August 3, 2013 § Leave a comment
Kenneth Amaeshi, PhD
I borrowed the first part of the title of this article from a Commentary by Christopher Akor on Sahara Reporter’s online portal (June 15, 2011). The piece ostensibly resonated very well with many readers given the comments it attracted. Two years down the line, MTN Nigeria, like the proverbial leopard, literally appears incapable of changing its spots. This is worrying given the recent pronouncement of MTN Nigeria as a dominant operator in the Nigerian mobile voice communications market – 44% share of the market!! – (NCC, April 25, 2013).
I have been a pre-paid customer of MTN Nigeria for a while now. I will struggle to classify myself as an uninformed customer – although it is easy to be unwittingly dragged by the likes of MTN Nigeria into doubting one’s cognitive and information processing capabilities through their unclear and in some instances, outrightly mischievous marketing strategies. MTN Nigeria appears to excel and thrive in this game of misinformation and information distortion. Here is an example: “Wow! The smartest way to recharge! Get double your recharge. Dial *888*PIN# from 6pm Friday to 11:59pm Sunday”. On the face of it, it looks straightforward, right? Dial *888*PIN# from 6pm Friday to 11:59pm Sunday and get double your recharge.
This is my layman’s interpretation of this message, but I was fooled. I did not know it was a hoax! I saw it, mentioned it to a friend and he tried it on a Saturday evening only to realise that the “double recharge” promised in the marketing message would expire at 11:59pm on Sunday. One would ordinarily expect that once the recharge is made within the stipulated time frame, the usage would continue as long as the customer wanted it based on his or her usage. If MTN Nigeria wanted to be clear and explicit with customers, I wonder why it did not also state in the same message when the doubled recharge would expire. That also left me wondering what MTN Nigeria had in mind in constructing such a deceitful and misleading message in a very unclear manner.
On a similar note of seeming roguish behaviour, I use the MTN Nigeria blackberry services. I sometimes use the blackberry service to watch video clips on my phone, which I considered part of my blackberry service deal. However, without notice recently, I suddenly realised that MTN Nigeria opted out of my blackberry services and deducted from my call recharge credit instead for downloading video clips on my phone. Again, I find this practice very bizarre, predatory, and unfriendly; and it left me wondering why a firm like MTN Nigeria would engage in such ruthless pranks and gimmicks, despite its market dominance.
In my opinion, these despicable acts speak volumes in themselves, and I suspect there are many of such roguish behaviours out there. In conclusion, I came to the view that either MTN Nigeria thinks Nigerians are mind-readers or it is clearly out to prey on its customers. The latter is not untypical of big dominant firms with monopolistic tendencies, which MTN Nigeria seems to exhibit profusely. The bewildering dimension of it all is that MTN Nigeria would still go about posturing as a socially responsible organization. Yet, the company seems to forget that social responsibility goes beyond setting up a philanthropic corporate foundation. Misselling and misinformation, as allegedly exhibited in the examples above, are clearly acts of social irresponsibility.
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) ought to be a sincere and genuine corporate commitment to reducing its negative impacts and increasing its positive impacts on its different stakeholder groups (e.g. customers, shareholders, employees, regulators, the government, unions, local communities, et cetera). It is about Creating Shared Value – i.e. win-win outcomes for the business and the society. It is a business orientation and culture that recognises the firm as an entity embedded in a network of relationships with different stakeholder groups; and to be successful and sustainable, a business should be genuinely committed and responsive to these stakeholder groups. It should afford any firm that is truly committed to it a richer and more advanced paradigm to continuously challenge its business purpose and align itself to its core values, aspirations and mission. It is a way of maintaining the legitimacy of a firm’s actions in the larger society by bringing its stakeholder concerns to the foreground and minimizing information asymmetries between actors.
MTN Nigeria appears to be far from this view of a socially responsible firm in the marketplace. To a large extent, it still seems to exhibit the locust behavior characteristic of impatient foreign investors. Yes, it was a risk for MTN to invest in Nigeria. Yes, MTN should recover its investments and extract as much value as possible. However, this shouldn’t be at all cost and by all means – including marketing pranks. Despite its alleged propensity to extort, MTN Nigeria would be better off considering itself as a truly Nigerian firm that has come to stay and behave as such. Otherwise, the long term sustainability of the firm is very much at risk. MTN should not be the proverbial roasting grasshopper that thinks of itself as an oily creature!
I have written this article to express my frustration. It is also an attempt to encourage other Nigerians to learn to hold firms like MTN Nigeria accountable for their seeming reckless behaviours and irresponsibility masked as competitive strategy. If we don’t, they will continue to take advantage of us all in the name of legitimate profit-seeking behaviours. I lost about N1,300 in my case, which I could have chosen to ignore; but imagine 100,000 Nigerians suffering the same fate! That’s a whooping N130m!! Little drops of water make a mighty ocean, as they say. To be more graphic, MTN Nigeria’s published customer base is about 45m (NCC, 2013). If it missells to 1% which is 450,000 and these customers spend an average of N100 per day, that’s N45m and up to N1.35b per month!! Why won’t misselling be a big strategic competitive move in Nigeria? Big firms are really big trouble!!
It seems MTN Nigeria needs a tutorial in Africonciousness – “a socio-mental awareness of Africa and her people first as a continent and human beings with genuine needs, before being a market with viable consumers” (Amaeshi, 2013) – to be a truly African success story.
Amaeshi is a member of Thought Leadership Forum, Nigeria
December 27, 2012 § 2 Comments
Cast your mind for a moment to Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe (1904–1996), Chief Obafemi Awolowo (1909–1987), and Sir Ahmadu Bello (1910–1966). It doesn’t take any ingenuity to conclude that ethnic politics has been rife in Nigeria since independence. On the contrary, ethical politics is scarce, and ethical scrutiny of ethnic politics is not our culture. Subjecting the politics of any of our founding fathers to ethical scrutiny is often considered disrespectful and politically inflammatory. It is an idea steeped in folly and dead on arrival.
However, such ethical scrutiny resurrects some very interesting questions. For instance, what is the moral difference between an ethno-regional leader who protects the interests of his people, and fraudulently enriches himself and his family in the process, and a similar leader who does not protect the interests of his people and yet fraudulently enriches himself and his family in the process? Fraudulent enrichment here will include the use of one’s political position and clout to attract economic favours and commercial profits, which would have been impossible or at best difficult to access without the platform of the political office. In both instances, one could argue that fraudulent enrichment is not a worthy aspiration and therefore not good for the society.
Assuming we accept that fraudulent enrichment is a social ill, it leaves one with a choice between two evils: a seemingly altruist fraud (the leader who protects the interests of his people) and a narcissist fraud (the leader who enriches himself at the expense of his people). One might be inclined to choose the leader who protects the interests of his people despite his fraudulent behaviour, as a lesser evil, on the grounds that many people would at least benefit from his leadership than in the other scenario. Making ethical decisions on the basis of the number of people who would benefit from such decisions is known as utilitarian ethics. Because it focuses on the consequences of ethical decisions, utilitarian ethics could also be described as consequentialist ethics. However, a fundamental question here is: does the end justify the means? In other words, what are the possible implications of focusing on consequences as a measure of rightness or wrongness?
There is only a narrow divide between a consequentialist and a Machiavellian. One of the implications of consequentialism is the marginalisation of the minority. Little wonder Winston Churchill – a former British Prime Minister – described democracy as the tyranny of the majority against the minority. Unfortunately, that’s the nature of the politics that dominates the global polity. It works from the premise that the preference of the many must be true and good. If we stretch this position to its necessary logical conclusion, it might produce some uncomfortable but real outcomes: if many do not believe in the existence of God, for instance, does it make it true and good? If many think that abortion is good, does it make it true and good? If many believe in gay marriage, does it make it true and good? If many think that enriching oneself and family fraudulently is good, does it make it true and good? Nonetheless, the implications of consequentialism in contemporary democracy are often understated. They are often left unchallenged and any attempts to challenge them are seen as impractical, idealistic, and sometimes imprudent.
An ethical view which is often marginalised in contemporary politics is one that aims to assess the morality of both the process and the outcome. This is deontological ethics, which derives the rightness or wrongness of one’s conduct from the character of the behaviour itself rather than the outcomes of the conduct. In other words, the quality of the outcome is not superior to the process, and vice versa. The challenge of this ethical view is that it is much more demanding than consequentialism as it requires one to fulfil two conditions, which are equally important and couldn’t be easily traded-off against each other. This is obviously a tougher demand. It challenges the assumption of the wisdom of the many and empowers minority views. Christian moral theology, especially Catholicism, is to a large extent founded on deontological ethics. For a true Christian, therefore, deontological ethics allow for some natural impossibility where one with God, for example, can be majority.
In the eyes of the world (i.e. the many), deontological ethics can grant wisdom to some asinine and absurd conclusions. In this regard, it is very easy to gravitate towards pragmatic ethics, which is based on the exigency and expediency of the circumstance. Pragmatic ethics is also consequential in nature, but does not necessarily imply utilitarianism or a good outcome for the many. Pragmatic ethics instead allows for a narrow definition of ethical outcomes for the minority – even if that minority is selfishly defined. Exigency and expediency constitute the ethical paradigm for political flexibility, manoeuvring, domination, and victory. At the end what counts in politics, as they say, is the outcome – i.e. victory.
It does appear that the Nigerian polity is one dominated by pragmatic ethics, where benefits and outcomes are not necessarily broadly articulated from what works for Nigeria as a whole, but rather narrowly defined as what works for my ethnic group, regional and religious affiliations, and in most instances for what works for myself, my family, and cronies. This view of political ethics is very much embedded in the system that we often find it difficult to imagine a different political ethics outside this ethnic and selfish worldview. We create and fashion our political heroes from this perspective. Overtime, these views are consolidated into effigies that are venerated. They reflect our tribal and ethnic icons and relics. Attempts to challenge this political ethics are easily characterised as tribal bigotry, political insensitivity, and disrespect for our political heroes past and present.
The present day Nigeria is entrenched along ethnic lines that inhibit us from rising above our selfish interests. As long as I benefit from the system, it doesn’t matter what goes on in other parts of the country. As long as my side of the equation is shielded from the onslaught, the rest can go to blazes. This mentality fans the view that there are no permanent friends in politics, but permanent interests. When interests are selfishly articulated, they can never lead to an altruistic leadership or society. A friend recently reminded me that this kind of politics often lead to neopatrimonialism, a genre of prebendalism and corruption.
Notwithstanding our present day mental constraints, our generation has a choice to enshrine our political icons and relics, feed them with our daily sacrifices of encomia and nostalgia, and embed them perpetually in our consciousness. We also have the choice to courageously re-examine these political icons and relics from a different but much more constructive political purview. This re-examination may not necessarily be painless. It is likely to involve some kind of iconoclasm – a constructive destruction of the past for a better political future and scene to emerge. The choices are ours.
In the final analysis, what spectrum of political ethics do you subscribe to? Who is your political icon/relic? What is his or her political ethics? Will you consider iconoclasm as a way for a better Nigeria to emerge? The options are all yours.
Amaeshi is a Visiting Professor Lagos Business School and member of the Thought Leadership Forum, Nigeria.