Nigerians are suffering, and that suffering is becoming political currency. The way to take that currency away from politicians is not to accuse them of exploiting it. The way is to reduce the suffering itself.
By Shu’aibu Usman Leman
The renewed debate over petrol subsidy has once again exposed a troubling gap between political rhetoric and the daily reality of ordinary Nigerians.
Former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar’s call for the restoration of petrol subsidy gives the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) a legitimate reason to question his consistency. After all, he previously supported the removal of the subsidy, and his change of position is therefore a valid political issue.
But, in my view, the government would be better served by doing more than dismissing his proposal as mere “desperation for power”. Atiku may well be seeking to turn the hardship Nigerians are experiencing into political sympathy ahead of the next elections. That is hardly unusual. Opposition politicians everywhere seek to convert public dissatisfaction with the government of the day into electoral advantage.
But there is an uncomfortable truth the government must not overlook, that a politician cannot successfully exploit suffering that does not exist.
And the suffering Nigerians are experiencing is real. Across the country, families are struggling with the rising cost of food, transportation, electricity and other basic necessities. The purchasing power of workers and pensioners has been severely eroded, while many young Nigerians face an increasingly uncertain economic future.
READ ALSO:
With me, Nigeria will be great again – Peter Obi
For ordinary citizens, these are not abstract economic statistics or political talking points. They are the realities of everyday life. It is therefore understandable that any politician promising relief would attract attention and, potentially, sympathy.
This is precisely why I believe the government’s response to Atiku should be less about questioning his motives and more about addressing the conditions that make his argument politically attractive in the first place.
If the administration believes that returning to the old petrol subsidy regime would be economically irresponsible, then it must make that case convincingly to Nigerians. It should explain clearly why the subsidy was removed, what has been achieved since its removal and, most importantly, how the benefits of the reform will eventually reach ordinary citizens. The strongest response to Atiku is not political name-calling. It is performance.
The administration has consistently argued that subsidy removal was necessary to rescue the national economy from an unsustainable fiscal burden. There is a strong economic argument for eliminating an opaque and costly subsidy regime.
But economic reforms cannot be judged solely by their effect on government finances. They must also be judged by their effect on the lives of the people.
If government revenue improves while millions of Nigerians continue to struggle to feed their families, pay transport fares and meet basic household expenses, the administration must expect legitimate questions about how the gains from reform are being distributed.
That is the uncomfortable reality the APC should confront. Rather than spending too much energy attacking Atiku’s motives, the government should spend more time showing Nigerians what has happened to the resources freed by subsidy removal.
Citizens deserve straightforward answers. How much has been saved, and where has the money gone? How much has been invested in infrastructure, healthcare, education, social protection and productive sectors? What tangible improvements have ordinary Nigerians actually experienced? These are the questions that matter.
Atiku’s proposal to restore subsidy should, of course, be subjected to equally rigorous scrutiny. Nigerians deserve to know precisely what he means by restoring the subsidy and how much would it cost, who would benefit, how would it be financed, would it be temporary or permanent, and what safeguards would prevent the leakages, corruption and abuses associated with the old system?
These are legitimate questions that any serious presidential contender must answer.
But the government must also be prepared to answer equally serious questions about its own policy. The debate should not be reduced to whether Atiku has changed his position. Yes, he has, and that inconsistency is a legitimate political issue.
But Nigerians are entitled to ask a more fundamental question of what the government is doing now to reduce the suffering that makes a return to subsidy politically attractive?
It is not enough to tell citizens that the old system was unsustainable. The government must offer them a credible and sustainable alternative.
If subsidy removal is ultimately to deliver prosperity, Nigerians need to see evidence of that promise. They need affordable and reliable public transport, stable electricity, more manageable food prices, decent employment opportunities, stronger purchasing power and social protection that actually reaches those who need it most.
Above all, they need to believe that the sacrifices they are being asked to make are being shared fairly. That is where the real political battle should be fought.
Atiku may be exploiting public frustration for political advantage. But that possibility should not distract the government from the uncomfortable truth that the frustration itself is genuine.
Indeed, the more government dismisses citizens’ complaints as politically motivated, the easier it becomes for opposition politicians to present themselves as champions of the suffering masses.
The APC should therefore be careful. Calling political opponents desperate may win a fleeting media exchange, but it will not reduce the price of food in the market. It will not lower transport fares. It will not put more money into the pockets of struggling families.
Government policy should ultimately be judged by the difference it makes in the lives of citizens, not simply by the eloquence with which officials defend it.
The government has every right to challenge policy reversals and question the economic feasibility of restoring petrol subsidy. It is entirely reasonable to demand that Atiku explain how such a policy would be financed and sustained.
But political sparring must not obscure the more urgent responsibility before the administration. Nigerians are suffering, and that suffering is becoming political currency.
The way to take that currency away from politicians is not to accuse them of exploiting it. The way is to reduce the suffering itself.
If the administration can bring down the cost of living, improve infrastructure, expand employment, strengthen social protection and ensure that the benefits of economic reforms are widely shared, promises to return to the old subsidy regime will naturally lose much of their appeal.
Nigerians are not looking for the politician who can make the loudest argument about petrol subsidy. They are looking for leadership that can make their lives better.
That, in my view, is where the national focus should remain. Let the opposition campaign. Let the ruling party defend its policies. Let politicians challenge one another over the future direction of the economy.
But above all, let the government address the acute suffering of the people. That would be a far more convincing answer to its critics than simply calling them desperate for power.
