It is interesting to note that the socio-economic and political dynamics of a nation state is directly or indirectly influenced by the paraphernalia of government and its policy framework.
This to a large extent, guides the economic fortune and direction of the state to the extent of which a nation becomes great or dwindles due to the personal whims of state actors involved in the formulation and implementation process. Consequent upon this therefore, it can be said that the economies of various countries of the global system have always been influenced by the position taken by the states in question in terms of either regulation or deregulation of the economic base of the society. The import of this position in the scheme of economic life of any state is buttressed by a particular theoretical analysis.
Drawing from the foregoing, therefore, the underpinning for Nigeria’s privatization as it patterns power sector can best be analysed using the elite school of thought as a theoretical construct.
Elitism is a vague concept which has attracted a lot of concern from scholars in the social sciences in contemporary times. Thus, while an ‘elite’ is a role player involved in the direction and control of a nation’s wherewithal, resources, persons or groups of people, elitism on the other hand defines the power configuration and inter-play of group influence, authority, charisma, egocentrism, selfishness, etc. All of these characteristics are practically exhibited by the ruling class in their own selfish interest. Elitism defines alienation, want, deprivation, poverty, disease, wanton neglect, and above all, the enhancement, ineptitude, greed, to mention but a few (Schuarz, 1987).
By extension, however, the elite school defines a power relations that seem to exist between two distinct groups in any society. First is a group of selected few who consider themselves capable and therefore possess the right to supreme leadership. The second category are the vast majority of the poorest of the poor or the downtrodden masses who are destined to be ruled. In this scheme of obvious differences, one group therefore assumes an upper-most as well as superior stronghold in the control of the nation’s resources to the detriment of the others (Ake, 2001). Elitism therefore subscribes to rule of force. The elite school of thought is largely antithetical to popular views and best democratic practices. It is a major setback on the road to peace, corporate governance, ethics, freedom, ethnic strife, electoral malpractice, macro and micro-economic failures mostly in backward nation-states of Asia, Africa and Latin America (Ake, 2001). The context of elitism defines coercion and brutal use of force against social groups in the society, intimidation, circumvention of constituted authorities and the outright neglect of the rule of law. This phenomenon has largely been re-enacted in Nigeria’s privatization process by the erstwhile Obasanjo administration where billions of tax payer’s money have been allegedly diverted into private pockets leaving the economy to suffer (Usman, 2001).
The prevailing consequences of elitism finds expression in group interaction. These groups are interested in the balancing and limiting excessive powers of one another in a bid to grab public office. Thus, the driving force of these elites to interact and confront themselves is the irrepressible urge in human beings to come to power and maintain the same. So behind the perpetual struggle between elite groups is the desire to acquire power.
Mills (1956), Lasswell (1965) and Pareto (1993) wrote that the context of power defines who gets what, when and how. This means that power is synonymous with coercion and therefore undemocratic as it is unacceptable. The society should therefore be built around equity, distributive justice and fairplay, transparency and accountability as cardinal objectives in the overall process of privatization either in the power sector or otherwise. This will bring about the enthronement of responsiveness, responsibility, accountability and probity in the scheme of things in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic and beyond.
Morgenthau (1978) wrote that the context of power is synonymous with state control by a group of selected few. This is different from the control of nature, artistic medium, language, colour or such powers over means of production and consumption or over oneself in the sense of self-control. Power however, means the control over the minds, self-consciousness and actions or inactions of other men. By this definition, power therefore becomes political. And politics clearly defines the authoritative allocation or abduction and hijacking of the resources of the people as was accentuated in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic (1999 – 2007). In any case, political power in any nation-state has a psychological relations between those who exercise it and those over whom it is exercised. It gives the former control over certain actions of the latter through the impact which the former exert on the latter’s minds. That impact derives from three sources: the expectation for benefits, the fear of disadvantages and the respect for institutions (Lasswell, 1993). Political powers as in the case of the Nigerian context could be exerted through unpopular orders, threat, unilateral decision making, glaring connivance with cabinet members or where this fails, unilateral removal and reshufflement of cabinet can be effected where necessary. From the foregoing analysis, political power in Nigeria during the Obasanjo’s Fourth Republic could be distinguished viz: between power and influence, between power and force, between usable and unusable power and between legitimate and illegitimate power respectively. Be that as it may, the indiscriminate use of brutal force by government acolytes and cronies was a major setback in the process of democracy and democratization during the Obasanjo administration.
Significantly, Nigerian elite should exercise political powers with decorum and self-control, transparency and accountability, responsiveness and justice in their bid to move the nation forward. Millions of Nigerians can no longer afford the skyrocketing prices of kerosene or cooking gas anymore. Nigerians can no longer bear the pains of having to sleep in the dark where thousands of mega-watts of power are being expended on neighbouring African countries of Niger, Togo and Benin and other minor countries without a blink, while industries have rapidly comatosed in an ailing economy like ours?
The tendency is for the current administration to rid itself of excessive elite control, scape-goatism, godfatherism and political machinations, greed, self-aggrandizement, nepotism, lip-service, brutal use of force, unilateral decisions on sensitive policy concerns that are of national interest, external control and the like. A logical execution of the above guidelines would have been enough panacea for an enhanced power supply in the Nigerian privatization feat while creating meaningful conditions of living for millions of dying Nigerians in the 21st century. Any socio-political paradigm devoid of the aforementioned can only drag the Nigerian economy some twenty steps back into confusion, socio-economic stagnation, lack, deprivation and backwardness. Nigeria must move forward in the spirit and expectations of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) while we look forward to becoming the 20th largest economy in less than a decade from here.
For easy understanding of the context of privatization policy and national development in Nigeria, it is important that we do justice to certain basic concepts viz: privatization, development, underdevelopment and national development respectively.