Opinion: IMF Inspired Economic Policy Reforms in Nigeria: Negative Effects
By Prof. John Imonbhio Abhuere
The visits by IMF officials in 2024 produced negative effects on both the IMF and Nigeria.
In this segment of my reflection on the IMF and nation building in Nigeria, I shall discuss some of them including how the visits alienated the citizens, created apathy and hatred for the IMF and shook the faith of many Nigerians in the ongoing reforms.
As we observed in the earlier part of this essay, the visitors were ambivalent, insensitive and insincere largely because of their ideological conviction and loyalty. Their behaviour especially the insincerity of the judgment of the IMF officials irked majority citizens of Nigeria into extreme anger against the IMF and the government of Nigeria for partying with the later. The endorsement of the current reforms inspite of their obvious failure was seen to be unkind, wrong and misleading.
While the judgement was generally at variance with the harsh reality on ground in Nigeria, the well known cat and mouse relationship between the IMF and its clients countries in Africa did not help matters. Both factors combined to weaken public trust in the organisation and to question the wisdom of government’s continuing business with the IMF.
Truly there is much cause for anger and disappointment with the attitude of the IMF staffers in Nigeria. However it should be observed and recognized that both Nigeria and the IMF need each other and can construct and have a more beneficial relationship.
For instance the IMF was created originally to drive development and Nigeria is is dire need of meaningful development. So there is a good meeting point to build a more cordial relationship. Some level of self correction, moderation of attitude, show of sincerity and respect for the dignity of man/ woman may be helpful here.
The task ought to be how to find a better and more rewarding option. However our observation is that the clog has been the wrong or inappropriate ideology of development foisted on the country by the IMF. The problem is that beyond the harsh capitalist model it peddles, the IMF officials cannot be sincere enough or fit to lead the drive or search for better model of development for developing countries. Nigeria can fashion out a more suitable model within the capitalist ideological family or outside it. There is no need to be a slave of a harsh and unrewarding system.
Yet for a better world, the IMF must be made to see reason and merit beyond its ideological boundaries. It must be ready to make behavioral, mental, attitudinal and ideological adjustments. Clients such as Nigeria must ready to make equal amend to their behavior especially their greedy, corrupting manner and negative management practices.
Fortunately, a better and more fruitful, functional approach is possible to find – provided there are good hands, the political will and the ideological conviction to do the needful-experiment with historical possibilities. Each country has to find its best path, but the IMF is finding this hard or difficult to accept.
We shall round up our reflection here by asking for improved relationship between IMF and developing countries for a better world. We shall start here by responding to the question often asked in some quarters: Is the IMF a friend, or a foe?
IS THE IMF A FRIEND OR ENEMY? (Public Perception of IMF as Enemy)
The visits by the IMF staffers to Nigeria deepened the public feeling, belief and perception of the IMF as an enemy of the ordinary citizens of the country. To recall the visits of the IMF officials to Nigeria were characterized by insensitivity to the plights of majority citizens, insincerity of intention, misleading conclusion and bad judgement. They made Nigerians to regard the IMF as enemy of the country. As the Holy Book has observed by “their fruits ye shall know them.”
Before the visits the question has often been asked in some quarters: Is the IMF a friend or an enemy? The dictionary defines a friend as “some one who has strong liking and trust in another, not an enemy or foe”. An enemy is the opposite-“one that is antagonistic to another, one seeking to injure, overthrow or confound an opponent”.
Understood this way the answer to the question raised here would depend largely on a number of factors including the kind of lenses one was wearing, the angle especially ideological one was looking at issues etc. For instance from the USA angle, the IMF has been the best thing ever to happen-a friend. But to many African countries it is the opposite- a foe. For us, IMF is both a friend and an enemy- but it is generally more of an enemy than a friend.
This observation should not be surprising. For instance, a man or woman who deliberately inflicts pains and hardship on an individual or society where there are better, far less painful ways, ignores or twists the the facts available for ideological reasons, constantly causes disharmony in the family, deny people’s freedom of thought and action -in short a man or woman who deliberately exploits one to his or her own advantage cannot be that one’s true friend.
The IMF is not a true friend of anyone beyond its capitalist ideological bound. A System that places its ideology far above the collective good of a given society , welfare and happiness of citizens of clients countries cannot be regarded as people -friendly. A system that places more premium on material than on human lives is not worth the trouble.
Sadly, this is what the IMF has been doing to many of its clients in Africa. It is the stuff which the organisation is made of. The organisation’s history’of pains in Africa especially due to the failure of its strategies, sad experience of the negative effects of its inspired policies, its stated purpose of existence, declared mission statement destined her to be more of an enemy than otherwise. Really by the nature of its birth and ideology, the IMF cannot be a true friend of anyone not seen to be within its capitalist ideological bounds. Here it can be likened to a snake which must strike any time its tail was touched.
TOO IDEOLOGICALLY RIGID AND DOUBLE FACED ORGANIZATIONS
Truly the IMF has been too ideologically rigid and antagonistic to those outside its ideological orbit or fold. It is also seen by many as a double- faced organization. And many clients in Africa have been accused of corruption and mismanagement funds and other resources of wealth. These and other factors had made building trust difficult here.
Trust is very important in any relationship-social, cultural, economic and political .For many reasons it has been difficult to build trust in the IMF. In Nigeria, the fear of presence of secret agents of governments (what Perkins2004 calls EHMs-Economic Hit Men) among the staff made the IMF’ visiting officials’ untrustworthy. Their pronouncements that betrayed a lack of objectivity in assessment confirmed public fear.
Their insincere attitude to the mass suffering in the country due to the negative effects of the unkind and extremely harsh but unfruitful reforms inspired by the IMF that had reportedly dis-empowered many citizens, nearly destabilized the country etc, further made the IMF to be regarded as an enemy – certainly not a good friend of the country.
The IMF has been very intolerant and highly resistant to local ideas . For instance many of its clients in Africa would want to have freedom in defining their ideological and developmental path to paradise but the IMF would not brood that. Rather it would foist on them bitter but ineffective pills in the name of conditionalities that had proved to be huge failure again and again.
As observed earlier it is also regarded by many as double- faced and it has been known not to waste time in applying its deadly big hammer on some “erring clients. That is one of the reasons it has been difficult to build trust here between the IMF and its clients.
A system that places more premium on material things than on human lives is not worth the trouble. This amongst others is what organizations such as the IMF are doing and famous for. And they are ready to stab a client at the back using covert measures for ideological reasons. To this extent of forceful conversion of clients to its view point, the IMF cannot be regarded as a good friend no matter the good intention behind its action. Rather, they are double- faced foes who are merciless, fierceful and ruthless in their methods and ideological pursuit.
Empirical evidences such as the back stabbing of some clients leading at times to political instability, death of leaders and fall of governments, unequal and lopsided relationship that exists between the IMF and its client- countries especially in Africa show the IMF as an oppressor, and more of a foe than a friend of these countries and their people.
In other words, given the historical sad experience of many developing countries, it would be proper to argue that the IMF is more of an enemy than a friend of these countries and their people. Generally it is more of an oppressor than a helper– a dispenser of misery to majority citizens. For instance, it was largely because of the negative effects of its inspired reforms, its oppressive and unfriendly disposition that many Nigerians went on nation wide protest, grumble aloud and tend to hate, distrust the IMF and doubt its sincerity of purpose. The IMF and its staff have been known to be insincere and dishonest in dealing with many clients. And many clients in Africa have been accused of corruption and mismanagement. There is the urgent need for the balancing of interests and attitudes for the common good of society.
NOT TOTALLY AN ENEMY
Still the IMF is totally not an enemy because it offers some lovely cakes to some of these countries even if on extremely harsh terms. While some of the recipient- nations have been known to display wreckless waywardness in the use of loans, grants and resources of wealth, it suffices to stress that enemies do not offer cakes to their foes unless poisoned ones. They do not do not offer developments assistance unless for entrapment or evil purposes. Some countries especially in western Europe have been known to have done with IMF intervention funds.
While this does not exonerate the organization of its many sins especially against developing countries, it is a good enough to show that the organisation is not an enemy per se but a hard core ideologue which does not accept no for an answer or brood exception or opposition.
On the whole, our point is that the IMF has its positive side to explore for progress. At least, the IMF was created with societal development and progress in view. As we have observed earlier an enemy does not discuss issues of development and progress with enemies or a hated one.
However, there is the need for utmost caution in dealing with IMF officials. This is so because most of them are cunning and ideologically rigid in their thoughts and actions. Nigerian leaders should not be flattered by their insincere smiles and misleading utterances. While it is dangerous and harmful to do so, the political elite must learn to go to the Dining table with clean hands and remain clean and unsoiled after dinner and evermore.
APATHY, ALIENATION, SUSPICION AND OTHERS
The visits by IMF Officials to Nigeria in 2024 produced apathy, alienation, suspicion and apathy for their organization in the country. As we know words can make or mar situations depending on how they are used. In particular bad words can infuriate, depress generate negative reactions of a group.
Effective communication and honest disposition are important in creating and winning support for change to achieve desired results. Improper or inappropriate communication can create problems some of them unintended including discouraging effective citizenry participation or support of policies and programs.
The pronouncements and judgment of the IMF’s visitors to Nigeria in 2024 failed this simple test of forging positive citizenry participation. The negative and untrue words of the the IMF visitors have generated negative feelings among the citizens for the IMF and growing distrust for its inspired policies in Nigeria.
It is a well known fact that citizens’ culture, shared values, feelings, emotions and participation are important in driving development and managing change successfully. According to Theodore D Weinshall ed1977 in Culture & Management who sees cultures as the sea of man’s operations, “the native culture of a person will affect the way he will approach his work”. …Culture influences what behavior is approved or disapproved
He explains “that most of us act, think and dream in terms of the norms and standards we have absorbed from the culture in which we are reared. That which our culture values, we value, that which our culture abhores we abhore…We can feel alone and unsure when the comfortable values of our old culture fall away, become irrelevant and replaced by nothing” or something useless. Culture is a great security that tells us frequently what is right and good… the problem is that what is good and right here may appear irrational and unpredictable eg Kissing p48-9.
End
* Prof. Abhuere fnim @ccydnigeria.com Centre for Child Care and Youth Development Nigeria, Abuja
