In May 1974, just a month before I concluded my primary education, I listened to a nationwide broadcast of General Yakubu Gowon’s presentation of Nigeria’s Third Five-Year National Development Plan whose implementation was to begin in 1975 and end in 1980. The First National Development Plan was from 1962-68, the Second Plan was from 1970-74. There has even been a Fourth Plan (1981-85), and there has been a Vision 2010.
The Third Plan was quite ambitious in budgetary terms. Proposed for capital expenditure was a sum of 30 billion naira, later increased to 43.3 billion naira, as against 2.2 billion naira for the First Plan, and 3.0 billion naira for the Second Plan.
The objectives of the Third Plan were to transform Nigeria into (i) a united, strong, and self-reliant nation; (ii) a great and dynamic economy; (iii) a just and egalitarian society; (iv) a land of bright and full opportunities for all citizens; and (v) a free and democratic society.
These long-term objectives were to be attained through some specific short-term objectives, namely, (i) an increase in per capital income; (ii) a more even distribution of income; (iii) a reduction in the level of unemployment; (iv) an increase in the supply of high level manpower; (v) a diversification of economy; (vi) a balanced development; and (vii) an indigenization of economic activity.
As a primary school pupil, I understood little about what the plan was about. Nonetheless, listening to the broadcast awoke in my young impressionable mind a spirit of patriotic enthusiasm. I began to imagine how Nigeria would be like the America I was seeing on television.
Fifty years after that broadcast, the scorecard shows that those five stated objectives, as well as the seven short-term instrumental objectives have only been attained in the breach. The first, the objective of a united, strong, and self-reliant nation is yet to be met. Wounds of the Nigeria-Biafra War, reopened by real or perceived marginalization, provoked separatist and secessionist sentiments. Xenophobic locutions and actions before, during and after the 2023 presidential election did not serve the interest of unity. Supporters of main contenders, rather than trade ideas on how Nigeria would be best governed, traded insults laced with ethnic slurs. That Nigeria is not strong but weak can be seen in her inability to protect her citizens from abductors and insurgent forces within her boundary.
The second objective, that of a great and dynamic economy, remains an unrealized potential. Far from being a self-sufficient nation, Nigeria’s economy remains largely dependent on economic superpowers. It is neither great nor dynamic.
The third objective, that of a just and egalitarian society, has equally remained elusive. One needs to be counted among the ruling elite in order to do business. Nigeria is yet to become “a land of bright and full opportunities for all citizens.” Her failure to meet this objective makes young Nigerians flee the land in the Japa Syndrome.
The fourth and fifth objectives are yet to be attained. Instead, thanks to a dangerously defective constitution and a political and electoral process patently lacking in credibility, Nigeria falls victim of a political class unresponsive to the needs and services of her citizens. Membership of this political class cuts across political parties. Indeed, all have sinned and are still sinning. The parties are themselves directed by members lacking democratic credentials. Outcomes of intra and inter-party elections are determined by inter-ethnic and inter-regional pacts of the elite, as well as alliances of political godsons and goddaughters and their political godfathers and godmothers.
It is often and rightly said that democracy is work in progress. But the quality of an edifice under construction is already noticeable in the manner and quality of its foundation. It cannot be truthfully asserted that a country possesses democratic credentials if her politicians neither consult nor are accountable to the people they claim to represent in government. Compelling, therefore, is the verdict that Nigeria is not a free and democratic society.
Nigeria failed to meet objectives of her Third Plan. Rather than improve, standard of living has deteriorated over the years. Why Nigeria failed to meet these seemingly lofty objectives is subject to debate. Two positions are cited here – one by A. Olufemi Lewis, the other by Yakubu Gowon.
Olufemi Lewis, in an essay entitled “Nigeria’s Third National Development Plan, 1975-80: An Appraisal of Objectives and Policy Frame”, quoted Sir Arthur Lewis who described the plan as possessing a “propensity to dazzle”. Indeed, it dazzled me as a primary school pupil. But, according to Lewis, the plan’s objectives could not be realized because while they appeal to “the national sentiments of many Nigerians” they lacked conceptual clarity, consistency, and concrete meaningfulness in operational terms. The plan prioritized economic growth over social objectives, making it difficult for people to perceive the unity of national objectives and their own interests. Such prioritization already defeated the objective of a united, strong, and self-reliant nation. These deficiencies, Lewis argued, made it impossible for the planners to come up with appropriate policy measures capable of implementing the plan.
Gowon, in a lecture entitled, “Alarming Decline in Education Standard in Nigeria: Reversing it and Moving Forward”, delivered at Afe Babalola University, Ado Ekiti, Ekiti State in 2011 blamed the unrealized objectives of the plan on the change of government in 1975 when he was toppled. Says Gowon: “The non-implementation of that Development Plan stunted Nigeria’s development and progress and created a number of the problems that we have and still haunt us in Nigeria today, notably education; power production and supply; transportation; roads, rail and ports development and manufacturing, among others.”
In Nigeria, every regime, every President comes up with his own plans, and, while suffering in excruciating economic and political pains, Nigerians are told to give every President time to settle down in office. One year is too short to evaluate a government, we are told. We are always admonished to be patiently hopeful and to constantly renew our hope. But decades of dazzling and dangling hope have made many into cynics and sceptics. I was hopeful as a primary six pupil. Fifty years later, I am no longer young. Yet, I am admonished to continue to renew my hope.
Hope does not deceive. But hope is different from vain expectation. When the veil of propaganda is lifted, privation of political, moral and technical will to do things right is exposed. Then the difference is clearly seen between a plan and a mere wish list, between hope and vain expectation.
Father (Prof) Anthony Akinwale, OP, in the Deputy Vice-Chancellor of Augustine University, Epe, Lagos Nigeria
