AIYEKOOTO : THE SURVIVAL HABIT: WHEN A CRISIS ENDS BUT FEAR LINGERS

By Lanre Ogundipe

A society can begin to emerge from an economic crisis without its people feeling safe enough to move forward. Prices may begin to stabilise, exchange rate pressures may ease, and official statistics may offer grounds for cautious optimism. Yet, inside homes, shops, workshops and small businesses, the habits of hardship can persist. People continue to calculate, postpone, withhold, improvise and prepare for the next shock.

This is the survival habit, the instinctive retreat into self protection that develops when uncertainty becomes a way of life.

In Nigeria, years of economic instability have taught many households and businesses an unforgiving lesson: never trust tomorrow enough to neglect the demands of today. A trader who has watched the cost of replacing stock rise repeatedly becomes reluctant to extend credit. A family that has struggled to meet school fees may abandon plans to save for a house. An entrepreneur who has endured sudden changes in operating costs may postpone expansion, even when an opportunity presents itself. A household that has repeatedly watched its purchasing power erode may prefer cash in hand to promises of future returns.

These are not necessarily signs of poor judgement. They are often rational responses to painful experience. The difficulty begins when a habit formed for survival becomes an obstacle to recovery.

That is the deeper challenge facing a society attempting to move beyond prolonged economic distress. The question is no longer simply whether economic conditions can improve. It is whether people who have learnt to distrust the future can be persuaded, by evidence rather than rhetoric, to invest in it again.

Economic hardship does more than diminish income. It alters behaviour, rearranges priorities and changes the terms on which people make decisions. When yesterday’s calculations repeatedly fail, planning begins to feel like speculation. When the value of savings becomes uncertain, immediate spending can appear safer than delayed gratification. When public assurances are contradicted by sudden policy changes or the withdrawal of expected support, scepticism becomes a form of protection.

Gradually, caution ceases to be a temporary response to difficult circumstances. It becomes a worldview.

The consequences extend beyond the household. Small businesses hold back from hiring. Manufacturers hesitate to commit fresh capital. Traders reduce exposure to credit. Families postpone major purchases. Young people abandon carefully considered plans in favour of whatever promises immediate income. Some people turn to multiple jobs and side ventures, not because they have discovered an entrepreneurial philosophy, but because relying on a single source of income has become too dangerous.

A nation may therefore find itself confronting two different economies. One is measured through official indicators, fiscal adjustments and monetary statistics. The other is experienced by citizens who must decide whether to employ another worker, restock their shops, borrow to expand their businesses or commit their savings to a long term undertaking.

These economies are connected, but they do not necessarily recover at the same pace.

A government may point to improving indicators, yet a shopkeeper may still be unable to replace stock at a price customers can afford. Borrowing costs may make expansion impractical even when inflation begins to moderate. A family whose income has already been depleted may find that slower price increases do not restore the purchasing power it has lost. An entrepreneur may recognise a promising opportunity but remain unable to predict the cost of production, the reliability of demand or the stability of the rules governing the investment.

It would be a mistake to dismiss these concerns as nothing more than a psychological hangover from the crisis. Sometimes the fear persists because the underlying hardship persists. Lower inflation does not automatically mean lower prices, just as improved economic indicators do not guarantee that households have recovered their lost income.

This distinction matters. People cannot be expected to abandon defensive habits while the conditions that justify them remain substantially unchanged.

Yet there is another side to the problem. Even when circumstances begin to improve, the memory of repeated disappointment can outlast the immediate crisis. Those who have been caught unprepared may become excessively cautious. Those who have lost savings may distrust legitimate investment opportunities. Those who have endured abrupt changes in economic policy may regard every new assurance as temporary, every recovery as fragile and every promise of stability as something to be tested before it is believed.

The survival habit thus acquires a life of its own.

It is possible to become so accustomed to protecting what remains that one loses the capacity to build what is missing. A household may survive by postponing every major commitment, but postponement can eventually deny it the opportunity to improve its circumstances. A business may preserve its capital by refusing to expand, but excessive caution can leave it unable to compete. A society may learn to endure uncertainty without learning how to escape it.

Survival is indispensable in a crisis. It is not, by itself, a development strategy.

ADVERTISEMENT

This is where the responsibility of government becomes particularly important. Public confidence cannot be restored by optimistic speeches, carefully presented statistics or communications campaigns designed to celebrate policy achievements. Nor can citizens be lectured into trusting institutions that have not demonstrated sufficient reliability.

Trust is earned through experience.

It grows when policies are explained before implementation, when changes are predictable and properly justified, when the rules apply consistently, when public institutions honour their obligations and when citizens can plan without constantly fearing that the assumptions on which their decisions depend will suddenly become invalid.

Consistency does not mean that governments must never change course. Economic conditions evolve, and responsible administrations must sometimes adjust their policies. The issue is whether such adjustments are transparent, proportionate, properly explained and attentive to the costs imposed on households and businesses.

A government that seeks patience from its citizens must also demonstrate patience, discipline and consistency in its own conduct. It must understand that confidence is not a public relations product. It is the cumulative outcome of dependable institutions and credible decisions.

The private sector also has a role to play. Businesses must rebuild productive capacity, create employment and identify opportunities for investment where conditions permit. Financial institutions must offer products and lending arrangements that reflect the realities facing households and smaller enterprises. Employers must recognise that workers whose earnings have been repeatedly eroded cannot instantly recover their financial security merely because economic conditions show signs of improvement.

Above all, public discussion must become more honest about what recovery means. It cannot be measured solely by the direction of selected indicators while ignoring the lived experience of citizens. Neither should every difficulty be taken as proof that reform has failed. The task is to establish what has improved, what remains difficult, who is benefiting, who is still bearing the heaviest costs and what further action is required.

This is not an argument against reform. It is an argument for understanding the human conditions under which reform succeeds or fails.

A country needs more than stabilised numbers to revive investment, productive ambition and confidence in tomorrow. It needs citizens who can reasonably expect that effort will be rewarded, savings will not be casually undermined, contracts will be respected and the rules of economic participation will not change arbitrarily.

The real test of recovery is therefore not simply whether the storm has weakened. It is whether people can safely put down the umbrellas they have learnt never to leave home without.

The survival habit will not disappear overnight. Nor should prudent caution be mistaken for fear. Citizens who have endured hardship are entitled to protect themselves against renewed uncertainty. But a society cannot build its future indefinitely around the expectation of another disaster.

At some point, survival must give way to rebuilding. Caution must make room for confidence. The instinct to preserve what remains must be joined by the courage to create what is missing.

That transition cannot be demanded of citizens. It must be made possible by conditions they can see, experience and trust.

For when people have spent years preparing for the worst, the beginning of recovery is not necessarily the moment they start believing in the best. It is the moment they finally have sufficient reason to believe that tomorrow will not punish them for trusting it.

Lanre Ogundipe, Public Affairs Analyst, Former President Nigeria and Africa Union of Journalists, writes from Abuja.