In order to achieve this promise, Seyi Makinde has had to trade off in other areas. One of such areas we can readily perceive is the refusal to indulge political associates with bogus contracts or other usual means through which they can dip their hands into the public treasury. It is only the naive that can not see the link between Seyi Makinde’s populist agenda and the emergence of “suffering” commissioners and political appointees. For good measure, many of his erstwhile political allies, now disgruntled, are waiting in the wings, when they are not busy plotting mischief. They are starving of funds to keep their “bases” happy. The more politically astute are watching on the sides as Seyi Makinde makes one missteps after the other. Many are already counting their losses and counting down to 2023. 

Seyi Makinde has made a clear decision to position himself as a populist in favour of civil servants, an important political constituency in the state’s political landscape. This positioning has its merits, but it also has its challenges and problems. The first problem is that Seyi Makinde has so far failed to combine his populist approach with a matching political strategy. It always seems to me that Governor Makinde’s corporate credentials always trump his profile as a politician. I’m trying to find nicer ways to describe some of the gaffes characterised with his one year as governor. The other, perhaps more fundamental point, is that populism never really works as the key strategy for transformational governance. It can work as a complementary approach, but certainly not as a core strategy.

Enlightened citizens would like to know, for example, is the governor’s commitment to regular salaries is tied to any kind of public service reform to enhance productivity of labour, improved accountability and transparency in the civil service. It is an open secret that the civil service is one of the big bastions of corruption in Nigeria, from the state to the federal levels. It will therefore little or no public good if the government’s focus is simply about paying salaries. The rest of society, including the self employed, market women, private sector workers and other ordinary citizens, needs to see better and greater values delivered by civil servants. We have heard little about this from this government. Furthermore, the majority of the populace who are non civil servants, needs to see a bit more in terms to substantive agenda to address needs in various sectors of the economy and society. So far we’ve had some pronouncements and outlines of ambitious agenda, for example in agriculture and environment sectors. What we now need to see is structural progress across the sectors, not token projects here and there. There is still time for this. 

Let me just end with a brief comment on the current uproar surrounding the “relocation” of mobile police squadron allegedly from Ago Are to Oyo. Oyo people have been up in arms, but additional information has emerged that the location of the police unit in Ago Are was not a relocation but was according to an original request. I’ve tried to tell my townspeople that it is ultimately a distraction to dissipate too much energy on this, especially at the time we are talking about restructuring and the need for policing, if it were to be effective, to be organised at the community level. For many this seems to be an abstract argument at time they are emotionally invested in the outrage about what is seen by many as an insult to Oyo town. Hopefully when the dust has settled people will appreciate better the merit of community policing as the real solution to the long term problem. Right now I just want to comment on the subtext to the outrage in which many undiscerning citizens have been caught up. 

It goes back to the comments I made in the previous paragraphs. Disgruntled politicians, some of them from the opposition, are seizing the opportunity to whip people up into a frenzy. They are not happy that they have been sidelined by Governor Seyi Makinde. He has not issued them with big contracts, or otherwise strike deals that previous governors have had to strike with certain known elements in Oyo in order to gather support. That’s not to say some politicians are not financially benefitting from this government (it would be naive to think so). Now of course the cyber crowd who are allowing themselves to be used do not understand that if Seyi Makinde strikes the deal to keep these detractors happy, he cannot at the same time fulfil his populist promises, for whatever they are worth. And that includes regular payment of civil servants’ salaries.

There were waves of joyous felicitation at the beginning of this week on the occasion of this year’s Mothers day. Splashed across social media were photos and videos tinted with goodwill messages, prayers and best wishes for mothers, not to count phone calls from loved ones near and afar.

The happy cheers were quite heart-warming.  Mothers are indeed special. Thinking about mothers, my mind goes back to the recent movie drama “Maami” in which Funke Akindele portrayed the heart-warming and passionate role of a mother who in spite of having so little, gave so much.

Medical practitioners usually refer to mothers as the ‘first doctor’ in the home. This term is derived from the fact that mothers are usually the first to recognise symptoms of illness in a child or the first to get the report of ill-health. On the basis of this recognition, they are able to administer First Aid to the affected child or family member. Mothers are usually the first to take the initiative to bring a child to the hospital (hopefully, on time) and to therefore also receive first-hand information from the health provider on the necessary steps to nurse the child back to good health. Their ability to relent on myths, superstitions and harmful cultural practices also determine to a great extent how healthy our children will be.

Let me share five reasons why mothers are the ‘first doctors’ in the home:

1. Mothers ‘doctor’ children from the womb. During pregnancy, their bodies house us for most of a year. They give up their body shape and space for the endearing new-born in the offing. Many mothers have to take up almost permanent hospital residence in those months for the sake of that precious baby. It is from the mother that oxygen and nutrients diffuse to the foetus. Mothers provide warmth to the foetus and incubators can mimic this God-infused ability only to a limited extent. The decision of a mother to eat healthily, to avoid substances such as smoking and alcohol in pregnancy as well as to nurse healthy emotions have lasting consequences on the baby.
2. Mothers virtually nurse from the cradle till after the nest is empty; starting with breastfeeding which establishes a bond that lasts a lifetime. Through breast-milk, they transfer protective antibodies and immunoglobins which reduce the risk of neonatal illness. They take overnight calls, breastfeeding at night or keeping awake over an ailing child; tepid-sponging in order to keep down a fever. They ensure healthy meals at home and at school.  They have this way of caring even if through tough actions. If not for their hygienic efforts, vomiting and diarrhoea would frequently feature during school days.
3. Mothers love cleanliness and try to maintain orderliness. Sweeping, scrubbing and dusting are unending house-chores yet they do it every day. A colleague of mine was tagged Mrs Clean by her husband in this regard. Mothers will always remind you to brush your teeth, wash your hands and dust your feet before getting into bed. Without all this seeming much-ado-about-nothing, many of us would fall sick often. Doctors frequently counsel on hygiene in order to prevent and control the spread of disease. 
4. Listening is a vital communication skill that mothers have exhibited through the years, listening, paying attention, reading in between the lines so as to decipher what the real problem is. Doctors do the same when encountering their patients. Listening helps diagnosis.
5. Mothers have a sixth sense. It’s called intuitiveness. Most moms can describe to you that uncanny feeling that something is not right even when you have explained all the possible reasons why it should be. They know when you have not swallowed your medicine. Many people seem to think that doctors are magicians. This is because they expect the doctor to decipher all their medical problems without much information. Doctors also depend on high indices of suspicion during history and examination to arrive at the right diagnosis especially when there is a paucity of information. Having a consistently correct index of suspicion comes with years of training and experience.

Mothers from time memorial stand out as a special ‘kind’ of people. You can call them super-moms, super-heroes or super-stars, but they are definitely humans with feelings, strengths and weaknesses. Applauding their positive contributions to family development today, the ‘International Day of Families’ is certainly not out of place. The stronger and healthier our mothers are, the stronger and healthier our families will be. 

Dr Oore Makinde is a Consultant Family Physician and certified Lifestyle Medicine Physician. She is the founder of Lifestyle Champions International

The two women I am writing about today epitomise the incredible resilience of the human spirit. Unbent, unbroken, they have shouldered on in the midst of the most dangerous, most challenging of conditions.

The older woman I shall call Mama J. When her town was overrun by the Boko Haram insurgents, she fled with her husband and three children to another village where there was an IDP camp. There, her husband and two children were welcomed, but she was refused entry? Why, because she had a 31-year old son with both learning and physical disability. She was practically given the choice of leaving her son behind if she was to be admitted to the camp. She refused. She decided that it was better for her to die than leave her son out there to rot. She decided to go back to her town that was overrun by the insurgents. She therefore made the journey back, walking over the next two days, practically carrying her son along. When she got back to town she found that the security forces had taken control and a new camp had been set up. But there again she was refused help. Unbroken, she started to run a vegetable business, with a 500 naira given to her by a soldier. This was in 2017. Today, she is no longer selling in measures but in big sacks. She has been able to out together a whole spectrum of vegetable combinations, and has become one of the key sellers in the community. She now makes up to 3,000 naira a day. When we asked her how she managed to succeed and expand her business within such a short period of time. She answered that she was able to put together a unique combination that no one else was offering in the community. You can only begin to grasp the awesomeness of her business acumen when you realise that this woman has never had a single day of formal education. She understands the idea of unique selling point in such a deeply practical and effective way, more than management and entrepreneurship scholars can theorise. When asked what’s kept her going against the odds, her response was brilliantly casual: “I have no choice but to find a way…”

The next story is equally humbling. I was going on about Mama J and got carried away a bit, forgetting that there is another woman, younger, that we have also invited along to the workshop. Let’s call her Lady H. She sat quietly, unflustered, as I stood there singing the praises of her counterpart from Maiduguri. Colleagues reminded me that we need to hear her story too. Of course, she duly obliged in what became a truly remarkable, inspiring story of doggedness and unrelenting hope and ambition against the odds.

Lady H lost her husband, father and one son to the insurgents in one fell swoop. The sheer trauma of the losses in such tragic circumstances can only be imagined. Yet this woman was determined to move on with her life. She managed to escape with her three other children. She ended up in an IDP camp. There, she began to rebuild her life, block by block. Having lost her entire restaurant business to the insurgency. She volunteered for an NGO in the camp for several weeks, earning about 10,000 naira (£23) in the process. With this 10,000 Naira she set up a business that includes trading in agricultural produce. For good measure, she set up a support unit for other women in the camp to learn a trade/vocational skills and begin to earn a living for themselves. Crucially, she is especially passionate about the education of children, about which she has been leading advocacy efforts to raise standards of teaching in the camp schools. She laments that children sometime leave school by 10am, and many of them can not write their own names. Today, while she remained in the camp, she has managed to raise enough income to send her two younger children to a private school far away from the camp, and the oldest is studying law in a higher education institution. Not bad at all for a widow who lost half of her family in very tragic circumstances.

One final comment about these two remarkable women: their infectious, unrehearsed cheerfulness is in and of itself a transforming experience. They are clearly not satisfied about their conditions, and they spoke openly and forcefully about it. But they would also not be denied the liberty to be joyful, to be grateful about little opportunities they have had to begin to rebuild their lives. Their story is powerful in more ways than one. Among others, it points to a new, and more effective pathway to engage with humanitarian action. Affected people are of course desperate. Yet they are not without agency to turn things around, rebuild their lives and recover their livelihoods.

This fellowship includes an annual stipend of N20,000 to support the PhD studies of successful applicants for up to three years, a targeted and personalised training programme to support the skill development portfolio of the PhD researchers, and a mentoring programme that, among others, links individual fellows with established academic/professionals in their fields.

In order to apply, complete the form in this link and submit on or before Friday 19th July, 2019. The awards are expected to take effect from 1st September 2019. For further inquiries please contact sikeadefellowship@gmail.com.

The theme of justice has continuing relevance in our age. It resonates strongly as we think of hundreds of millions of people who live under oppressive regimes; as we remember the school girls abducted by Boko Haram terrorists few years ago; as we consider the plight of an estimated 40 million in modern slavery. While we must continue to use our energy and resources to fighting these evils, today I invite you to focus attention on another great evil of our times: Poverty.

Today, about 600 million children live in extreme poverty. They belong to families who have no means to provide food or clothing, and who cannot afford to take their sick children to the doctor. According to FAO, about 815 million people suffer from chronic undernourishment, and about three billion people live on less than $2.5 a day. Perhaps the most tragic fact is that this level of poverty is happening in the age of unprecedented wealth for the world. According to Global Wealth Report, global wealth rose in 2017 at a rate of 6.4% to reach $280 trillion, outpacing population growth. However, the global gains in equity is more than matched by the global rise in inequality. Forty percent of the world’s population accounts for 5% of global income. On the other hand, twenty percent of the world’s population accounts for three-quarters of world income.

Poverty is the great scourge of our age. It is a stain on the conscience of the world, an indictment of our essential humanity. It is a plague and a disease that must be fought with utmost vehemence.

Yet, the poor of the world do not merely seek to be cast as pitiable, helpless souls. In the most difficult of conditions, they are simply getting on with it.

The wretched of the earth may be lacking in opportunity, yet they are not lacking in agency. The artisan in Bali may need to up his skill, yet he does not seek our pity. The Nigerian farmer is not begging for alms, he just want to get his produce to the market. Throughout the world, millions of people shut out of formal institutions and neglected by national governments, are exercising their entrepreneurial agencies to create value, generate income, and beat the poverty trap.

Theirs is an uphill struggle, not for lack of effort, but for lack of opportunities. Their endeavours are made difficult by bad Samaritans who, once they reached the top, kicked away the ladder; by those who, while they preach the gospel of free trade, have shut the doors and mount the walls of tariffs and restrictions.

Yet wealth creation does not have to be a zero-sum game, nor does sustainable development. The most effective strategy to fight poverty is to pull down the walls and open opportunities for entrepreneurs at the bottom of the pyramid to break into the mainstream. The old paradigm of development interventions must give way to a new approach of entrepreneurial support. Paternalism must give way to partnership. Enterprise must lead the way.

Let us come again to Dr King. When he invoked the metaphor of a river and a mighty stream, he was addressing the key problem of access- how millions of African Americans were shut out of the justice system, excluded from the opportunities for the pursuit of happiness. Today, we reflect on the global scourge of poverty, and how billions are shut out of sharing in the world’s wealth. The clarion call today is to break the barriers, open opportunities and provide support for millions of the world’s entrepreneurs. Only by doing so can we truly let wealth flow like a river, and riches of the earth like a mighty stream!

I don’t have time for a sermon today. Prof Pius Adesanmi has done a brilliant piece on TRANSCENDENTALISM and the application of knowledge across generations. If you haven’t read it, do the needful.

Doctor Femi Adebajo also has a fantastic piece, albeit cryptic message about how REFLEXIVITY can become a culture in our national life. Go to his page for ‘Irohin ni ekunrere’.

Dr. Seun Kolade too has put up brilliant summations about the need for CRITICAL REFLECTION as a leadership trait. Lookup his posts too.

My widow’s mite is this: Illiteracy is not Nigeria’s problem. The cancer we have is pseudo intellectualism. As they say, little knowledge is dangerous.

One of the great lesson of EVOLUTION is the ability to develop ADAPTIVE MINDSETS and VARIATION to how phenomena progresses.

1. Adaptive mindset suggest you have the intellectual wherewithal to understand complexity and change. If you have depended on the use of force to build a country since 1960, and things have largely remained the same, you should do Evolution a favour, evolve to the mindset which is non-binary.

That could mean that i detest IPOB and Kanu but will stand up for him if his constitutional rights are impinged upon.

Smart people would have realised that his Youtube and Facebook video threats have yet to kill anyone. Fulani herdsmen however, have sacked villages, committed murderous pogroms and are likely to result in the direct death of some of the hordes baying for violence.

Smart people will realise that the cost of arbitrariness is more than power grab and authoritarian. It is essentially a veritable tool for underdeveloping a nation. As an example, if you insisted, according to the constitution that the military never be used against citizens to perpetrate the slightest from of oppression, what you are doing is not only maintaining the professional integrity of the army, (which will be maintained by properly equipping them for defending Nigeria against external aggression), you’d also be indirectly forcing the hand of government to modernise and improve the police to enforce law and order internally.

How childish is the act of sending the Nigerian army to ‘show force’ to one fugitive? Are you for real? What a waste of brains! If we wanted development, we will expect the Nigerian government to train and equip the Nigerian police to have special branches able to perform on the same levels with the regular army, using civil police tactics.

A lot of you guys grew up watching the Police Academy movies but learnt nothing from it. You watch Homeland, CSI, Criminal Minds, NCIS e.t.c but take nothing educational away from it!

I am sure that the so called Operation Python Dance has no intelligence on the IPOB group and other subversive groups in Nigeria! Otherwise we would have built up a total picture and taken apart the groups by selective arrests of the criminal members.

2.

I heard one of Buhari’s apologist alluding to some infantile and emotional idea that they want Kanu dead because they want to ‘live in peace’.

By now, if you read Pius Adesanmi‘s piece, you would understand ho silly that honest wish is.Totally naive. Even with justice as a bedrock of society, you can only live in relative peace. Let alone a country where there is no justice at all and our embassies aren’t ready to grant him/it/her a visa.

In a nation where the 1% don’t give a hoot about the lives and destinies of the 99%, there WILL be no justice. If you thought killing Kanu is going to bring you justice, you are a MOFO of the first order.

The Killing of Adaka Boro. Did it bring you peace? Some of you lot cannot even relate your struggles in life to such events. If the oil was well managed, you will not need to spend half your life in the church or mosque fighting the devil on weekends and going to lick asses in the office on the weekdays.

The killing of Ken Saro Wiwa. What peace did it bring to you?

The killing of 2 million Igbo in the civil war, has it stopped the likes of Kanu and IPOB to keep emerging?

The killing of the original Boko Haram leader, has only made the cash that should be available to build roads, hospitals and schools for buying guns, copters and ammunition. You are paying more than money though.You are paying with lives of soldiers, citizens and paying away your peace.

Back to my evolutionary qualities of adaptation and variation. When a certain way of life is going to lead you on a path of entropy and extinction, you adapt, you vary your genetic order.

SO, I ASK, HAS THERE BEEN ANY TIME THAT NGERIANS GENUINELY SAT ON A TABLE AND DISCUSSED HOW WE SHOULD ORGANISE AS A PEOPLE?

No. But we get these hollow shouts of ‘One Nigeria’ from those who benefit from the chaos. This is where i think anyone who can Google up Nassim Taleb’s ANTIFRAGILITY theory should. The management thinking of normalising or straightening out any and every kink in the system largely contributes to the embedded weakness in the system.

Taleb should be one for you lot who live abroad and reason like stone agers to consider. No military enforced order anywhere in the world has brought about the type of normality the planners of such ‘certainties’ conceive.

Not one. Not ever.

At the end of every war, you still have to sit down with the enemy and talk.

That the so called ‘intellectuals’ cannot see that there are certain ‘absolute minimums’ is a shame.

You can all enjoy your Pyrrhic ‘show of force’. The Nigerian pythons of INEQUALITY and CORRUPTION, is already slowly asphyxiating the life out of you. In a thousand ways.

I do not like Kanu. I think he’s a sociopath. I think he violated his bail conditions. I think he should be in jail. BUT I THINK THAT HE SHOULD BE ARRESTED BY THE POLICE, TRIED IN A COURT OF LAW, READ HIS RIGHTS AND BANGED UP. NOT MADE A MESSIAH BY A BUNGLING GOVERNMENT.

That Kanu and IPOB and other subversive groups appeared on the scene and are this popular, widely popular enough for the Nigerian Army to dance grotesque dance for, in an exhibition of shame, IS A TESTAMENT TO THE FAILURE OF LEADERSHIP AT THE FEDERAL AND REGIONAL LEVELS.

That any maniac could form a band of lunatics and chance in on legitimate issues such as self determination, endemic poverty and chronic lack of growth SHOULD ORDINARILY ALARM AN EDUCATED POPULACE MORE THAN THE SYMPTOMS OF THAT ILLNESS.

You jump up and down because the Army got Kanu. How pathetic. How many times did you jump at the announcement of the death of Shekau under GEJ?

Your binary minds are just too small to process the complexity of resolving the UNDERLYING ISSUES to make the SYMPTOMS disappear.

And this is what worries me. Pseudo-Intellectualism.

In a move that has generated widespread controversy, Governor Ajimobi of Oyo State, aka The Constituted Authority, recently embarked on a “judicial review” of the 1957 “Ibadan Chieftaincy Declaration”.  In this new arrangement, 11 high chiefs of the Olubadan-in-Council, along with 21 others previously known as Baales, have now been vested with the so-called “beaded crowns’. The high chiefs are now to be addressed as “Royal Majesties”, while the Baales have been elevated to the status of “Royal Highnesses”. The Olubadan- who by the way reportedly snubbed the mass coronation ceremony- is now to be addressed as His Imperial Majesty.

On one level, the latest development highlights the uneasy, often controversial relationships between traditional (royal) institutions and political institutions in Oyo state, and by extension, in Yorubaland. Historically, kings were the focal points of political organisations of Yoruba states and towns. While there were checks and balances in the political system, it was kings who exercised ultimate control, and delegated powers to chiefs and Baales, including army chiefs. In colonial and post-colonial Nigeria, following the collapse of the only one empire historically, associated with the Yorubas, successive governments in Western Nigeria have struggled with where and how to position traditional rulers in the modern democratic system. In principle, the general consensus appears to be that traditional rulers are now to be custodians of culture, unencumbered and untainted by muddy waters of political power. In practice, a tense struggle for political control ensued between traditional rulers and modern politicians, exemplified by the forced  of Alaafin Adeyemi the second, by the then Action Group government in 1954.

So much for a bit of historical context. The key point, for the purpose of the present reflection, is that Ajimobi’s latest move is a manifestation of this perennial struggle. He has made a statement of intent to the effect that the political power vested in him as the self-styled “constituted authority” in the state is all encompassing, unrestricted by the boundaries of traditions and cultures. In effect, he is saying that he is the one – alright, his government, technically- who has the power to give and take away traditional privileges and honours. He is the manager, not just of public affairs, but traditional ones, too. He cites the “relevant” laws, for good measure.

In fairness to Ajimobi, the truth is that traditional rulers have struggled to stay within the culture-tradition lane assigned to them in the modern political system. The desire for relevance, or perhaps the sheer struggle for survival, has driven many to the murky waters of politics, usually the partisan variety. We have seen, for example, how traditional rulers often hit the election campaign train on behalf of their patron politicians and political parties, sometimes using threats to “get out the votes”. Worse still, we have seen how many of them have become big-time government contractors, and how they lobby for their candidates to fill appointive posts. Far from keeping themselves from the murky waters of partisan politics, they have fully embraced it, usually at the expense of their dignity and self-respect. For some, personal dignity is overrated, and sanctity of traditions is of no use, as long as they achieve and maintain political relevance.

Furthermore, the constant meddling and near obsession of politicians like Ajimobi with traditional institutions underlines the poorly developed state of our civics. In an age where majority of ordinary citizens still depend on traditional rulers to determine their electoral choices, it is little wonder that politicians are keen to recruit traditional rulers as their electoral “garrison commanders”. These politicians are well aware that, in the Nigerian realpolitik, ordinary citizens carry little or no weight commensurate with their otherwise decisive numerical majority. Most are not aware of their political rights, and others are too afraid to exercise them, or too poor to be bothered. It makes practical sense, then, to cultivate the favours of “gate keeper” traditional rulers, who wield enormous influences within their communities. The flip side is that these traditional rulers are increasingly adept at the dirty arts of modern Nigerian politics. Among other things, they want more and more for the political support they give. Ajimobi’s response to this is, in effect, to weaken the power of the big traditional political behemoths, by multiplying kings in the land. The new kings are his beneficiaries, and arguably owe him something going to the next election in which he would be seeking to get his anointed candidate elected as governor. As for the traditional political behemoths, we have not heard the last of them in this unfolding game of thrones.

Of course, the masses of the people would be sold the usual dummies. This is necessary for the development of Ibadan land, which is the biggest city in Yoruba land, and a history dating hundreds of years. And so on, and so forth. Sadly, this unsophisticated form of identity politics works like magic in the Nigerian terrain, even among otherwise educated folks. You hear many citizens of Ibadan extraction now joining the refrain: “This is for the development of Ibadan land. Only traitors would see differently”. In one fell swoop, these ordinary citizens have forgotten about the high levels of unemployment, about unpaid salaries, about the dire state of education in the state. Employment, income and human capital do not feature in their new construct of “development”. Chieftaincy titles do.

On a final note, the elaborate, high sounding reference to “imperial majesty” in Olubadan’s new title is curious, comical. I just did a quick check to confirm that even the Queen of Great Britain- the country that once held one of the largest empires in world history, is no longer addressed as her “imperial majesty”. Just her “Royal Majesty”. It doesn’t deny the history of the old empire, for whatever it is worth. But trust Nigerian politicians. They are specialists in the preposterous.

Fresh from his return from a 103-day stay in London, President Buhari waxed lyrical about national unity in his televised address to the nation. Nigeria’s unity, he said, “is settled and non-negotiable”. He apparently agreed on this with the late Ojukwu, and he thinks “majority of Nigerians” share this view. He has very strong words for Nigerians on social media who have crossed “the national red lines” by “daring to question our existence as a nation”. And, by the way, only the national assembly has the legal mandate to discuss these things.

So there you have it. In a single fell swoop, President Buhari did more to undermine the message of unity he was preaching than any of the ethnic agitators have done in his 104 days absence. It reminds you of the biblical king Rehoboam, who came to power when the nation was on the tethers of a breakup. At the time, the tribal agitators decided to give one last diplomatic push for a united nation, seeing there was a new national leader who they hoped would address their concerns and do things differently. Sure enough, the new leader consulted his advisers. A group of them advised him that listening to the agitators and addressing their concerns will do the trick. “If you will be a servant to these people today, and serve them, and answer them, and speak good words to them, then they will (also) be your servants”. He rejected this advice, of course. He turned to the other group of younger advisers, who advised him that he needed at that critical time of national tension was to project strength like a lion. To listen to the concerns of the agitators will be showing weakness. Addressing their concerns and speaking “good words” would only embolden them. This reasoning seems to align with Rehoboam’s own thinking, who then went on to give an extraordinary oration to the agitators: ‘my little finger shall be thicker than my father’s waist! And now, whereas my father put a heavy yoke on you, I will add to your yoke; my father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scourges!” We know how that turned out.

In his national broadcast, President Buhari missed an important opportunity to calm the tension in the land. He aggravates it, instead. Rather bizarrely, he took umbrage at ordinary Nigerians ventilating their views on social media. By merely discussing and debating the question of Nigeria’s unity, they have “crossed the national red lines”. This is  extraordinary.

Let’s consider this carefully. For the better part of the last decade, Nigeria has been ravaged by Boko Haram terrorist insurgency, mainly in the Northeastern part of the country. For longer than that, militants in the Niger Delta had taken up arms against the Nigerian state, inflicting heavy losses on oil infrastructures, among other things. Before the advent of militancy in the Niger Delta- or in between it if you consider Isaac Boro-citizens sought by non-violent activism to seek redress on the environmental carnage in the region. The era of non-violent activism was effectively ended by the gruesome murder of environmental activist Ken Saro Wiwa. Since then, and until now, the kingdom of environmental rights and self-determination has suffered violence, to use the biblical parlance. The difference is that this violence is not of the metaphorical sort. Many activists seem to have come to the conclusion that the only language the Nigerian state understands, or at any rate compelled to recognise, is the language of violence.

This is dangerous. Of course it is, not least for a nation whose military is already stretched on several fronts. The bigger tragedy is that, by meting out such strong words on citizens discussing and debating nationhood, President Buhari has given a life to the destructive narrative that violence is the only thing that works, or can work, in Nigeria as an instrument of change. The criminalisation of public intellection- at the very time in which this is the only promising path to peace- is mind boggling. Buhari’s intervention is effectively a call for citizens to turned their pens to swords and their pruning hooks into spears, if they want to be taken seriously.

In a liberal democracy, debates and discussions about nationhood should not be a “national red line”. Indeed, such debates and discussions are the most important instrument of raising national consciousness, improving the social contract between the citizens and the state, and promote peace, progress and prosperity. If debates are outlawed, what other options are left? Your guess is as good as mine.

Before it is too late, this government should summon the sense and will to listen to various agitations and, for once, lead the nation in an urgent process of restructuring. War is not a tea party, and at the moment this government is as complicit, if not more so than the ethnic agitators, in fanning the embers of violent conflict. The time is very short to get this right, but let’s hope- against the odds- that they do.

You’ve probably heard the Gospel of Free Market: if a country wants to break the cycle of poverty and achieve economic growth and prosperity, it should deregulate, open up its market, welcome investors, and unleash the power of the private sector. Nationalisation is anathema; protection is heresy; subsidies are so passé. This pervasive neo-liberal orthodoxy is driven with unrelenting vigour by the “unholy trinity” of International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

Ha-Joon Chang, the “heretic”, set out to challenge this orthodoxy in Bad Samaritans. The title, of course, is a play on the biblical story of the Good Samaritan – the man who went out of his way to help a man left for dead on the road by armed robbers. Here the parable is flipped: The Bad Samaritans are the rich nations, and they have gone out of their way not only to give, but to force free market orthodoxy down the throat of unsuspecting, and often helpless, poor countries. They use the “unholy Trinity” to great effect in this relentless crusade for free market.

Chang, though, is not all sound and fury. He is meticulous and rigorous in his attention to details. For good measure, to the extent that he is a believer in globalisation, he is hardly a revolutionary. He may be critical (of free market), but he is not a radical. His overall thesis is simple: the developed countries of the world are not honest about the policies and strategies they deployed on their way to greatness, notably infant industry protection, subsidies and the leadership role of government in industrial policies and other forms of interventions. It was only when these nations attained a high of level of technical competence, technological leadership and industrial competitiveness that they opened up their markets. On the contrary, the “advice” – and it is more than mere advice – they are giving to poorer countries today amounts to forcing a football team of 11-year-old girls to compete with the Brazilian national team on a “level playing field”. It is a level playing field of unequal competitors – a clear contradiction in terms.

The book is organised into nine chapters, in addition to the prologue and epilogue. The first chapter explores the myths and facts about globalisation; the second chapter provides a historical analysis of industrial policies of rich countries. In the next three chapters, Chang critiques – but by no means dismiss – free trade, foreign investment, and private enterprise. After this, in chapters six, seven and eight, he highlights some main obstacles that developing countries face in their struggle to remount the ladder of economic prosperity – intellectual property roadblocks; restricted access to international finance; and weak institutions. In the final chapter nine, he deals with the subject of false national stereotypes.
Chang begins with his homeland of South Korea. In 1961, the average South Korean yearly income stood at $82 per person, which was less than the average income of $179 per person in Ghana at that time. In short, South Korea was one of the poorest countries in the world. Within 40 years, however, the per capita income in South Korea has grown about 14 times in terms of purchasing power. “It took the UK over two centuries and the US around one and half centuries to achieve the same results”. So how did the South Korean “miracle” come about? Chang’s riposte is worth quoting at length:

(The) neo-liberal establishment would have us believe that, during its miracle years between the 1960s and the 1980s, Korea pursued a neo-liberal economic development strategy. The reality, however, was very different indeed. What Korea actually did during those years (and) decades was to nurture certain new industries, selected by the government in consultation with the private sector, through tariff protection, subsidies and other forms of government support…until they ‘grew up’ enough to withstand international competition (page 14).

The South Korean government was pragmatic, rather than revolutionary, in its approach. It did not, like the communists, reject the market; neither did it embrace free market blindly. It saw the market as an opportunity that can only be harnessed by means of appropriate policy interventions, led by the government.
There is a question, though: is South Korea an outlier, and an exception to the gospel of free market? Quite the contrary, says Chang, and here he throws a “bombshell”: the prevailing history of capitalism is one bad fiction, and today’s poor countries are the main casualties. For, as the rest of the book then sets forth, practically every developed country today became rich “on the basis of policy recipes that go against neo-liberal economics.”

Enter Great Britain. Until the time of the Tudor monarchs, Britain was “a relatively backward economy, relying on exports of raw wool to finance imports”. At that time, Belgium and the Netherlands were the leaders of the Woollen manufacturing industry, which was Europe’s high-tech industry at the time. In order to turn things around, the British government “used protectionism, subsidies, distribution of monopoly rights, government-sponsored industrial espionage and other means of government interventions to develop England’s woollen manufacturing industry”. These protectionist policies arguably reached its peak during the 21-year prime ministership of Robert Walpole (1721-1742). Export subsidies were given, tariffs on foreign goods were significantly raised, and British manufacturing industries were subsidised and encouraged to export.

The Americans followed Britain’s protectionist example when, in 1791, Alexander Hamilton submitted to the US Congress his Report on the Subject of Manufactures. The key measures proposed by Hamilton include: protective tariffs and import bans, subsidies, export ban on key raw materials, and regulation of product standards. Abraham Lincoln took this further in his presidency, earning the reputation as “the Great Protector”, on account of his strong advocacy for infant industry protection. Curiously, throughout the 19th century and right up to the 1920s – when the US was the most protectionist country in the world – it was also the fastest growing economy.


Chang does not romanticise protectionism and state-led industrialisation as the one magic wand that will solve all the problems of poor countries. He admits that “not all countries have succeeded through protection and subsidies, but few without them”. He also highlights some obstacles developing countries may face if they adopt protectionist strategies. Perhaps a weakness of the book is the absence of detailed historical analysis of failures experienced by some developing countries who adopted protectionist and import substitution policies in the past, notably some Latin American countries in the 1960s and 70s. Developing countries planning to adopt protectionist strategies could learn a few things from past pitfalls. Chang also recognises that it will be much more difficult today for these strategies to succeed if the “bad Samaritan” countries are not persuaded that it is in their own enlightened interest too – especially with regard to new and bigger markets – if poorer countries employ protectionist strategies to grow their economies before opening up their markets.

Seun Kolade is a Lecturer in International Development at the London South Bank University, United Kingdom.  You can reach him through seunkolade2014@gmail.com

We must therefore view the current idea to proliferate (non viable) states with curious eyes and vigilant minds, in so far as the states would be federating with the centre. In other words, to have more states, and no regions, is to accentuate and reinforce the powers of the centre by other means- through the back door. Having regions as federating units is the best, clean break from this pseudofederalism. Conversely, having more states will be more of the same. We should look at United Kingdom, not United States, as a model of what is best. Let’s have the regions on the basis of shared history, language and cultures, and then districts, cities and towns as constituents under those regions. This is the best option, and it would not by any means imply that the rights of minorities under that system will be weakened. The opposite in actual fact, because you will have cities and townships sending their representatives to the regional assemblies, and electing their own mayors.

Seun Kolade

July 2017