Tinubu’s Bravado, Not Boldness: A Hard-Hitting Policy Rebuke

By Boney Akaeze

I have read numerous narratives, most of them well written, and polished with rhetorical flurish and admirable command of diction, all in defense of what may be described as President Tinubu’s tragic or backfired policy strategy. Regrettably, they often amount to little more than eloquent prose bereft of substance.

Another source of regret is that these narratives, laden with pedestrian arguments, frequently emanate from individuals who ordinarily should know better. Yet one can never be oblivious to how difficult it is to confront the truth and successfully dispute it. Whenever one sets out to speak the truth, one is liberated from the entanglements of illogical reasoning, for a clear conscience and the consciousness of good intention leave little room for ambiguity.

Another source of regret is that these narratives ladden with pedestrian arguments, frequently emanate from individuals who ordinarily, should know better. Yet, one can never be oblivious to how difficult it is to confront the truth, and successfully dispute. Whenever one sets out to speak the truth, one is liberated from illogical reasoning, for a clear conscience and the consciousness of good intention, leave little or no room for ambiguity.

After three years of Mr. President’s policy strategy and with the dire consequences now unmistakably evihent, this choir of defenders has remained unapologetic in justifying what has become obviously the indefensible. They continue to insist that the President’s policy choices represent bold and courageous leadership. Yet; the fact the suggest otherwise. In their enthusiasm to defend the administration, they have persistently mistaken braverdo for bravery.

True bravery is not merely the willingness to undertake drastic measures; it is the capacity to pursue difficult policies that are grounded in sound judgment, guided by a clear vision, and capable of producing tangible benefits for the people. Bravado, by contrast, is often characterized by dramatic gestures undertaken without adequate consideration of their consequences, while expecting applause simply because they appear daring.

It is this score that I present a brief comparative analogy between President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s response to the Great Depression in the USA and the policy trajectory pursued by President Tinubu.

I find the comparison instructive because it highlights the distinction between boldness that delivers results and boldness that merely advertises itself as courage.

PRESIDENT FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT AND GREAT DEPRESSION

Under the administration of President Herbert Hoover (Republican), the United States experienced a catastrophic collapse of its economic system. This period came to be known as the Great Depression because it brought unprecedented hardship to the American population. Hoover’s widely criticized handling of the economic crisis contributed significantly to his defeat by Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democrat) in the 1932 presidential election.

The economic collapse, with its devastating consequences for the living conditions of the majority of Americans, was largely triggered by unethical practices within the country’s capitalist economy. The banking sector and the stock market harbored some of the most predatory actors whose actions contributed to the disaster.

Upon assuming office in early 1933, President Roosevelt moved decisively to halt the depression and place the economy on the path to recovery and sustainable growth. To achieve this, his administration designed and implemented a strategy popularly known as the New Deal which was anchored three pillars of Relief, Recovery, and Reform (The 3Rs).

In this strategy, Relief represented the immediate phase of action. Its central objective was to alleviate the hardship faced by the majority of the population and stimulate psychological rejuvenation across the nation. The action plan featured measures aimed at reviving depressed household consumption and increasing the production of fast-moving consumer goods at affordable prices. These measures were supported by mass employment programmes and fair wages designed to boost household income and enhance the purchasing power of ordinary citizens.

Under the Recovery component, the government turned its attention to the banking sector and stock market actors whose activities had contributed to the crisis. The Roosevelt administration recognized that, owing to the loose regulatory standards of the 1920s, many of the culprits had technically acted within the bounds of the law. Consequently, rather than pursuing criminal prosecutions, the government exposed them publicly, subjected them to public scrutiny and shame, and imposed civil penalties substantial enough to permanently damage their reputations and fortunes.

Some of the prominent Wall Street titans whose careers were ruined included:

Charles E. Mitchell – Head of National City Bank (now Citibank). He was exposed for avoiding substantial income taxes by “selling” stock to his wife at a loss. He was arrested, forced to resign in disgrace, and subjected to a massive civil settlement.
Albert Wiggin – Head of Chase National Bank. He was exposed for short-selling his own company’s stock during the market crash, profiting enormously while investors suffered devastating losses. The scandal forced him out of the banking industry.
Richard Whitney – Popularly regarded as the ultimate representative of the old Wall Street establishment and a former president of the New York Stock Exchange. Although he initially resisted President Roosevelt’s regulatory agenda, he was eventually exposed for embezzlement and successfully prosecuted through the determined efforts of District Attorney Thomas E. Dewey.

The Reform component focused on enacting legislation designed to consolidate and sustain the gains of the first two phases while creating robust safeguards against future occurrences of similar economic disasters.

One of the most decisive steps taken by President Roosevelt as part of the reform agenda was the strategic use of the immense public outrage generated by these high-profile exposures and public reckonings. He leveraged this momentum to permanently curtail Wall Street’s previously unchecked power through a series of sweeping legislative measures, which represented a new legal framework designed to regulate financial markets and prevent a recurrence of the excesses that had contributed to the Great Depression

As is often the case, critics identified shortcomings in both the implementation and outcomes of the New Deal programme. Nevertheless, there remains broad recognition of the discipline and determination with which President Roosevelt and his team pursued their agenda. Of particular significance was their uncompromising resolve to dismantle the aura of invincibility that had long surrounded Wall Street’s previously untouchable financial elites, demonstrating that they were not beyond the reach of the American state.

This brief article was penned down in response to the falsehood of Tinubu’s choir of propagandists and the symbolism of the immortal words of Wole Soyinka,’The man dies in all who keep silent in the face of tyranny.”

Boney Akaeze writes from Asaba, Delta State