Chidi Amuta

 President Tinubu may have stumbled on a sustaining logic and viable mission for his political future. Prior to last fortnight, I was among those who were doubting what narrative or political argument could sustain Mr. Tinubu’s interest in a 2027 run. Now, there seems to be something in the works. It is the fickle and belated argument that Nigerians had lived a fake life of petro consumerism before last May’s removal of petroleum subsidy. Prior to then, we all had lived a ‘fake life’ of prodigal waste.

We were splurging on our oil wealth through unlimited burning of cheap fuel. We were owning and driving fleets of multiple cars. We were often going to nowhere in particular in these cars. Those with no cars or rickshaws were using cheap gasoline to powered noisy ‘I pass my Neighbour’ generators to power homes,  run tiny businesses or just pollute the air in order to charge their phones for gossiping on social media.

In other cases, we were watching helplessly as greedy smugglers trucked loads of cheap gasoline across the borders and hauling in stashes of cheap cash. Oil oligarchs were fleecing the state through opaque and dubious oil subsidy scams. The annual national budget was being manipulated and padded to provide and pay for dubious subsidy provisions.

Then came a savior, so the new narrative goes. On May 29th 2023, an elected messiah strolled in with a message of salvation casually delivered: “oil subsidy is gone!” Mr. Tinubu casually commanded an end to the bazaar of fake life. No systematic thinking followed the policy jolt. No measures to protect us from this casual cruelty. Only hints from the IMF suggested an informed policy. But the public cruelty was unmistakable, total and instant. The mass suffering was undisguised. Living costs shot through the roof. Transportation costs sent every other cost upwards till now. As it were, the whole society was being compelled to do penance for a past life of wasteful oil consumption. A fake and indulgent past life was bound to end as a new sheriff swept into town. This seems to be the new narrative.

This thoughtless policy announcement is now being painted as a messianic intervention of epic proportions. Tinubu has come to save us from our past prodigality. What has so far been an accidental presidency is now being rebranded into a salvation mission.  A squad of clueless political jobbers hurriedly assembled as a government is now being cast as an army of reformers out to save an economy and punish a wasteful society for its past sins. A basically clueless president now wants to be greeted as a crusading messianic figure who came to end a culture of fake wasteful consumption of the nation’s oil resources in the form of cheap gasoline.

Tinubu was speaking recently through a surrogate at the graduation ceremony of a University in Kwara state. Nigerians are enamored of fake things, quacks and false prophets and politicians that parade fake credentials and false promises.

The pronouncement went viral. In a nation that is instinctively religious in its understanding of public issues, the accusation of a past fake life of unthinking consumption caught on. Nigerians had sinned in the oast and are now paying for their past sins. The president was accusing the Nigerian populace of the sin of past gluttony and waste. The president is now a messiah with an implicit mandate to end the fake life and replace it with one of prudence and frugality. The higher pump process and mass pauperization are aspects of the penance that we all have to pay for our past sins. The removal of oil subsidy is now presented as a much deserved act of expiation for past sins. Our people are being punished to do penance for a past life of prodigal waste and reckless indulgence.

To the best of my knowledge, the Tinubu presidency has so far not come up with a strong enough argument that could necessitate a 2027 run for a second term. Yet the machinery for a second term run is everywhere in evidence. Pressure groups are springing up in all corners of the nation. Carefully nominated spokespersons are making coordinated noises. Yet, the public has not quite seen in the episodic style of governance anything that should support lacks an argument. Its programs lack a consistency. It’s achievement remain scanty and eclectic. It has not articulated a systematic program that could sustain government for four years. And yet, the administration is nearly halfway through its tenure. How to find justification for the remaining time and onwards to 2027 remains the lingering political problem of the administration. Therefore, stumbling on this messianic streak could be a saving grace. Clearly, the magnitude of national problems that remain unaddressed is a mountain. It is easier to replace the multitude of problems with a single messianic salvation mission.

Couched in terms of saving us all from a sinful fake life, the mandate of the Tinubu presidency becomes both a moral and economic crusade. Coupled with foreign exchange and other economic policy crises, the fuel subsidy removal salvation mandate can stand as a national economic reform measure. But taken together, their negative impacts cannot market them politically for another presidential term. But dressed in moral garb, a mission to encourage an end to a fake life could pass for a crusade for a review of our moral values.

Tinubu wants to migrate from an economic reformer to a moral crusader for a new economic order. But in order to make that somersault, Mr. Tinubu will need a total makeover. He needs to revamp and come clean on his personal credentials.  He needs to rejig his team by replacing fellow travelers and debt collectors with technocrats. He needs to revise his priorities and revise or even review the agenda of his creaky party.

Those expensive real estate renovations in his previous budgets need urgent review. Those new executive jets, fleets of SUVs and those lengthy motorcades and yachts etc do not quite fit into any reformist moral agenda. You need to save yourself before setting out to save others! The question remains this: does Mr. Tinubu have the moral credentials to navigate Nigeria from an assumed sinful past?

It is politically unwise in any case for a leader to set himself above the people. It is erroneous to posit the people as sinners and the leader as a saint. The consumption of subsidized petroleum products is the result of past government policies. Tinubu was here with us through the various dispensations that instituted the subsidized petrol prizes. He and his numerous businesses was a beneficiary of the subsidized prices. It is doubtful whether he and his relations and associates were totally innocent of the wheeling and dealing in petroleum products imports that sustained the subsidy regime.

The most important requirement of credible political leadership is to rise above a messianic posturing and immerse oneself in the crises and problems in which the people find themselves. The challenge of credible political leadership is to face the problems of a tenure and seek to resolve them by uplifting the people from the challenges that torment them. To distance oneself from the challenges and posit oneself above the people is false consciousness which can at best convert the leader into an aloof and distant messianic figure far removed from the realities that define general social existence.

If 2027 is the issue on hand, then the Tinubu government must face up to the challenge of that our current problems are largely the result of both its inherited and self-created policy quagmire. Tinubu created the subsidy removal and its serial conseqences. He created the consequences of the foreign exchange merger. He imposed the myriad taxes, levies, tariffs, charges that have joined forces to make life unlivable for most Nigerians. Hunger became a national feature under his watch just as suicide became an option for a lot of Nigerians seeking to escape from the harrowing realities of the present time.

The road to escape from these consequences of present day policies should be the basis of whatever new thinking the president and his team want to advance for a possible 2027 run. Better solutions to the problems already created by the Tinubu government should be the basis of any credible opposition to the Tinubu incumbency.

There is no need to negatively brand all Nigerians or consign us all into a tribe of sinners just to find a narrative to ennoble Mr. Tinubu’s rudderless stewardship find an excuse for its elongation. We are already suffering enough of the consequences of bad governance. There is no need to call us names, insult us further or, for that matter, burden us with guilt just to sit comfortably on its bruised backs.

Dr. Amuta, a Nigerian journalist, intellectual and literary critic, was previously a senior lecturer in literature and communications at the universities of Ife and Port Harcourt.

African countries are facing tough financial times. External debt has tripled since 2008, dramatically pushing up the amount being spent on servicing loans. This means there’s less money to spend on critical things like health and education. Kevin P. Gallagher and Abebe Shimeles argue that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has the means to make a huge difference by making better and more extensive use of Special Drawing Rights. These aren’t a currency, but countries can use them to pay back IMF loans, or they can exchange them for foreign currencies. African countries should use the IMF meetings underway in Washington to lobby for more of these rights to be issued and for their distribution to be made more equitable and easier.

At the 2021 UN Climate Summit, Barbados prime minister Mia Mottley called for more and better use of special drawing rights (SDRs), the International Monetary Fund’s reserve asset. The special drawing right is an international reserve asset created by the IMF. It is not a currency – its value is based on a basket of five currencies, the biggest chunk of which is the US dollar, followed by the euro. It is a potential claim on the freely usable currencies of IMF members. Special drawing rights can provide a country with liquidity.  Countries can use their special drawing rights to pay back IMF loans, or they can exchange them for foreign currencies.

As Mottley is the newest president of the Climate Vulnerable Forum and Vulnerable Group of 20 (V20) finance ministers, which represents 68 climate-vulnerable countries that are among those with the most dire liquidity needs, including 32 African countries, her call would be directly beneficial to African countries.

In August 2021, as the shock from the COVID-19 pandemic battered their economies, African countries received a lifeline of US$33 billion from special drawing rights. This amounts to more than all the climate finance Africa receives each year, and more than half of all annual official development assistance to Africa. This US$33 billion did not add to African countries’ debt burden, it did not come with any conditions, and it did not cost donors a single cent to provide.

IMF members can vote to create new issuances of special drawing rights. They are then distributed to countries in proportion to their quotas in the IMF. Quotas are denominated in special drawing rights, the IMF’s unit of account.

Quotas are the building blocks of the IMF’s financial and governance structure. An individual member country’s quota broadly reflects its relative position in the world economy. Thus, by design, the poorest and most vulnerable countries receive the least when it comes to quotas and voting shares.

Special drawing rights cannot solve all of Africa’s economic challenges. And their highly technical nature means they are not always well understood. But at a time when African countries are facing chronic liquidity challenges – most countries in the region are spending more on debt service payments than they are on health, education, or climate change – our new research shows that special drawing rights can play an important role in establishing financial stability and enabling investments for development.

Financial stability includes macroeconomic stability (such as low inflation, healthy balance of payments, sufficient foreign reserves), a strong financial system and resilience to shocks.

African leaders are approaching a critical year-long opportunity: in November, the first Group of 20 (G20) summit will convene (with the African Union in attendance as a member for the first time). Then in December South Africa assumes the G20 presidency.

As African leaders advocate for reforms to the international financial architecture, maximising the potential of special drawing rights should be a central component of their agenda.

The problem

African countries’ finances are facing tough times. External debt in sub-Saharan Africa has tripled since 2008. The average government is now spending 12% of its revenue on external debt service. The COVID-19 pandemic, Russia’s war in Ukraine, and rises in interest rates and the prices of commodities, like food and fertiliser, have all contributed to this trend.

Debt restructuring mechanisms have also proved inadequate. Countries like Zambia and Ghana got stuck in lengthy restructurings. Weak institutional capacity and poor governance also impede efficient use of public resources.

At the same time, African economies need to increase investment to advance development, support a young and growing population, develop climate resilience and take advantage of the opportunity presented by the energy transition.

To meet the resources for a just energy transition and the attainment of the UN 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, investment in climate and development will have to increase from around 24% of GDP (the average for Africa in 2022) to 37%.

Special drawing rights have proved to be an important tool in addressing these challenges. Research by the IMF and others shows that African countries significantly benefited from the special drawing rights they received in 2021 to stabilise their economies. And this happened without worsening debt burdens or costing advanced economies any money, particularly as they cut development aid.

However, advanced economies exercise significant control over the availability of special drawing rights. The IMF’s quota system determines both voting power and their distribution. Advanced economies control most of the IMF’s quotas.

The advanced economies made the right decision in 2021 and in 2009 to issue new special drawing rights and the time has come again.

The solution

African and other global south leaders need to make a strong case for another issuance of special drawing rights at the IMF and World Bank meetings in Washington.

In addition to a new issuance of special drawing rights, advanced economies still need to be pressured to re-channel the hundreds of billions of special drawing rights sitting idle on their balance sheets into productive purposes.

The 2021 allocation of special drawing rights amounted to US$650 billion in total. But only US$33 billion went to African countries due to the IMF’s unequal quota distribution. Meanwhile advanced economies with powerful currencies and no need for special drawing rights received the lion’s share.

The African Development Bank has spearheaded one such proposal alongside the Inter-American Development Bank. Under this plan, countries with unused special drawing rights could re-channel them to the African Development Bank as hybrid capital, allowing the bank to lend around $4 for each $1 of special drawing rights it receives.

The IMF approved the use of special drawing rights as hybrid capital for multilateral development banks in May. But it set an excessively low limit of 15 billion special drawing rights across all multilateral development banks.

Even so, advanced economies have been slow to re-channel special drawing rights. The close to $100 billion that have been re-channelled – mostly to IMF trust funds – is meaningful.

But it still falls short of what should have been re-channelled. In the long term, IMF governance reforms are needed to avoid a repeat of the inefficient distribution of special drawing rights.

As African countries rightly push to change shortcomings of the international financial architecture, new special drawing rights issuances should be at the centre of such a strategy. The IMF’s 2021 special drawing rights issuance showed the tool’s scale and importance. And special drawing rights re-channelling has had positive effects in easing debt burdens and freeing up financing to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic.

With 2030 approaching and the window shrinking for climate action, global leaders should be using all the tools at their disposal, including special drawing rights, to build a more resilient future.

Kevin P. Gallagher is a Professor of Global Development Policy and Director, Global Development Policy Center, Boston University

Abebe Shimeles is a Honorary Professor, University of Cape Town

Courtesy: The Conversation

The conclusion of COP29 in Baku has left the world with a bittersweet taste. The agreement, which pledges $1.3 trillion in climate finance by 2035, is overshadowed by the paltry $300 billion in direct commitments for grants and low-interest loans. This meager offering, masked by promises of mobilized funds from unspecified “public and private” sources, is a stark reminder of the global North’s failure to rise to the moral and practical demands of the climate crisis.

For the developing world, the message is clear: once again, they are expected to shoulder disproportionate burdens, receiving less than 1% of what they are rightfully owed based on historic emissions. The injustice is glaring. An LSE study estimated that developing nations are entitled to $192 trillion by 2050 as reparations for the carbon budget consumed by the industrialized world. Yet, even raising this conversation in diplomatic arenas remains taboo.

Climate Finance: Beyond Charity

Climate finance is not charity—it is survival. The funds pledged are not only about protecting lives and livelihoods in the global South but also about ensuring a green transition that benefits the entire planet. If countries in the developing world fail to transition to renewable energy due to a lack of resources, the resulting emissions will exacerbate global warming, with devastating impacts everywhere.

The UN Secretary-General aptly described climate finance as “an investment against the devastation that unchecked climate chaos will inflict on us all.” However, with developed nations citing domestic political and economic constraints as excuses for inadequate action, the Alice-in-Wonderland reality persists: a consensus on the need for action coexists with a political paralysis that undermines it.

The Roadmap to Justice

The $300 billion annual commitment may suffice to attract private investment and new forms of financing like carbon trading and fossil fuel levies, but only if followed by genuine implementation and accountability. Past summits have shown us the fragility of such commitments, with promises often evaporating in the face of competing priorities.

Yet, there is hope in the roadmap to $1.3 trillion by 2035 — a benchmark that, if pursued rigorously, could hold governments accountable. Additionally, Brazil’s leadership at the next COP in Belém offers a glimmer of optimism. A region deeply affected by the climate crisis, Latin America has the moral and strategic impetus to push for more ambitious action.

The Islamic Perspective: A Moral Imperative

For the Islamic world, climate justice is not just a diplomatic issue; it is a moral imperative grounded in the principles of fairness, stewardship (khilafah), and collective responsibility. The failure to support vulnerable nations contradicts the Quranic call to “not cause corruption on the earth” (2:11). Developed nations must remember their duty to preserve the planet as a trust from Allah and their responsibility to address the inequalities their historical emissions have caused.

Call to Action

Baku’s summit reflects the inadequacy of current global climate governance mechanisms. As the world turns its eyes to Brazil, the Islamic world must take a leadership role, advocating for an equitable climate finance structure that prioritizes grants over loans, alleviates crippling debt, and delivers real reparations. This is not about charity or goodwill; it is about survival, equity, and the realization of a just global order.

The road to 1.5°C is narrowing, and the time for bold, collective action is now. The Islamic world, with its shared values and vision of justice, must rise as a beacon of hope, urging the global community to move from rhetoric to meaningful action. We owe it to ourselves, to future generations, and to the principles that bind humanity together.