changesand realistic time-bound targets set. For instance,   reliability of power supply is one of theindicators of power supply, average wait time at gas stations is good indicatorfor fuel supply, corruption perception index is good indicator for corruption,security perception index and number of security-related incidents areindicators for security and citizens’ report card scores and policy andinstitution assessment index are indicators for governance. Of course, moreindicators can be identified and tracked. The“baselines” of these indicators should be measured within the first 100 days ofthis administration and future values should be measured on a quarterly orannual basis – depending on the indicator- and the results should be publishedor posted the federal government website.  Anindependent monitoring and evaluation group should be contracted evaluate andmake recommendations on the changes taken place, and publish their resultsonline at regular intervals.

The President must identifyknowledgeable men of integrity who are true “agents of change” and who sharehis vision to occupy the positions of his administration. However, like Roosevelt in theUS, he must be in charge – the buck must stop with him – and he mustmake or approve all the major decisions even if this may cause delays,inefficiency or resentment. However, to assist him, the President canappoint a “Change Czar” to coordinate the changes. The president must also institutean effective system of performance management (with “carrots and sticks” –rewards and punishment) for ministers and other top government officials whoshould do same for the subordinates and down the line.

In conclusion, we believe Nigeria, like other countries ofthe world, is reformable. We reject the notion that Nigeria is unreformable(apology, Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, the former Coordinating Minister of theEconomy under the immediate past administration) as if to say Nigerians werecreated on a separate day from the rest of mankind. All that is required to reform or change Nigeria is strong, effectiveand visionary leadership. This iswhat Nigerians expect from the Buhari administration. Like the President inhis inaugural address, we will end by paraphrasing Shakespeare again:  “There is a tide in the affairs of nationswhich when taken leads to fortune, and when omitted leads to further misery.” TheMarch 28, 2015 election produced such a tide in Nigeria…and we are now afloat.May we follow the current and may it lead to fortune for all.

Zik Gbemre, JP

National Coordinator

Niger Delta Peace Coalition (NDPC)