LABOUR AND THE NIGERIAN POLITICAL SPACE: PROPOSALS ON A CHARTER FOR DEVELOPMENT

LABOUR AND THE NIGERIAN POLITICAL SPACE: PROPOSALS ON A CHARTER FOR DEVELOPMENT

By

Femi Aborisade

Labour Consultant, Barrister and Solicitor[1]

Introduction

Distinguished delegates! Permit me to express profound gratitude for the rare opportunity you have given me to address the 12^th National Delegates Conference of your Association. With all sense of proportion and modesty, my continued relationship with your Association and the fact of your invitation to me reflect the continued progressive character of the leadership of FOBTOB. I hope your Association will go down in history as laying down a striking example for the rest of the Nigerian labour movement by initiating the implementation of some of the compelling lines of action, which my paper/presentation recommends.

My interpretation of the topic that was originally communicated to me [‘Creating an Agenda for Political Governance: Labour and the Nigerian Political Space’] within the context of the explanation contained in the invitation letter is that FOBTOB is interested in initiating a charter for political governance that would engender sustained wellbeing of workers and other vulnerable segments of the society. In order to clearly portray this understanding, I have modified the topic to read, ‘Labour and the Nigerian Political Space: Proposals on a Charter for Development’.

I seek your indulgence to approve this topic as representing your intention. I hope I have your consent?

Justification for Drawing up a Charter

Ake[2] argues that “somebody has to determine that development is desirable, that a particular kind of development should be pursued and in a particular kind of manner.” This demonstrates that desirability of development, the kind of development and the manner of attainment are neither accidental nor objectively determined. Ake argues that the state is a specific mode of capitalist domination and represents contradictory interests and forces. It is impacted by the nature and effectiveness of capitalist hegemony and by the capacity of the dominated and oppressed classes to deploy effective counter-forces in reaction to their domination. These go a long way towards influencing the possibility of development. The degree of effectiveness of resistance by the dominated tends to determine the extent to which the state uses scarce resources for developmental programs or for building the arsenal of terror required by a militarized state.

Indeed, the 41^st Congress of the International Transport Federation (ITF)[3] had long adopted a resolution urging trade unions to develop positive alternatives to government’s neoliberal ideology and programmes. In reacting to issues at local, state, regional or national levels, unions should not only criticise what exists, they should also advocate well considered and researched alternatives. We should convincingly demonstrate that we are capable of running society, where the opportunity arises.

 

Conceptual Clarifications

What is ‘Development’?

Rodney[4] opines that ‘development’ is, more often than not, used in the economic sense for the reason that the state of the economy is assumed to be an index of other social realities. He posits that economic development refers to the capacity of members of a society to jointly increase their control over the environment. This capacity to deal with the environment is in turn dependent on three elements, namely, the extent:

·         of the knowledge and understanding of the laws of nature (science),

·         to which the understanding is put into practice to develop technology (devising tools) and,

·         of effecting improvement in the method of work organisation.

 An example of the third element is the improvement, over the ages, in the character of work, ‘from being an individualistic activity towards an activity which assumes a social character through the participation of many[5]’.

 

To Rodney, the whole essence of economic development is the capacity of every people to independently increase ‘their ability to live a more satisfactory life through exploiting the resources of nature’[6] Rodney recognises that there could be ups and downs in the process of developing societal capacity for gaining control over the environment. As he puts it:

 

Of course, human history is not a record of advances and nothing else. There were periods in every part of the world when there were temporary setbacks and actual reduction of the capacity to produce basic necessities and other services for the population. But the overall tendency was towards increased production, and at given points of time the increase in the quantity of goods was associated with a change in the quality or character of society[7].

Economic Growth and Economic Development Distinguished

There is a need to distinguish what Rodney calls ‘increased production’ or ‘increase in the quantity of goods’, which may otherwise be called ‘economic growth’ from ‘economic development’.

The concept, ‘economic growth’ refers to an increase or growth in the national income or product, which is usually expressed in terms of per capita income. That is, the aggregate Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or the aggregate Gross National Product (GNP, which includes net property income from abroad) divided by the total national population. There is ‘economic growth’ when there is a rise in the GDP/GNP or the per capita income. However, economists[8] point out that there is ‘economic development’ where there are certain fundamental structural changes to the national economy, including, but not limited to the following characteristics:

·         existence of economic growth or increase in real per capita income.

·         the increase in economic growth is reflected in improved material wellbeing of the majority.

·         an increase in the number of persons participating in the production process (i.e. economically engaged).

·         a change in consumption patterns, from majority of the people spending a large fraction of their income on food and other necessities of life to spending a small fraction of their income on necessities and a large fraction on consumer durables and leisure activity-related items.

·         a rising share of industry and a corresponding decrease in the share of the agricultural sector in the GNP.  

The foregoing characteristics of economic development mean that though there can be no economic development without economic growth, economic growth is merely a subset of economic development. While economic growth refers to a rise in the GDP/GNP, measured as per capita income, economic development suggests fundamental structural changes to the national economy, including a rise in GDP/GNP. Thus, Rodney’s[9] definition of economic development as:

·         ‘increase in the quantity of goods’ (economic growth), and

·         ‘a change in the quality or character of society’

aptly captures the economist’s conceptualisation of ‘economic development’.

 

Thus, where there is only economic growth without the presence of the other characteristics enumerated above, it would be said that there is growth without development. Such is the conclusion that arises where there is a rise in the per capita income (due to windfalls from sale of crude oil or any other natural resource) which is neither caused by the participation of the economically active population in the economic process nor accompanied by improvement in the material wellbeing of the majority.

 

CHARACTERISING NIGERIA’S REALITY: GROWTH WITHOUT DEVELOPMENT; POVERTY IN THE MIDST OF PLENTY

Nigeria is an oil-rich country. According to the IMF[10], over $700bn had been realized in oil revenues alone since 1960. Eighty five per cent (85%) of this sum accrues to only 1% of the population and about 40% or more of the national wealth has been stolen.

Also, Ribadu[11] asserts that ‘Between 1960 and 1999, Nigerian officials had stolen or wasted more than $440billion. That is six times the Marshall Plan…’ - the total amount that was used to rebuild the whole of Western Europe after the massive destruction produced by the 2nd World War. In spite of the oil wealth, there is an alarming incidence of poverty, which has turned the country into host to 6% of the core chronically poor in the world[12]. The same Report of the APRM asserts that Nigeria is host to the third largest concentration of poor people in the world after China and India and is among the top 20 countries in the world with the widest gap between the rich and the poor.

It is thus paradoxical that as economic growth rises, economic development nose-dives, a phenomenon of growth without development. In other words, there is a negative relationship between economic growth (measure of the value of output of goods and services) and economic development (measure of the welfare of human beings) such that as economic growth rises, economic development declines. This same relationship may also be expressed as being positive, in the sense that, as economic growth rises, poverty rises!

 

The fact of growth without development was pretentiously lamented recently by the Minister for Finance and Co-ordinating Minister for the economy, Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala who sheds crocodile tears that whereas the GDP for last year (2011) grew by 7.63 per cent, it has not resulted in job creation as over 1.8 million job seekers join the pool of the unemployed every year:

 

We are happy that the economy is growing. But we are not satisfied with the growth. It is not inclusive. It is not creating jobs. We have over 1.8 million job entrants every year. The quality of that growth is not what we want...[13]    

 

Nothing can perhaps best illustrate the contradictory phenomenon of growth without development than the rising poverty level, as shown clearly below.

Though there is no single acceptable definition of poverty, there appears to be a consensus in all the definitions that poverty is ‘a state of long-term deprivation of well-being, a situation considered inadequate for decent living’[14]. The trend in Relative Poverty in Nigeria, covering various years, is presented below.

 

TREND IN RELATIVE POVERTY[15] IN NIGERIA

 

Year	Poverty incidence (%)	Estimated Population (Million)	Population in poverty (Million)
1980	28.1	65	18
1985	46.3	75	35
1992	42.7	91.5	39
1996	65.6	102.3	67
2004	54.4	126.3	69
2010	69.0	163	112
2011	71.5(NBS forecast)	168	120

 Source: Compiled from Reports of the National Bureau of Statistics, NBS.

 

From the Table above, the compelling conclusion that can be drawn is that the proportion of Nigerians living in poverty has been increasing, from year to year. From 18 million Nigerians who were living in a state of long-term deprivation of well-being, a situation considered inadequate for decent living in 1980, the figure rose to 120m by 2011. The NBS[16] found that poverty levels have been rising by the year, for all types of measurement of poverty, whether based on relative poverty, absolute poverty, subjective poverty or Dollar-per-day[17], even though the percentage for each type of measurement varies slightly.

 

In spite of the oil wealth, which has been rising unprecedentedly despite the world financial crises, indices of qualify of life have been on a downward trend, even compared to less resource-rich and war ravaged countries, as shown below by the measures of IHDI, HDI, and Education Index. 

 

 

 

IHDI

The UNDP ranks Nigeria 116^th position (out of 134 countries) in the Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index, IHDI for 2011. In other words, Nigeria is among the last 18 countries in the world in terms of Inequality Adjusted Human Development.

 

The IHDI is a "measure of the average level of human development of people in a society after inequality (in terms of access to education, health and income) is taken into account. It captures the HDI of the average person in society, which is less than the aggregate HDI when there is inequality in the distribution of health, education and income. Under perfect equality, the HDI and IHDI are equal; the greater the difference between the two, the greater the inequality." In that sense, "the IHDI is the actual level of human development (taking into account inequality), while the HDI is the index of the potential human development that could be achieved if there is no inequality[18].

 

HDI

As far as the 2011 estimates for Human Development Index (HDI) are concerned, Nigeria is ranked 156^th position out of 187 countries. This means that Nigeria belongs to the last 31 countries in the world lagging behind in terms of HDI.

 

The HDI ranks countries in the following categories – very high human development, high human development, medium human development and low human development

The Human Development Index was developed in 1990 for a comparative measure of the impact of economic policies on quality of life as reflected in terms of life expectancy, literacy, education, standards of living, well being, and child welfare, on a global basis. It is used in categorising countries into developed, developing or under-developed[19].

Education Index

The United Nations ranks Nigeria 143^rd position out of 179 countries in the Education Index. This means that Nigeria belongs to the last 36 countries lagging behind in terms of the level of investment in human development.

The Education Index measures the adult literacy rate (which gives an indication of the ability to read and write) and the combined primary, secondary, and tertiary Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER). The GER the GER gives an indication of the level of education from nursery to post graduate education. Education is considered a key index of wellbeing and is used in measuring economic development, quality of life. It is also a central factor in grouping a country as developed, developing or underdeveloped[20].

 

CONCEPTUALISING THE CAUSE OF INCREASING POVERTY IN NIGERIA

The Nigerian reality has been characterised above as a situation of growth without development. What we are daily confronted with is increasing and steady decline in the welfare of ordinary people.

The question that needs be posed is what is the cause of abject poverty in the midst of plenty? Why does poverty continue to capture more and more people, dragging them down the abyss? 

It is perceived that there could be a relationship between neoliberal policies of privatization and the poverty level. Put in broader sense, there appears to be a relationship between poverty and the relative loss of political and economic sovereignty.

Political Sovereignty may be defined as the ability of an independent state to exercise supreme dominion, authority or power over a geographic unit, without interference from other states. Economic Sovereignty, as a subset of political sovereignty, is the authority of an independent state to make decisions concerning economic policies and to exercise control over the economic activities of both juridical and natural persons conducting business within a country, whether nationals of that country or foreigners, free from interference from other states[21].

 

I contend that the relative loss of both political sovereignty and economic sovereignty, as defined above, could be the cause of increasing poverty and the absence of development in the country. Though there had never been absolute political sovereignty and economic sovereignty in Nigeria, my argument is that the relative loss of both, particularly as from 1986, could be associated with unprecedented imiserisation of the Nigerian society that we are all witnesses to today.

 

In order to have a clear understanding of the cause of poverty in Nigeria, I invite you to periodise the history of Nigeria’s development process into two broad epochs:

·         1962 – the early 1980s: an era of economic nationalism or state centrism, and

·         1986 – till date: era of liberalisation, privatisation, commercialisation, etc.

 

The national development plans up to the early 1980s were informed by the intention to attain certain development objectives. A taxonomy of the objectives reveals the following: attainment and maintenance of the highest possible rate of increase in the standard of living, more even distribution of income, social welfare, a just and egalitarian society, a land of bright and full opportunity for all citizens, reduction in the level of unemployment, increase in the supply of high level manpower, self dependence and less of dependence on external resources, balanced development, indigenization of economic activity, diversified economy, a free and democratic society, etc.

In the early post-colonial period, the state in the periphery had to adopt a legitimation strategy, which placed key role on the state being the engine of economic growth.  It was not feasible to put the burden of production of strategic goods and services on profit-seeking private capitalists and expect the ordinary people to enjoy the benefits of the newly won political ‘independence’.  To earn legitimacy from the standpoint of the average citizen, the state had to sustain previous investment and make additional investments in public enterprises in order to make ‘independence’ meaningful to the people.

Thus, for example, in 1959, the National Economic Council came to the conclusion that:

A National Development Plan be prepared for Nigeria with the objective of the achievement and maintenance of the highest possible rate of increase in the standard of living and the creation of the necessary conditions to this end, including public support and awareness of both the potentials that exist and the sacrifices that will be required (FRN, 1970).

The 1^st National Development Plan (1962-68) had the aim of achieving:

‘a modernized economy consistent with the democratic, political and social aspirations of the people’[22]

The 2^nd National Development Plan (1970-1974) accelerated indigenization with the goal that ‘it was vital for Government ...to acquire, by law if necessary, the greater proportion of the productive assets of the economy’[23]

Swanson and Worlde-Semait[24] established that about 600 enterprises and 900 smaller ones were operating at the Federal and State/Local government levels, in the 1980s, respectively[25].

The international environment in the age of state centrism was also favourable to the development of pro-people economic plans. For example, the 1962 UN General Assembly Resolution on the Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources (PSNR), Resolution 1803, provides in Paragraphs 1 and 2, for the right of permanent sovereignty over natural resources, in the interest of national development and wellbeing of the people of the state concerned, and under conditions, rules, restriction or prohibitions deemed desirable, as follows:

 

1.      The right of peoples and nations to permanent sovereignty over their natural wealth and resources must be exercised in the interest of their national development and the of the well-being of the people of the state concerned;

2.      The exploration, development and disposition of such resources, as well as the import of the foreign capital required for these purposes, should be in conformity with the rules and conditions which the peoples and nations freely consider to be necessary or desirable with regard to the authorisation, restriction or prohibition of such activities.

 

Paragraph 4 of the Resolution (PSNR) indeed permitted nationalisation and expropriation of private companies, for reasons of public interest, over purely individual or private interests, both domestic and foreign, subject only to payment of compensation in accordance with the rules in force in the sovereign state.

 

Paragraph 8 of same Resolution (PSNR) also recognises the need for observance of contracts freely entered into, but on the condition that:

 

‘states and international organisations shall strictly and conscientiously respect the sovereignty of peoples and nations over their natural wealth and resources in accordance with the Charter and the principles set forth in the present resolution’.

 

The UN, particularly in the ‘60s and 70s, up till the early part of the ‘80s, actively advocated and pursued economic and political principles that supported economic sovereignty for the ultimate benefit of the human person. For example, in 1974, the UN adopted the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States (CERDS).[26]  

 

The CERDS provides, among others, for the following rights and duties of the State:

‘the sovereign and inalienable right to choose its economic system, as well as its political, social and cultural systems in accordance with the will of its people, without outside interference, coercion or threat in any form whatsoever’ (Article 1);

 

the right of every state ‘to nationalise, expropriate or transfer ownership of foreign property’ provided appropriate compensation is paid based on appropriate laws of the state adopting such measures (Article 2(2(c).

 

In fact, the 1986 Resolution of the UN’s General Assembly on the Right to Economic Development of States[27] (the Resolution on the Right to Development, for short) recognises economic development as:

an inalienable human right by virtue of which every human person and all people are entitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realised (Article 1 (1).

Indeed, Article 2 (1) and (2) of the Resolution on the Right to Development declares that:

1. The human person is the central subject of development and should be the active participant and beneficiary of the right to development (emphasis mine).

2. All human beings have a responsibility for development, individually and collectively, taking into account the need for full respect for their human rights and fundamental freedoms as well as their duties to the community, which alone can ensure the free and complete fulfilment of the human being ...

 

Article 2 (3) of the Resolution on the Right to Development declares that

           

States have the right and the duty to formulate appropriate national development policies that aim at the constant improvement of the well-being of the entire population and of all individuals, on the basis of their active, free and meaningful participation in development and in the fair distribution of the benefits resulting therefrom (emphasis mine).

 

A fundamental paradigm shift from state centrism to the private sector being the engine of economic change occurred in July 1986 when the policy of privatization was formally declared through the introduction of Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP).

FROM STATE CENTRISM TO PRIVATE SECTOR AS ENGINE OF ECONOMIC GROWTH

1986-1993	1st phase of privatisation: Total proceeds: $740m from 88 of 111 companies slated for privatisation.[28]
1999-2005	2nd phase of privatisation: total proceeds: $323.4m, as at 2005[29].
1995	The Nigerian Enterprises (Repeal) Act abolished restrictions to foreign shareholding
1995	The Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission Act (No. 16 of 1995) allows 100 per cent foreign ownership of firms in any sector (S.17), except in the enterprises tagged as ‘negative list’, e. g. production of arms and ammunition (S. 18), for security reasons.
	The NIPC Act also provides guarantee against expropriation and nationalisation as follows: ‘no enterprise shall be nationalised or expropriated by any Government of the Federation’ (S. 25(1)(a), except for national interest and on the condition of payment of adequate compensation(S. 25(2)(a) and no law shall compel any investor to surrender his interest in any enterprise to any other person(S. 25(1)(b).

 

 

Privatisation is an element of economic globalization, which has been defined as a dynamic that is bound up with the pattern of European capitalist development, which demands, with threats of sanctions that:

…every set of social arrangements must establish its position in relation to the capitalist West… it must relativize itself.  It must be said that in increasing sectors of the World this relativization process involves a positive preference for Western and capitalist possibilities[30]

 

Any surprise that in 2002, the US urged that market system should be embraced world-wide:

The lessons of history are clear: market economies, not command-and-control economies with heavy hand of government are the best ways to promote prosperity and reduce poverty. Policies that further strengthen market incentives and market institutions are relevant for all economies –industrialized countries, emerging markets, and the developing world[31] (emphasis mine).

But in case of resistance or reluctance to adopt pro-business policies anywhere in the world, then the US imperialism is prepared to use force:

While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary… It is time to reaffirm the essential role of American military strength. We must build and maintain our defenses beyond challenge. Our military’s highest priority is to defend the United States. To do so effectively, our military must ... deter threats against U.S. interests, allies, and friends; and decisively defeat any adversary if deterrence fails[32] (emphasis mine).

 

 

 

Joseph Stiglitz[33] has confirmed the tendency of supranational organisations such as the IMF, controlled by the US and other imperialist countries, to undermine the sovereignty of governments in the ‘developing’ countries. He suggests that the IMF tends to view all matters of domestic policy as capable of causing economic instability in order to justify its ‘input into a very wide range of domestic structural issues’.

 

In 2003 the National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS), as well as its versions at State and Local Government levels, the SEEDS and LEEDS, was introduced. It placed responsibility for all sectors on the private sector, as follows:

A TABULATED ANALYSIS OF THE REFORM AGENDA IN THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT AND DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY (NEEDS) DOCUMENT[34]

RESPONSIBILITY	SECTORAL RESPONSIBILITY	PAGE(S)
Agriculture	Private Sector	69-70
Job creation	Private Sector	XV – XVI, 44
Health	Private Sector	XVI, 39-40
Housing	Private Sector	XVI, 43, 44
Education	Private Sector	XVI, 35, 38
Water	Private Sector	XIX, 61
Power	Private Sector	XVIII, 60
Transport - Roads, Railways, Sea	Private sector	59 – 60
Environment	Private Sector	66
Industry	Private Sector	XIX, 70-71
Information & Communication Technology	Private Sector	73
Tourism	Private Sector	74
Film Industry	Private Sector	74-75
Oil & Gas	Private Sector	76-77
Social Development	Private Sector	58
Unity of Nigeria	Private Sector	58
Cultural Development Moral Development Social Development	Private Sector	58

Source: F. Aborisade (2006). Labour and Socio-Economic Rights Development and Nigeria’s Commercialization and Privatization Policy: A Descriptive Appraisal (Research Report Submitted to Centre for Civil Society, CCS, School of Development Studies, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa (July)

The goal of the NEEDS document to practically hand over the country to the private sector is also unequivocally stated as follows:

The private sector will be the engine of economic growth under NEEDS. It will be the executor, investor, and manager of businesses. The government will play the role of enabler, facilitator, and regulator, helping the private sector grow, create jobs, and generate wealth. Deregulation and liberalization will diminish governmental control and attract private sector investment... NEEDS aims to restructure the government to make it smaller, stronger … the number of government jobs will decline…[35]

For the avoidance of any doubt, the Federal Government makes it explicitly clear that the ‘primary goal of the NEEDS strategy is to build the private sector’[36]

The strategic policy thrust specified in the NEEDS document to attain the above private-sector driven world is for government to first invest in infrastructures with  a view to upgrading and developing them before privatization[37]. Other policy thrusts include right sizing and eliminating ghost workers[38]; complete deregulation and liberalization of the downstream petroleum sector and privatization of the refineries[39]; monetization of in-kind benefits such as subsidized housing, transport, health and utilities for civil servants[40], which amounts to government abandoning responsibility for provision of such social services to the entire society; providing long term credit to the private sector[41], contrary to the official rationale for privatization based on expectation of injection of funds into the economy by the private sector.

The ‘Vision 20:2020’, the Yar’Adua’s ‘7-point Agenda and Jonathan’s ‘Transformation Agenda’ are all built on the same class agenda: promotion of the private, at the expense of public good.

But it is important to point out that the process leading to the paradigm shift from state centrism to the private sector being the engine of economic growth was not an inevitable phenomenon. The process of change from ‘state-centrism’ to ‘rolling back the state’ did not occur on its own accord.  Unlike Adam Smith, the direction of the economy is not simply influenced by the invisible hand of the market (i.e. the forces of supply and demand).  Rather, supply and demand are influenced by conscious social policies in the process of social interaction or class struggles.  Hence, Marx talks of political economy, i.e. economy that is influenced by political decisions and state-civil society relationships.[42]

Therefore, the trade union movement owes it a duty to continue to stress the duty of government to recognize and the basic socio-economic rights as fundamental rights.

To paraphrase Snooks[43], modern governments have lost sight of the real reason for their existence, which is to facilitate the key objective of citizen’s survival and prosperity. It is for this reason that governments emerged in the earliest civilization and it is for the same reason that they have been maintained ever since. Until now. It was only in the past few decades that governments, internationally, have formally relinquished responsibility for promoting and shaping economic development aimed at guaranteeing the welfare of the citizenry.

It should be borne in mind that even the golden age of capitalism in the 50s and 60s in the West and the welfarist character of the state, post colonial rule, in the former colonial world, were products of profound historical processes, pressures and struggles – the end of the second World War, which provided objective conditions for Marshall Aids, the strength of the labour movement in the core capitalist centres, the cold war between Eastern and Western Europe and the rise of political and economic nationalism in the periphery capitalist states. Social change is a product of conscious self activity of the ordinary people.

 

PROPOSED CHARTER FOR DEVELOPMENT

Declaration on Ideological Standpoint

The world we live in is unjust. The structure of the society we live in is skewed against the working class. It is a necessity for the working class to fight to change the existing social order as a condition for benefitting from available resources. It would be illusory for workers to hope to benefit maximally under the existing social order.

Labour cannot pretend to be neutral in terms of choice of economic system. Economic systems are not value-free. While the capitalist system predominantly protects the class interest of the capitalists, socialism is the system that seeks to protect the interests of the working class and the poor. The realisation that ideological standpoint is central to development informs the UN’s CHARTER OF ECONOMIC RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF STATE (1974) to proclaim that: 

 

Every State has the sovereign and inalienable right to choose its economic system as well as its political, social and cultural systems in accordance with the will of its people, without outside interference, coercion or threat in any form whatsoever (Article 1)

 

I advocate that labour should openly declare support for socialism as the goal of the working class struggles in Nigeria. It is healthy for ideological differences to exist in the labour movement than to dull the consciousness of workers to accepting fighting within capitalism without a clear-cut ideological goal.

Declaration on Philosophy of Governance

The philosophical world outlook which guides governance in the current neoliberal era is the Social Darwinist principle of survival of the fittest – that inequalities of wealth, position and political power are naturally inevitable. Any attempt to alter the natural state of inequality is an affront against nature itself. Thus, there is no rationale for government supporting the poor and disadvantaged. If the individual cannot compete and survive, he/she may die! If the individual has the means, he/she may survive; otherwise, let him/her perish! This is the philosophical outlook in governance that must be fought and overturned.

It is essential for labour to declare support for a people-oriented philosophy of governance and development.  A people-oriented philosophy of development is one that makes human beings -ordinary people- the ultimate beneficiaries of all government activities. The question to ask before accepting or rejecting any policy is: what is the effect on the masses?

A people-oriented philosophy of governance and development requires labour to reject all anti-people policies and fight for a society in which need not greed for profit determines what is produced and how. To this extent, labour should reject all neo-liberal policies contained in recent government policies such as the FGN’s economic blueprint, the National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS) and its versions at State and Local Government levels, the SEEDS and LEEDS, as well as the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), on a continental level, all of which are built on enriching a few through ‘making the private sector the engine of economic growth’ and dispossessing and imiserising the majority.

Declaration on Social Security Schemes and against Labour Being Commodified

The perspective that labour is a commodity is a perspective that maintains that only those who are capable of producing over and above what they are paid should be provided for by the society. But a society that declares labour not to be a commodity is one that is prepared to extend social security measures to all vulnerable groups who are in need of protection, such as a basic income, regardless of whether they are employed or not employed, and whether they work in the private or public sector.

Declaration on Mode of Ownership and Management of the Economy

Privatisation has been described by David Harvey[44] as primitive accumulation, which is not based on free and fair market exchange or capital-labour relations but a form of accumulation based on dispossession of the society as a whole through state coercion, to benefit a few. Simply, put, privatisation is looting.

David Harvey’s conceptualisation of privatisation as accumulation by dispossession or primitive accumulation has been borne out in the Nigerian experience. In a study carried out by this author[45], it was found that:

·         the total proceeds realised from privatisation between 1999 and May 2006 was only $2.38bn or N49.70bn.

·         buyers of four of the public enterprises had only paid 30% of the bid price;

·         three of the buyers had only paid 10% of the bid price;

·         14 had not paid anything at all;

·         the buyer of one of the companies, which has eight (8) sub divisions had paid only the entry fee;

·         Only one of the ‘investors’ had paid up to 50% of the bid price;

·         where payments might have been made, the enterprises were sold at ridiculously low prices;

·         Some of the privatized enterprises were closed down by the buyers immediately after ‘purchase’. For those of them who did not close down production of goods and services after purchase, privatization means that while the new capitalist owners spend little or nothing on fixed capital, land, buildings, and machinery, they are in a position to earn super profit.

 

The Report of the House of Representatives’ Ad-HOC Committee on the Investigation of the Privatization and Commercialisation Activities of the Bureau of Public Enterprises (BPE) from 1999 to date[46] has also confirmed that privatisation in Nigeria is nothing but looting. Based on established corrupt practices, the Ad hoc Committee recommended, among others, that the sale of the following enterprises/concessions should be rescinded and re-advertised for sale:

1.      Volkswagen Nigeria Ltd (now VON Automobile Nigeria Ltd).

2.      ALSCON

3.      Delta Steel Company

4.      Jos Steel Rolling Mills

5.      Tin can Island Port Terminal ‘A’ (Concession)

6.      Koko Port (Concession)

7.      Port Harcourt Terminal ‘B’ (Concession)

8.      Transcorp Hilton Hotel

9.      Sheraton Hotels and Towers, Abuja

10.  Abuja International Hotels Limited

11.  Daily Times of Nigeria PLC

12.  Sunti Sugar Company

13.  Bacita Sugar Company

 

Labour should oppose privatisation and advocate nationalization of ailing and strategic private companies, including the banks, and renationalize all previously sold public enterprises and put them under democratic management and control of joint committees of elected representatives of:

·         workers in each entity,

·         communities,

·         consumers, and

·         professional bodies.

Nationalization is one of the fundamental lessons to be learnt from the measures being taken internationally to tackle the current economic meltdown. Thus, in September 2008, the US Government carried out the takeover of the mortgage giants, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, in what a US Professor of history termed the ‘greatest nationalisation in the history of humanity’.

The members of the Management teams and/or Governing Boards of public enterprises should:

·         receive no extra payment apart from the salaries they earn in their workplaces, plus incidental expenses.

·         Be elected on rotational basis, after a maximum of one term, and

·         Be recallable at any time they lose the confidence of their constituencies.

 

Declaration on Preference for Public-Public Partnerships (PUPS) as against Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) or Joint Ventures with the Private Sector

Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) refers to joint funding or management of an enterprise by the state and the private sector. Though such partnerships take various forms, in all of them, the preoccupation of the private partners is to make or maximize profit. Joint venture projects are a common feature in many sectors of the economy under globalization. Like contracting out/outsourcing, it also has implication for cost-cutting as the state frees itself from the responsibility for employing those working in the joint ventures and paying pensions, and so on. Those working in the joint ventures are thus left to the whims and caprices of the private employers who tend to fix pay and conditions of service arbitrarily as opposed to adopting the framework of collective bargaining.

Instead of PPP, labour should advocate Public-Public Partnerships (PUPS), among governments, public institutions or agencies on an international basis, to build capacities in developing countries

 

Declaration on Need for Equitable Redistribution of Wealth, Particularly in Resource Endowed Societies

Research[47] has shown that there appears to be a relationship between inequality and social conflict, particularly in the context of societies with natural resource endowment. Therefore, considering the unprecedented degree of physical insecurity in Nigeria, there is an urgent need for a programme that ensures an equitable distribution of wealth. The work of Collier shows that natural resources considerably increase the chances of civil conflict in a country. A country that has no natural resources faces a probability of civil conflict of 0.5 per cent while a country with natural resources-to-GDP share of 26 per cent faces a probability of 23 percent. The authors point out that outbreak of civil conflict is an extreme manifestation of institutional collapse. This suggests that the existing socio-economic order, in an oil rich country, with a wide gap in income differentials, can no longer take society forward.

 

Reduction in Income Inequality

In order to reduce extreme inequality as advocated by NEPAD, MDGs and Vision 20:2020, income inequality has to be reduced. The recurrent expenditure of government would be reduced significantly without the need to sack workers if there is reduction in income inequality.

Based on the average cost of maintaining a national legislator (N320m per year)[48] and the official minimum wage (N18,000/day or N216,000/year), income inequality in Nigeria, is a ratio of 1:1,500.

The calculation of the average cost of maintaining a national legislator, according to calculations by the radical Pastor Tunde Bakare,[49]  the average cost of maintaining a national legislator in Nigeria is N320million or $2.1million per year or about N27million per month) is presented below:

Number of Senators = 109

·         Number of Members of the House of Representatives = 360

·         Total Number of Legislators = 469

·         2012 Budget Proposal for the National Assembly = N150 billion

·         Average Cost of Maintaining Each Member = N320 million

·         Average Cost of Maintaining Each Member in USD = $2.1 million/year

Indeed, on the basis of international comparison, the Nigerian Senator earns about seven (7) times what the US President earns. Whereas the US President earns $400,000 per year, or N60million, inclusive of all allowances, the Nigerian Senator earns N163million or $1.10million per year, at the exchange rate of $1:N150. The average salary of the Nigerian Senator per year is about N11million while the allowances amount to N152million (NB: Pre 2012 Budget). Indeed, the cost of a Senator’s car (Toyota Land Cruiser Jeep) alone for the current year is $100,724 or about N16million[50], in a country where minimum wage is N18,000 per month or N216,000 per year! 

There is therefore a need to evolve inequality-reducing system of wealth distribution. In the context of Nigeria, this may include the following:

·         Political office holder not earning more than the average or skilled public sector employee. This would discourage the desperation to win elective public office, which has been resulting in the phenomena of various categories of Boko Haram, political assassination, and so on.

·         An end to the system of contract awards for the execution of public projects. Engage direct labour and enter into Public-Public Partnership as against Public-Private Partnership for the purpose of gaining access to technical skills that may be lacking domestically.

·         The above increases the likelihood that the capacity of the various Ministries will be developed, improved or enhanced to provide the services for which they were set up.

·         Public office holders, political party leaders, their families, friends and relatives to be prohibited from taking contracts from government.

·         Public officers and their families to be prohibited from going abroad for medical or educational services.

 

Declaration on the Need to Combat Corruption and Turn Nigeria into a ‘Non-Oil’ Economy

Xavier Sala-i-Martin and Arvind Subramanian[51] stress that oil wealth has fundamentally shaped politics, grievances and conflicts in Nigeria and that successive governments in Nigeria tend to squander the oil wealth such that economic growth does not result in economic development. Nuhu Ribadu[52] estimates that corruption costs Nigeria between 40 and 70 percent of oil wealth (the main source of Nigeria’s wealth), meaning that only between 30 and 60 percent of proceeds from oil could be available for the larger society.

 

Indeed, according to Watts[53], relying on the IMF, over $700bn had been realized as oil revenue since 1960. Eighty per cent (80%) of this sum accrues to only 1% of the population.

Apart from the most recent incidences of corruption (for example, the fuel subsidy scam of N1.7trillion and pension scams) Owolabi Bakre[54] has reviewed some of the key incidences of official corruption in Nigeria, which we summarise in a tabular form below.

Amount	Looter: Regime/persons affected	Source/Authority
US$12.4 billion	Amount realized from oil sale during the Gulf War under Gen. IBB	(see Okigbo’s Report, 1994)
over US$30billion	Estimated amount stolen during the regime of Ibrahim Babangida	(see Daily Independent, November 9, 2007).
US$34 billion	Gen. Sani Abacha’s looted funds, which Obasabjo froze in 2002.	(see Sikka, 2003)
US$2billion	Amount looted by Mohammed Abacha
(US$126m or N19bn	Transmission substation contract secured by Abdulsalam Abubakar Energo Nigeria Limited.after leaving office	(see Vanguard Online, March 13, 2008). Without any evidence of performance as stipulated by the due process, Abubakar further used his influence to collect N13billion (US$86,000,000) out of the contract price, but has so far achieved less than five per cent implementation (see Report of House of Representatives Committee on Power and Steal, 2008).
(US$86,000,000	collected by Abubakar, out of the contract sum even before performing 5% of the contract. (see Report of House of Representatives Committee on Power and Steal, 2008).	(see Vanguard Online, March 13, 2008). ‘Nigerians should thank God that Abdulsalam Abubakar did not rule more than nine months - Dr. Christopher Kolade Probe Panel’s report set up to probe his administration’ (see Daily Sun, June 10, 2008).
US$16 billion	Obasanjo, (1999-2007) (see Senate Committee on Power and Energy Report, 2008).	In collaboration with many local cronies and some multinational companies, more than fifty per cent of the money was siphoned into personal accounts abroad (see Senate Committee on Power and Energy Report, 2008). Some of the local and foreign companies that got the contracts to provide electricity did not start the project while they have been paid more than fifty per cent of the agreed contract cost. Some were even overpaid for work not done at all. (See Director of National Independent Power Project, 2008).
US$29 billion	Amount allegedly withdrawn by Obasanjo from the Federation Account without recourse to the National Assembly	(see Senate Committee on Finance, National Planning and Appropriation Report, 2006).
N555 billion (US$4.44 billion)	The amount former President Obasanjo could not account for while the NNPC that was under his personal control for eight years - 1999-2007.	(see Tribune, August 13, 2007).
N502 billion or US$4 billion	top officials of the NNPC under the ministerial control of former President Obasanjo	(see Daily Sun, August 13, 2007).
about N1.3trilion (US$9,285,714,285)	Ministry of Works, under the former Minister of Works, Chief Tony Anenih	(see Daily Independent, May 14, 2008).
N300 billion (US$2,142,857,143)	Ministry of Works, under the former Minister of Works, Chief Tony Anenih	(see Daily Independent Online, May 12, 2004).
N46bn; US$36m; £24m; DM462,000;EURO148m and SEK4m	Contracts awarded by the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA) between 2001 and 2003, which were allegedly marred by large scale frauds, widespread financial recklessness, and massive inflation of contract prices.	(see This Day, February 22, 2006)
Contract for railway modernisation project inflated by US$5.8bn and awarded to a Chinese firm called, China Civil Engineering Construction Corporation (CCECC) at the cost of US$8.3bn. Whereas it should cost about US$2.5bn.	Under President Obasanjo regime	(see Punch, June 15, 2008).

 

In the light of the foregoing, there is a need, not only to combat corruption (as prescribed in the Constitution[55]) but also to campaign for turning Nigeria into a ‘non-oil’ economy, at least within the context of the existing socio-economic order. This objective may be attained by a sustained campaign for the following:

·         Probe the past and ensure that:

o   All stolen wealth is retrieved, either in terms of cash or assets.

o   All stolen money and assets recovered should be put in trust funds for dedicated purposes/projects

o   all those found guilty of corruptly enriching themselves with public wealth are jailed for life

·         establish an Anti-Corruption Ministry for monitoring and investigating execution of current public projects.

·         Enact laws to protect whistle blowers.

·         Enact legislation directly prohibiting plea-bargaining in corruption cases.

·         Turn Nigeria into a ‘non-oil’ economy as suggested by Xavier Sala-i-Martin and Arvind Subramanian[56] by enacting legislation to the effect that proceeds from oil sale are paid directly into the bank accounts of individual Nigerians, on equal basis, such that levies or taxes are imposed on individuals to fund public projects.

 

Declaration on Increases in the National Minimum Wage Based on the Principle of Wage Indexation

A key lesson to be learnt from measures being taken internationally in stimulating the economy is raising the minimum wage. For example, in the U.S., the Federal minimum wage was raised, with effect from 24 July 2009 from $6.55 (N1,048.00) per hour to $7.25 (N1,160.00 at the exchange rate of N160:$1) per hour. Though most States have their own minimum wage rates, employers are required to pay whichever is higher. According to a CNN report[57], an economist with the US Economic Policy Institute (EPI) asserted that the wage increase would inject $5.5 billion worth of extra spending into the US economy over the next year. But in Nigeria, the N18,000 minimum wage has not been implemented fully even by the Federal Government, in spite of the recent increase in the price of petrol.

Apart from the need to raise minimum wage, it has become critically important to advocate the principle of wage indexation, called ‘scala mobile’ in the Italian industrial relations system. It means wages rising as inflation rises. It should be borne in mind that given the rabid commitment of the Federal government to implementing neoliberal agenda in Nigeria, there would be further increases in the prices of petroleum products. Unless wage indexation is adopted, poverty will become deepened and widespread than what we experience currently. Wage indexation could also be a check on the rapidity of fuel price increases by the government, when it is appreciated that any price increase will automatically have an effect on the wage bill.

It should be noted that according to a business intelligence analyst, Abimbola Tooki[58], Nigeria pays the least minimum wage among the top 10 global oil producing nations and members of OPEC, as follows:

Country	Minimum Wage (Equivalent in Naira)
Nigeria	N18,000
Kuwait	N161,500
Iran	N101,240
Venezuela	N95,600
Saudi Arabia	N86,500
Algeria	N55,900
Libya	N23,800
Iraq	N25,800

Oman and United Arab Emirate are said to be paying higher minimum wage rates.

 

Declaration on Job Creation and Employment Security

Trade unions should consider adopting the following policies:

•         Employers must be compelled to open the books for inspection by workers and their representatives, though unions must also engage in independent research on the companies, their income and expenditure profile.

•         Employers, the state and the private sector, should be made to link the state of the economy to levels of employment by adopting the policy of increased appointments based on higher productivity and profits.

•         A campaign for shorter working hours without loss in pay, so that more of the unemployed hands, particularly in the oil producing communities, can have opportunity for employment. For example, Germany, at a point, adopted a program of Kurzarbeit, meaning, shorter working hours and lower pay, to deal with the problem of global financial crisis. Nigerian trade unions should however advocate shorter working hours without loss in pay.

•         Making it more costly to retrench than to retain workers on their jobs could discourage arbitrary layoffs. This is achievable by campaigning for enhanced terminal benefits and higher pension liability on the part of the employer.

 

Declaration on Labour Casualisation:

There are various forms of labour casualisation. It includes contract staffing, outsourcing and so on. Some of the disastrous effects of labour casualisation include resistance to unionisation by employers, job insecurity and poor pay. Unfortunately, both public and private employers engage in the practice of labour casualisation. Labour must declare a policy to fight the practice of labour casualisation.

 

Declaration on Job Promoting/Creation Measures

Though the bulk of Nigeria’s wealth comes from oil, Fajana[59] indicates that the Nigerian oil industry, being capital intensive as opposed to being labour-intensive, provides only approximately 70,000 jobs, including expatriate, regular, contract and subcontract categories of employment. This means that labour must pressurise for a significant proportion of the proceeds from oil to be invested in infrastructures and social services, health, education, public housing, and so on.

Declaration of Policy on Reduction in Tax Liabilities

Labour should launch a campaign for reduction in tax liability, in both the public and private sectors, in order to enhance the purchasing power of workers.

 

For example, US granted tax credits in personal income tax while the UK reduced value added tax from 17.5% to 15%, as measures to deal with the global economic crisis and stimulate the economy.

 

There should a move from regressive taxes like VAT to progressive taxes like corporate taxation, which ensures that the rich pay higher rates of taxation than the poor. International agreements could be entered into with neighbouring countries on minimum rates of corporation tax to be charged by all countries across the region.

Declaration on Capital Flight

Strict controls should be introduced over the movement of capital from Nigeria. All transfers of more than N1m should be subject to proof that the money was obtained legitimately. It is estimated that from 1970 to 2008, nearly $300trillion was transferred out of Nigeria[60].

 

Declaration of policy on non-implementation of pro-worker statutes

Protection of self-interest dictates that labour must declare preparedness to mount pressure for the implementation of statutes that are relatively favourable to the working class. An example that readily comes to mind is the Employee’s Compensation Act (ECA) 2010.

Declaration on a New Direction for the Economy

Labour should campaign for a re-direction of economic policies towards wage-led, domestic-driven growth, rather than the traditional export-oriented production.

 

Declaration on Attracting Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) by Fixing Infrastructural Deficits than through Over-Generous Incentives

Researchers have found that governments in developing countries could attract more foreign capital by fixing infrastructural deficits than by over-generous incentives, waivers and concessions, which in the final analysis hurt the economy by depriving it of funds from taxation. Indeed, the UNCTAD recommends that Nigeria should introduce a flat lower corporate tax regime for all non-extractive businesses and remove the pioneer industry scheme on the ground of being selective and limited[61], and in the context of several other ‘over generous’ incentives, waivers and concessions[62].

 

Declaration on Trade Union Freedom

There appears to be a relationship between poverty-inducing policies (economic exclusion) and political repression. The ruling class cannot easily concede freedom for the deprived where there is economic inequality because the economically dominant class will tend to keep down the deprived.

UNCTAD[63], relying on the research conducted by the World Bank[64]  has noted that out of seven (7) selected key African countries[65], Nigeria has the most liberal labour regime. This means Nigeria has the most repressive labour regime among the selected countries. It states that ‘No major rigidities in hiring and firing exist...’[66] In spite of the repressive nature of the employment environment in Nigeria, the UNCTAD Investment Review, quoting an ILO Report[67] found that Nigeria comes 2^nd after South Africa,[68] in terms of trade union density, measured in number of days not worked due to labour disputes and strikes.

The challenge, which the foregoing poses for labour is to have a policy to resist encroachments on labour rights, on the basis of the principle of an injury to one is an injury to all.

Some of the most pressing attacks on labour rights include the following:

·         S. 15 of the Trade Unions Act, which prohibits trade unions from applying its funds, directly or indirectly, for political objectives.

·         S. 30(6) of the Trade Unions Act, which prohibits strikes or lock outs in any essential service. The definition of ‘essential services’ in S. 9 of the Trade Disputes Act is so broad that it embraces almost all sectors of the economy – persons employed in civil capacity in the armed forces of the Federation; persons employed in any enterprise engaged in the production of any materials for use in the armed forces of the Federation;  any enterprise in the private or public sector connected with the supply of water, electricity, power, fuel, sound broadcasting, postal, telegraphic, cable, wireless or telephonic communications; ports, harbours, docks, aerodromes; transportation of goods, persons, or livestock, by road, rail, sea, river or air; hospitals, burial of the dead, sanitation, cleaning, disposal of night-soil and rubbish; outbreak of fire, teaching, banking, Nigeria Security Printing and Minting, Central Bank of Nigeria, and so on.

·         S. 42(1)(A)&(B) of the Trade Unions Act, which has the effect of depriving striking workers of the right to picket. The abrogation of the right to picket is contained in the Trade Unions (Amendment) Act of 2005, which provides as follows:

o   S. 42(1)(A) No person shall subject any other person to any kind of constraint or restriction of his personal freedom in the course of persuasion;

o   S. 42(1)(B) No trade union or registered Federation of Trade Unions or any member thereof shall in the course of any strike action compel any person who is not a member of its union to join any strike or in any manner whatsoever, prevent aircrafts from flying or obstruct public highways, institutions or premises of any kind for the purposes of giving effect to the strike.

o   The provisions of S. 42(1)(A) and (B) of the Trade Unions Act have the same effect as the judgment of the judicial bench of the House of Lords in the case of Taff Vale Railway v. Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants (1901) wherein the court held union funds liable for damages arising from strike actions.

 

·         The ILO[69] has noted that labour laws in Nigeria lack any statutory protection against unfair dismissal or statutory severance pay, even though unfair dismissal may constitute trade dispute and the National Industrial Court has, on some occasions, awarded severance pay as additional compensation to unfairly dismissed workers[70].

Declaration on Political Party

Nigeria has witnessed governance by bourgeois politicians, either at the centre or at the state levels. All they can afford to give Nigeria is unprecedented poverty and insecurity.  There is a need to build a Socialist Labour Party or parties, based on the mass of the working class and its allies. It is not sufficient to have a labour party. It is imperative to have a labour party (or parties) that would openly and unapologetically:

·         Be the voice of workers and the poor in the legislature

·         Declare support for the day-to-day industrial struggles of workers and wider issues being fought in the communities and nationally, and

·         Declare socialism as its ideology. The unprecedented degree of social conflicts and insecurity in Nigeria today means nothing but the inability of the capitalist system to take society forward. The pervasive and excruciating poverty in Nigeria today shows there is a vacuum which only a socialist party can fill, based on a programme of eliminating economic inequality and making majority of human beings in the society - the poor - the ultimate beneficiaries of any government policy. Such a party will not be enslaved to maintaining the existing social order; it will work to campaign for the need to carry out a system change based on the masses stamping their feet on the sand of history and demanding change.   

I am aware that the issue of workers’ participation in politics has always been a source of division for Nigerian workers. But such division is, in my opinion, healthy. Workers or unions that agree on forming parties to participate in ‘partisan’ politics may co-exist with those that are averse to the idea. Workers or unions that choose to form parties based on a socialist agenda could also co-exist with those that may only prefer to form a party/labour party that does not openly declare socialism as its ideology. Regardless of the choice of particular workers and unions, individually or collectively in groups, Joint Action Committees (JACs) could always be formed to wage struggles, whenever they arise, on industrial or wider issues, at any level, locally or nationally.  

Three key tendencies have emerged in the attempts and experiences of organised labour to be involved in electoral politics, as follows:

·         In the 1950s, during the anti-colonial struggle, the central labour organisation, the Trade Union Congress, TUC, merely affiliated to the NCNC, instead of undertaking the formation of an independent workers’ party. Though Chief Fagbenro Beyioku, speaking for the conservatives who opposed workers involvement in politics, raised the option of the TUC forming an independent workers party, it was widely perceived that the goal was just to get the TUC to break from NCNC, as nothing was done by the conservatives to initiate the formation of a workers’ party[71].

 

·         In 1983, labour’s attitude, as symbolised in the May Day Address of the NLC President, was a call on workers ‘to vote for only pro-labour politicians in all the political parties’[72].

 

·         Since the 1960s, socialist intellectuals and labour bureaucrats have laboured to form socialist and labour parties. Examples included The Socialist Workers and Farmers Party (SWAFP), the Nigerian Labour Party, the Working People’s Party, etc. The common bane of those efforts and sacrifices was that the parties lacked mass base of support among rank and file workers.

o   As Prof. Olorode observes, the current Labour Party today serves mainly as the platform for all manners of politicians who lack a labour background to contest after they have lost out in the nomination process in the main bourgeois parties. Politics of exclusion and lack of commitment to working class programme tend to be the bane of parties formed mainly by union leaders[73].

The objective we seek to achieve by giving the above historical outline of organised labour’s attempts at ‘partisan’ political party involvement is not to lament or bemoan the past. Rather, it is to allow us to note that any current efforts are not strange. What we need to do is to draw lessons from past experiences.

First, the successes of the Labour Party in winning some seats in the 1964 elections, the victory of the former President of the NLC, Adams Oshiomhole, as Governor of Edo State, the fact that Dr. Mimiko won the Governorship position in Ondo State on the platform of the existing Labour Party, no matter its weaknesses, all show the potentials that exist for a Party built on:

·         the mass of the rank and file workers and the other poor strata, and

·         a program of defending the interests of the poor and the working class.

Second, there is always a need to build an independent workers party or parties, which could enter into electoral alliances or form joint action committees with other radical or pro-labour parties or organisations. Labour deserves to have an independent political party to politically support struggles on industrial and other wider issues, rather than having to lobby ‘friendly’ politicians (whose primary loyalty is to their bourgeois parties) at critical moments. The experience of encouraging workers to vote for ‘pro-labour candidates in all parties’ also tends to strengthen ethnic/regional consciousness and divide workers along the ethnically-based bourgeois parties[74].

Third, trade unions and labour leaders have ‘ready-made’ national structures and mass base of social support, based on traditions of labour struggles, which the ordinary politician lacks. Labour candidates therefore stand a better chance of success in elections than other politicians, provided the party can demonstrate practical commitment to the cause of all the poor strata, including students, traders, unemployed, farmers, and so on.

Fourth, in order to avoid domination of the party by top union leaders, efforts should be made to win the support of the rank and file union membership for the formation of workers party, through referendum and adoption of a resolution to that effect at unions’ special congresses. Such an approach will ensure a steady source of funding for the parties, through direct union-funding, apart from contributions by individual workers.

Fifth, the trade union movement has a duty to embark on a campaign for law reform for the abrogation of all anti-labour provisions and laws, particularly, S. 15 of the Trade Union Act, which prohibits the trade union from applying its funds, directly or indirectly, for political objectives.

Sixth, the trade union movement has a responsibility to canvass for constitutional amendment and law reform such that public sector workers who seek to contest elective offices only need to apply for ‘leave of absence’ rather than the Constitutional and statutory requirement of having to resign 30 days before the date of election[75].

Seventh, the Nigerian labour movement should learn from the process leading to the formation of the British Labour Party. The agitation for a distinct labour voice in parliament, in recognition of the ‘class war’ was initiated, not only by a few individuals within the society as a whole but also within the trade union movement. The decision of the TUC to establish a labour Representation Committee (LRC) followed a motion sponsored by only two unions. The motion called on the Leadership of the TUC ‘to devise ways and means for securing the return of an increased number of labour members to the next Parliament’. Mortimer[76] however notes that the decisive factor in strengthening the trend towards support for independent labour representation was not a product of ideological debate but a product of the judgment of the judicial bench of the House of Lords (the highest court in the UK), which made unions and their funds liable for damages arising out of strike actions. That judgment immediately raised concern that labour ought to be represented in Parliament so as to change the law and restore trade union immunity against claims for damages arising from strike actions. The particular case in point was the case between Taff Vale Railway v. Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants. The Railway workers went on strike in 1900. The House of Lords gave its judgment in July 1901. The Labour Party emerged in 1906 by virtue of the name adopted by the MPs elected under the platform of the LRC. The existence of multiple draconian provisions in labour laws in Nigeria makes it imperative for a labour party that is committed to the cause of the workers to emerge to change the law, as part of the first steps.     

 

 

 

Conclusion

The purpose of government should be the protection of the poor and the vulnerable members of the society. Beyond this, there is no justification for the existence of the social institution called ‘Government’. This protective function of government is in the nature of a trust, a contract. As long as this obligation is fulfilled by government, whatever law or policy made by government is binding. However, the moment government fails to protect the wellbeing of ordinary people, the people have the right to oppose the government and its policies. Such policies automatically lose validity, worthy of being observed only in the breach while the government itself loses legitimacy. This is the essence of Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution – the right of association and peaceful action to protect interests. Section 40 of the Constitution is the only constitutional safeguard against governmental tyranny, state terrorism, despotism and totalitarianism. It is therefore a constitutional right to protest peacefully to bring about social changes. It is those who make peaceful change impossible that make violent change inevitable. The Nigerian masses will need to reinvent and adopt the elements of the 1776 American Declaration of Independence when the revolting colonies which later on constituted the USA broke away from the suzerainty (hegemony) of Britain declared, inter alia, as follows:

“We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these aims, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers on such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness”

Any person, any party, any social class automatically loses the right to continue to rule the moment it cannot guarantee the welfare and security of the people. This is the implication of S. 14 (2) (b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which states that the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government. Section  16 (1) (b) goes further to prescribe that government shall control the (national) economy in such manner as to secure the maximum welfare, freedom and happiness of every citizen on the basis of social justice and equality of status and opportunity. 

Section 14 (2) (a) of the 1999 Constitution states that sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria from whom government derives all its powers and authority.

Finally, in response to those who argue that President Jonathan is merely implementing the programme upon which he campaigned and was elected, it has to be made clear that Section 224 of Nigeria’s Constitution does not permit any political party or candidate to implement any policy or programme that is at variance with constitutional provisions. It states:  ‘the programme as well as the aims and objects of a political party shall conform with the provisions of Chapter II of the Constitution’. Chapter II of the Constitution mandates government to own and control the major sectors of the economy so as to maintain the capacity to provide for the wellbeing and socio-economic rights as the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy.  

On the ground of Section 224 of the CFRN, 1999, labour can legitimately insist that the proposed charter for development is the basis to measure the performance of any government or to call for fundamental political and social change.

I thank you all for your attention.

Femi Aborisade

26 May 2012.

 

---

[1] Being Paper Delivered at the 12^th National Delegates Conference of the Food, Beverage & Tobacco Senior Staff Association (FOBTOB) on 26 May 2012, Tourist Garden Hotels and Resort, Ojih Isuofia Avenue, Behind Whiz Oil, Bridge Head, Asaba, Delta State.

 

[2] (C. Ake, (1989). ‘Africa and the Political Economy Approach’ in Ihonvbere, J (ed.). The Political Economy of Crisis and Underdevelopment in Africa, Selected Works of Claude Ake. Lagos: JAD Publishers, p. 43)

[3] (Resolutions of the ITF’s 41^st Congress. Available online at www.itfglobal.org/congress/resolutions.cfm accessed on 22 May 2012)

[4] W. Rodney. (1973). How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Dar-Es-Salaam: London and Tanzanian Publishing House. Available online at http://www.blackherbals.com/walter_rodney.pdf as at 10/05/12, p. 8.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/encyclopedia/Eco-Ent/Economic-Development.html as at 11/5/2012.

 

[9] Rodney, Op.cit.

[10] Cited in M. Watts (2009). ‘Crude Politics: Life and Death on the Nigerian oil Fields,’ (Working Paper No. 25). Washington DC: Institute of International Studies, University of California, Berkeley, USA, available online at <oldweb.geog.berkeley.edu/ProjectsResources/ND%20Website/Nig...> accessed on 22 May 2012.

 

[11] ‘Capital Loss and Corruption: The Example of Nigeria: Testimony before the House Financial Services Committee, 19 May 2009, available online at www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs.../ribadu_testimony.pdf  accessed on 22 May 2012.

[12] African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), 2008, paragraph 427 p.142.

[13] http://www.sunnewsonline.com/webpages/news/national/2012/apr/28/national-28-04-... (accessed on 28/04/12).

[14] B. E. Aigbokhan (2008). ‘Growth, Inequality and Poverty in Nigeria’. Addis Ababa: Economic Commission for Africa. (ACGS/MPAMS Discussion Paper No. 3).

[15] The NBS defines ‘Relative Poverty’ as the level of living standards of the majority in a given society.

[16] NBS (2012). The Nigeria Poverty Profile 2010 Report. Press Briefing by the Statistician-General of the Federation?Chief Executive Officer of the National Bureau of Statistics, Dr. Yemi Kale, at the Conference Room, 5^th Floor, NBS headquarters, Central Business District, Abuja, on Monday, 13 February 2012 (Available online at http://resourcedat.com/resources/The-Nigeria-Poverty-Profile1.pdf as at 16 May 2012.

[17] NBS defines ‘Absolute Poverty’ as the ‘minimal requirements necessary to afford minimal standards of food, clothing, healthcare and shelter’. ‘Subjective Poverty’ refers to the proportion of the population who consider themselves to be poor based on ‘self-assessment and sentiments’. ‘Dollar-per-day’ refers to the World Bank’s Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) index, which defines poverty as the proportion of those living on less than US$1 per day poverty line. According to the NBS, the current dollar rate is US$1.5.

[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_HDI, accessed on 11/05/12).

 

[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index, accessed on 11/05/12).

 

[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Index accessed on 11/05/12).

[21] (B. A. Garner (Ed.)(1999). Black’s Law Dictionary (7^th ed.). St. Paul, MINN: West Group; R. P. Buckley (ND). “Re-Envisioning Economic Sovereignty: Developing Countries and the International Monetary Fund”. p. 267, cited in S. V. Sander (2011), ‘The meaning of economic sovereignty: categorising sovereignty and the development of an un-stretched concept’ (available online at 10021391-3953.pdf (student.statsvet.uu.se/modules/student/.../visadokument.aspxid=3572; and  http://www.londoninternational.ac.uk/perspective p. 23. (Accessed on 14 May 2012).

 

[22] Cited in Ajakaiye, Ajakaiye, D. O. (1984). Economy-wide Effects of Privatizing and Re-organizing Nigeria’s Public Enterprises: Some Critical but Neglected Issues.  Ibadan: NISER.

 

[23] p. 289, cited in (UNCTAD (2009). Investment Policy Review: Nigeria. New York and Geneva: UN. Available online at http://archive.unctad.org/en/docs/diaes/diaepcb2008_en.pdf (at p. 3) and accessed on 20 May 2012.

 

[24] Swanson, D. and Worlde-Semait T. (1989). Africa’s PEs Sector and Evidence of Reforms. World Bank Technical Paper No. 95.

[25] Similar findings were made by (UNCTAD (2009). Investment Policy Review: Nigeria. New York and Geneva: UN. Available online at http://archive.unctad.org/en/docs/diaes/diaepcb2008_en.pdf (at p. 3) and accessed on 20 May 2012.

 

[26] (CERDS) http://shr.aaas.org/article15/Reference_Materials/Charter_of_Economic_Rights_and_Duties_of_States_Eng.pdf.  

 

[27] http://www.cetim.ch/en/documents/bro6-develop-A4-an.pdf

[28] (UNCTAD (2009). Investment Policy Review: Nigeria. New York and Geneva: UN. Available online at http://archive.unctad.org/en/docs/diaes/diaepcb2008_en.pdf, pp. 7 & 11, accessed on 22 May 2012.

[29] Id.

[30] Waters, 1995:3-4, cited in Aborisade, F., (2002). Globalization and the Nigerian Labour Movement: A Critical Introduction. Ibadan: Centre for Labour Studies (CLS) and Movement Against Privatization (MAP).

[31] US National Security Strategy, 2002, p. 17, available online at http://merln.ndu.edu/whitepapers/USnss2002.pdf accessed on 23 May 2012.

[32] Ibid., pp. 6 & 32.

[33] Cited in S. V. Sander, S. V. Sander (2011), ‘The meaning of economic sovereignty: categorising sovereignty and the development of an un-stretched concept’ (available online at 10021391-3953.pdf (student.statsvet.uu.se/modules/student/.../visadokument.aspxid=3572), p. 4. Joseph Stiglitz is an American Professor of economics and was former Senior Vice President and Chief Economist of the World Bank

 

[34] Nigeria National Planning Commission, (2004). National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS).  Abuja: National Planning Commission, Nigeria.

[35] Ibid., p. Xi.

[36] Ibid., p. 52.

[37] Ibid., p. 59.

[38] Ibid., p. 87.

[39] Ibid., p. 77.

[40] Ibid., p. Xi.

[41] Ibid., p. 24.

[42]  Went, 2000 (Went, R. Globalization: Neoliberal Challenge, Radical Responses. London: Pluto Press with IIRE, 2000, cited in F. Aborisade (2006), op. Cit.

[43]  Snooks (2000:12), cited in  cited in F. Aborisade (2006), op. Cit.

[44] D. Harvey. (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

[45] F. Aborisade (2006), op. Cit.

[46] http://www.placng.org/home/Senate%20Order20Paper,%20Wednesday%20November%2030,2011.pdf accessed on 21 May 2012.

[47] P. Collier & A. Hofler (2002). ‘Greed and grievance in African Civil wars’mimeo,World Bank, cited in Xavier Sala-i-Martin and Arvind Subramanian (2003: 14). Addressing the natural resource Curse: An Illustration from Nigeria. IMF Working paper number WP/03/139.

[48] Cited in J. Okei-Odumakin (2012). ‘FUEL SUBSIDY REMOVAL: MYTHS, REALITIES AND THE WAY FORWARD’ paper presented at the symposium organized by Socialist Workers League On Tuesday 21st February, 2012 @ Lecture Theatre, Faculty Of Arts, University of Ibadan.

[49] Id.

[50] The Nation, online version, 12 February 2012.

[51] Xavier Sala-i-Martin and Arvind Subramanian (2003) Addressing the Natural Resource Curse: An Illustration from Nigeria. IMF. (IMF Working Paper No WP/03/139), p. 14.

[52] http://www.boston.com/news/world/africa/articles/2004/12/17/corruption_costs_nigeria_40_percent_of_oil_wealth_official_says/ (accessed on 22 May 2012).

[53] Op. Cit., supra, p. 4.

[54] Owolabi M. Bakre (2009).  Looting by the Ruling Elites, Multinational Corporations and the Accountants: The Genesis of Indebtedness, Poverty and Underdevelopment of Nigeria’, School of Accounting, Finance & Management, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester CO4 3SQ, United Kingdom.

[55] S. 15 sub section (5), Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, CFRN, 1999.

[56] Op. Cit.

[57]  cited in the Vanguard, 27 August 2009: 33.

[58] http://businessworldng.com/web/articles/2255/1/Nigerian-Workers-Least-paid-Among-Opec-Countries/Page1.html accessed on 20 May 2012.

[59]  (Fajana, S. (2010).“Collective bargaining in the oil sector”, Paper delivered at a workshop organized by Total E and P branch of PENGASSAN, Novotel Hotel, Port Harcourt, (5 June).

[60] L. Ndikumana & J. Boyce (2011). Africa’s Odious Debts – how foreign loans and capital flight bled a continent.  Zed Books. The authors show in reality that based on inflow and outflow of capital from Africa, Africa is indeed, a net creditor to the rest of the world (see http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137261/lamp195amp169once-ndikumanajames-boyce/africas-odious-debts-how-foreign-loans-and-capital-flight-bled-a).

 

 

[61] The pioneer industry scheme is limited to 69 listed industries. (See Industrial Development (Income Tax Relief) Act, CAP 179, LFN, 1990).

[62] UNCTAD (2009). Investment Policy Review: Nigeria. New York and Geneva: UN. Available online at http://archive.unctad.org/en/docs/diaes/diaepcb2008_en.pdf pp.35, 114, 32 and 33.

[63] Ibid.

[64] World Bank (2008). Doing Business Database.

[65] The selected countries, in terms of the degree of how liberal the labour regime is, were: Nigeria, Kenya, South Africa, Egypt, Algeria, Ghana and Morocco.

[66]  UNCTAD (2009), op. Cit. Pp. 37 &38.

[67] ILO (2006) LABORSTA Database.

[68] The selected countries, based on the volume of trade union density, in an ascending order, included Algeria, Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Morocco, Nigeria and South Africa.

[69] ILO (2000). Termination of Employment Digest. Geneva: ILO.

[70] Cited in (UNCTAD (2009). Investment Policy Review: Nigeria. New York and Geneva: UN. Available online at http://archive.unctad.org/en/docs/diaes/diaepcb2008_en.pdf p. 39, accessed on 22 May 2012.

 

[71] F. Aborisade (1992). Nigeria Labour Movement in perspective. Lagos: The Effective Company, p. 17.

[72] Id.

[73] O. Olorode (ND). ‘Trade Unions and the Political Process: The Quest for Democracy in Nigeria’.

[74] NLC (2007). Nigeria Labour Congress Policy Document, available online at http://www.nlcng.org/policydoc.pdf. Accessed on 19 May 2012.

 

[75]  Ss. 137 & 182, CFRN, 1999 for disqualification factors for Presidential and Governorship candidates respectively; S. 107, Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) for disqualification grounds for contesting an Area Council election.

[76] J. Motimer (2000). ‘The Formation of the Labour Party: Lessons for Today’. Available online at http://www.socialisthistorysociety.co.uk/MORTIMER.HTM. Accessed on 19 May 2012.