Historians and economists have recorded the era of Franklyn Delano Roosevelt, the 32nd President of the United States of America from 1933 – 1945, as the golden era in the development, shape, respect and global influence which the north American country has come to represent. In fact, the New York Times, at about the time he died in April, 1945, wrote, “men will thank God on their knees a 100 years from now that FDR was in the White House.”
Ironically, the lawyer, former Secretary of Navy and New York governor, assumed power when America was in turmoil. He was elected in 1933, when the American economy was in depression.
Life in America was hard, brutish and short. Factories that produced steel were closed. Automobile, furniture and other manufacturing businesses were down. Banks and the stock market failed and people lost billions of dollars.
Crops rotted in the field, hunger ravaged the land and there was no mechanism for any form of relief. One out of every four Americans was unemployed. More than half a million home owners couldn’t pay for mortgages.
It is recorded in America history that no decline had been so deep, lasting and far reaching than the America’s recession of the late 1920’s and 30’s. That was a country Roosevelt was saddled with as president. But, he had one thing in abundance: self-confidence; and a streak of stubbornness.
So, undaunted, he quickly assembled his team and hit the ground running. He came out with his administration’s “bible” to tackle the recession in a document he called the New Deal.
In it, he spelt out in clear terms policy steps to arrest the monster of recession. He introduced banking reforms and encouraged Americans to take their money back to the banks, rather than keeping it at home; he pumped money into massive public works and got Americans working again.
He introduced the G.I Bill, and against the tenets of capitalism and free market enterprise, instituted the social security system, a social safety net for non-working Americans.
For private businesses, he encouraged them to run productive enterprises by exempting them from trust laws; he wroteoff full cost of investment to generate substantial profit and by 1943, American production had caught up with Germany’s 10-year lead and was out-producing all the Allied and Axis Forces put together.
Coincidentally, the Nigerian experience today is almost akin to the America experience in the years of the Great Depression.
The Nigerian economy is down, with spiraling inflation, massive unemployment projected to be around 18 per cent, and weak currency; insurgency in the North East, the Niger Delta question, ethnic agitation and skirmishes in the South-East; the carnage in Southern Kaduna and other flash points.
There is the war against corruption and its massive back lash; poor infrastructure, hunger and lack of social safety net. The problems are legion. And like the American government under Herbert Hoover was tottering from 1928-32, the signs of our present economic predicament were there all along and only took the steep fall of the price of our mono-product (oil) for the effect to really show.
The Goodluck Jonathan years, with his Brettonwoods expert finance minister, were too preoccupied in waxing economy jargons than prepare for a day when oil price will tumble to $30 per barrel.
Unfortunately, it is Muhammadu Buhari that is taking the can! So far, efforts to tackle the monster of recession by the present administration have not brought the desired result. You can say it is too early in the day to conclude, but in comparison, can we see a semblance of altitude, method and commitment to tackling our current economic quagmire?
Is there a conscious effort by the Buhari-led government to stay on top of the situation and pull the economy out of the wood? Do we have the personnel and thinkers in government to help Buhari fix the economy like FDR did? Are the economic drivers in the right mode to take us out of the sliding recession? The answers to these questions are both negative and positive.
In fact, I can say that our metaphorical FDR is tottering down here, maybe at the starting point or a little down the road. In sectorial comparidling insurgency, we may have decimated the insurgents, but definitely the war is not won.
Most of the Chibok girls are still at large and we are continually having pockets of killings directed at soft targets. In FDR’s case, it took America several years to build war arsenal to help the Allied Forces beat the Axis.
On the economic front, the only noticeable impact is in the agric sector, where massive production of major staple is going on. Rice, hitherto imported with billions of dollars yearly, is beginning to germinate here. The difference is that the price in the market place has not shown drastic reduction yet.
There is renewed effort in making sure tomatoes and other edibles, which we enthusiastically imported, are now being grown, and even fast yielding varieties have been developed. Infrastructural development can hardly be measured. Though 30 per cent of the budget is allocated to capital expenditure in this year’s budget, it is grossly inadequate.
Uncle FDR defied even Congress to spend massively on infrastructure to get Americans working again. The economic aphorism that you have to spend your way out of recession should be strictly applied. It worked in the USA in the 1930s. Other sectors like health, education, and other social services are not kicking but efforts should be geared toward revamping the sectors.
The similarities and differences between FDR and PMB, taking their countries through peculiar difficult time should be gauged in time and space. Both leaders are bold and persistent. They are criticised on different fronts.
A theologian, Reinhold Niebur had described FDR’s social security program as “allowing capitalism to die.” A political analyst, Walter Lippman, even encouraged him to be more dictatorial (in a democracy) to achieve results. PMB is equally having a big dose of criticisms in the method and pace of his governing style.
In all, we have to agree that self-confidence, stubborn streak and galvanising citizens towards goals brought about FDR success. But, he did more. He was able to communicate to the citizens.
He held regular press conferences and hosted fireside talk shows. He persuaded Americans to give his programmes support and the citizens lined up behind him.
Till date, he is the only American president who served above the mandatory two terms mandate in office. Our PMB may have self confidence and stubborn streak but he is not in sync with the citizens in regular interface through the media. PMB must institute reform in all cadre of government.
He should reject Charles Darwin’s survival of the fittest, Adam Smith’s Laissez-Faire and Karl Marx’s tnational antagonism between capital and labour, and focus on the interdependence among them. And if the graduate employment scheme, N5,000 monthly stipend for the very poor and the school feeding programme are taken along, then FDR would be here in spirit.
