Ask yourself: what does the public know about Dangote’s tax records; what do we know about the process by which he has achieved unquestionable monopoly in the sectors his business is operating? What do we know about his very close relationships with past governments? And what will we see if we open up his file on corporate social responsibility? These questions are anathema in the Nigerian public space, which is so often characterised by vertical group-think. This is the ultimate tragedy: the criminalisation of critical thinking. It is not enough that the Nigerian is deprived of basic necessities and amenities. He is also under intense pressure to suspend his reason or risk social sanction.  The philistines fronting for Nigerian oligarchs- and there are many of them on social media- will deride the critical thinker as a rabble rouser, as one who is not even fit to lace the shoes of a “successful” industrialist like Dangote, or as one who has not done something to build a classroom in his village. Such is the logic of their philistinic interventions.

But let’s not make this just about Dangote, lest we miss the bigger lesson his latest intervention provides us. For the real message is that Nigeria as we know it exists primarily to satisfy the purposes of the small elite controlling it. They, and their international collaborators. This is why the democratic experiment has turned out to be a joke, a sideshow of sorts. Nigeria is one of the biggest examples of state capture.

For those new to the term, state capture is a phenomenon by which big corporations and powerful interests deploy their resources to manipulate or change the “rules of the game”s. Big corporations, for example, purchase laws by bribing public officials with large sums of money. They sponsor their chosen candidates into strategic elective posts, including legislative ones. And they ensure those “elected” officials remain figureheads to achieve their ends. So while the masses of the people exercise themselves in the illusion of elections, the elite manage the facade, I mean the charade, from the control room. As I write, the nees is just coming in of how one administration official collected a bribe of 500 million naira to help a big multinational telecom firm evade tax.

A state with weak institutions, dysfunctional structures, and a poorly informed citizenry is most vulnerable to elite capture. This is clearly the case with Nigeria, a nation whose democratic experiment has turned out to be one big merry-go-round, where the masses of the people are so beaten down by poverty and illiteracy that they cannot discern, let alone enforce, their rights. A nation where one multi-billionaire can wake up one day and say, in effect: “why don’t you sell me Nigeria?” And it does not even cause so much as a stir. Perhaps because Nigeria is sold already?

Seun Kolade

September 2016

It seems Saraki is trending on social media now. Will he attend his summon today by the CCB, or will he not? Why doesn’t he just go and clear his name? He should resign. He should go to jail. Abbla bla.

If he resigns his senate presidency or even his senate membership as a fallout of the current debacle, will that mark a significant turning point in the anti corruption war in Nigeria?

Saraki will not be the first senate president or legislator to be disgraced out of office. There was a certain Enwerem. There were Salisu Buhari and Chuba Okadigbo, the latter falling out spectacularly with the then president Obasanjo, losing his senate presidency, and getting tear-gassed in an opposition rally. And speaking of jail terms, Bode George was in jail, and back.

Saraki must clear his name. No question. He will probably be forced out of office, perhaps out of the senate. He may even go to jail. What next?

In our collective penchant for simple solutions, I think Nigerian citizens are missing more than a few tricks in this current episode of political theatre. The politicians are engaged in a desperate battle for supremacy, mobilising their allies as they seek to outmanoeuvre their adversaries or find some deals behind closed doors.

Citizens must find and fight their own battles. As far as I am concerned the battle does not include mediating or taking side in the current political theatre. Dramatic and explosive as it is, the current spectacle is ultimately superficial, and will not produce any lasting change.

This is, for example, an opportunity to draw attention to the way our existing institutions work in tackling corruption. This is an opportunity to mount focused and sustained pressure to ensure that every case of official graft is treated with necessary speed and seriousness, and not just once-in-a-while token associated with political alliances and dalliances.

The current episode has shown, at least, that citizens have the energy and the passion to engage on long term institutional issues, but we are collectively lacking in the discipline and the will to do so. And the frustrating thing is that we have enough experiences to draw from, to realise that we need to focus energy on the effectiveness and efficiency of our institutions. Did anti corruption institutions change for the better following the ousting of Enwerem or Salisu Buhari, or after the jailing of Bode George?

That is something to think about. We can’t keep going around in circles.

A few days ago I was calling on citizens to reflect on what has turned out, unwittingly, to be a powerfully revolutionary statement from a bus conductor on the streets of Lagos. The fellow had angrily remonstrated with a passenger asking for “change” after paying his fares. Perhaps the passenger’s face was familiar, and he had made a habit of paying his fares with high denominations, and then asking for change. “Do not expect to be given change all the time”, the conductor said, “you must bring the change.”

Now this conductor was most probably oblivious of the wider implication and deeper resonance of his statement when he made it, but he could not have more aptly summed up the state of the average Nigerian citizen today.

For many months leading to April general election, we witnessed an unprecedented level of citizen engagement, on social media and beyond, on the political future of the Nigerian state. Emotions were running high and wild, and exchanges were increasingly acrimonious, with many alliances broken, friendship strained, and relationship redefined.

Yet, if you look just beyond the surface, for all the sound and fury, this fever pitch engagement of citizens was, in fact, breath-taking in its sheer superficiality. For one, the focus was almost entirely on the presidency. Two, it was almost entirely based on assumed faith and trust in the ability and willingness of one or the other party to deliver the change or transformation Nigeria desperately needs.

Let me hasten to say that I am not trying to be critical for the sake of it here, and I understand the force of practical politics. The saying goes that in the business of revolutionary change you have got to work with what you have to get what you want. There are no perfect scenarios or saintly politicians, and all that.

I don’t think any serious minded person will have a problem with the central point that national politics, certainly in such a peculiar nation like Nigeria, does not fit into the prescriptions of textbook political philosophy. No this is not about arid idealism or grandiose theories. This is about the fundamentals of real change. As the bus conductor aptly says, it is the citizens who must lead and drive the process of change. This does not discountenance the fact that political office holders have a role to play in implementing specific policies, but it is the citizens who must WILL the WHEEL of real progress. This is the truth that we all need to engage with greater attention and focus.

We won’t get there on tip toe, and certainly not without effective organisation and adequate planning. The change is not, fundamentally in Buhari, APC, or what have you. You must bring the change.

The modern nation of Nigeria was born in 1960 amidst fanfare. As of then, forty six years had elapsed since the British amalgamation, in 1914, of the Northern and Southern Protectorates of Nigeria. The nationalist fathers fought a good fight, and it is instructive that diaspora students were at the heart of those nationalist struggles. For example, in 1925, Ladipo Solanke established the West African Students’ Union in the United Kingdom, and by the early 1930s it has spread throughout Nigeria and the rest of British West Africa(Falola & Heaton 2008)[1] . These student organisations, along with other nationalist groups within and outside Nigeria, played significant role in the struggle for independence.

Our nationalist forebears dreamt of a nation freed from the shackles of colonialism, a nation ready to unleash its potentials and show the way for the rest of African countries, and indeed, the rest of the developing world. Pan-Africanism was on the rise. There was so much hope, so much enthusiasm, so much optimism for what lay ahead.

Alas, no sooner had the dream began than it turned into a nightmare! Admittedly, much of this was to do with the ideological battles that defined international relations following the Second World War, in particular the battle between revolutionary socialism and capitalism, which reached its peak in the Cold War. African countries, freshly emerging from colonial rule, were caught in the middle of this ideological war of attrition. But we’ll leave this for a moment.

For the main story of Africa’s dashed dream cannot be attributed solely or mainly to external forces, however significant those forces were. And yes, they were significant. When we consider the fact that the pre-independence nationalists also had a big challenge on their hands, and they ultimately managed to surmount them, we have to say that, in the end, in the same way that the pre-independence nationalist fathers are rightly praised for their valiant efforts, so also must their post-independence successors take responsibility for their failures.

A wasted generation

Make no mistake: their failures were hugely significant, not only in the context of their times, but in the light of what followed thereafter. For it is telling that the years immediately preceding and following independence witnessed more significant development and harmonious relationships between the constituent parts of the nation. Nigeria, then a confederacy of three regions, witnessed significant economic and human development as the constituent regions competed in healthy rivalry among themselves. What worked in one region was speedily replicated in the other. It was a period of hugely successful agrarian reform, and significant investment in public infrastructures across the various regions. But then the clouds of despair soon began to gather.

The political elite, unlike their pre-independence forebears, began to see political power, not as an instrument of popular liberation and citizens’ empowerment, but they began to reconstruct power as an instrument of personal aggrandisement and selective empowerment of their cronies and family members. In the pursuit of this selfish agenda, they resorted to underhand means to keep themselves in power. No region was spared from the desperate antics of these power seekers. Alliances were forged mainly on this premise – North, South, East and West. The embers of ethnic discord were being fanned with reckless abandon.

Then a section of the Nigerian army intervened, their intervention becoming more remarkable for its messy execution than the lofty idealism that may have underpinned it. A counter coup followed, attended by a most unfortunate pogrom of innocent citizens of Eastern extraction. Then the seven year old nation was plunged into a tragic civil war, which, according to some estimates, claimed about three million souls.

The civil war was a defining moment in the history of the Nigerian nation, and the problems leading to the war were precipitated and aggravated by a set of political elites that recklessly abandon the lofty dream handed over to them, leaving a big mess in their wake. The following decades have been, by and large, dedicated to clearing up that mess. Even now, the legacy of a missed opportunity seems intractable. For, these political elites, standing at a strategic point in history, had they been foresighted, focused, and visionary, they would set the right tone and agenda for the nation’s future. They would have properly institutionalised the military and keep them away from what has turned out to be disastrous interventions in politics and governance. Instead, they have inflicted great damage on the commonwealth, and actively collaborated with politically ambitious military to do more damage. As a member of that generation aptly puts it, they are the wasted generation. With some much opportunity to shape the future, they fluffed their lines. The dream they turned into night mare.

A new opportunity beckons

But we are not here, ladies and gentlemen, to lament and moan about the past, much as we seek to draw valuable lessons from it. We are here, on the other hand, to contemplate the new opportunity that is laid before this generation. With that opportunity comes an even bigger responsibility to get it right, not only in the interest of posterity, but also for the strategic survival of now.

The Cold War is gone. Even with all the recent rumblings in Ukraine and the conflicting interests of Russia and Europe, we know this is not some re-enactment of the Cold War between Western Capitalism and Revolutionary Socialism. China has embraced free market, tweaking it to suit its particular purposes. It has prospered greatly thereby. Globalisation presents a unique opportunity to the current generation of Nigerians to shape the future, and define what comes ahead. Yes, we have seen the forces of globalisation aggravating poverty and misery in some parts of the world, aided sometimes by ill-thought and badly executed interventions of international agencies like the IMF. We have also seen the other side of globalisation, exemplified by ordinary people in poor countries of the world seizing the initiative and spearheading programmes and intervention to expand opportunities for their people and free them from the shackles of oppression and poverty. The story of Grameen Bank, founded in Bangladesh, showed that ordinary people can dream and successfully execute and sustain original initiatives to fight poverty and promote real economic growth.

Yes, it is true that there are enormous challenges that stand in the way. Arguably, at the very top of this is the challenge of visionary and accountable leadership. As we have observed, Nigeria has been plagued for so long with corrupt and rudderless leadership.  It has gone on for so long that it has almost become the norm, and even among educated people, the bar has been set so low in terms of expectation from political leaders. I shall refrain from making any criticism or endorsement of one or the other political party, but it is clear to all that the coming election is potentially an important landmark rebooting and setting the nation aright. At this critical time, the nation will either fall off the precipice, with tragic and drastic consequences, or it will rise with renewed vigour on its certain march to glory. There is no middle ground.

Let me hasten to say, at this juncture, that the current obsession with one or the other political party misses the point of how the current generation should engage with the political process. I will go on and add, in response to those who have proposed this other alternative, that replacing parties with personalities does not cut it either. We have been told, in fairly elegant and eloquent terms, that people should vote for personalities that they deem capable of delivering outcomes, without too much focus on the parties to which they belong. I proposed a third way, and I will like to think it is a more excellent way.

This third way is fundamentally about citizens seizing the opportunity on setting the agenda for national development. It does not stop there, however, for, on various levels and at different points, citizens have tried to participate in setting the agenda for many years. What has been missing, in sufficient and adequate measure, is a nationwide, citizen led, grassroots-oriented system of rigorous and sustained monitoring of performance, post-election. Citizens should commit as much energy to mobilising for election as they do for setting agenda at local and national levels. More importantly, they should commit even more energy and resources to a sustained campaign and process of continuous monitoring and evaluation of performance based on set agenda.

 Organisation is key

Organising is key to all these. All movements for positive change in history have been underpinned by effective organisation of the masses of the people. This is the case up with the French, American and Russian revolutions. It is the same with the American civil rights movement of the twentieth century, led by the renown Dr Martin Luther King Jr. The success of revolutionary movements have always owed as much to the success of their organisation as much as to the galvanising power of the message. It is by means of effective organisation that the critical mass can be mobilised to overturn a repressive status quo and establish a new order for progress and prosperity.

Now, of course, there is nothing entirely new in this emphasis on the power of organisation. In so many ways, this association, in this university, is a testament and a reminder of positive things that can happen when people come together with well-defined objectives and clear sense of purpose. What I seek to do here is draw your attention to certain aspects of the current mobilisation for change that has hindered and weakened the collective clamour for positive change:

1. Disproportionate and superficial focus on social media activism: since its inception, and with its growing popularity over the years, social media has played a significant role as a consciousness raiser for Nigerians, especially those of the younger generation, including students and young graduates. The Arab Spring was also significant in terms of the way and manner it projected the enormous potential and powers of social media to bring about practical change on ground. However, one of the key lessons of the Arab Spring, and of similar campaigns and movements elsewhere, is that social media was revealed as an instrument and platform by which ordinary people can mobilise and actualise practical change. It was a means, and not an end in itself. Unfortunately, this important lesson appears to be lost on many Nigerian campaigners and commentators on social media. Perhaps it also feeds into our collective penchant for easy solutions. Social media continue to be a unique and important platform for raising consciousness and mobilising citizens, but unless and until the message is carried on and carried through into the streets and to real people on ground, including the vast masses of uneducated and impoverished citizens, little can be achieved in terms of the end aim for positive change. There is an urgent need for more efficiency in the way and manner energy is deployed on social media. The impact evaluation of social media activism must be directly linked to, and measured by, direct influence on people on ground, including those who have no access to social media.
2. Prevalence of ethnic and religious parochialism: one of the long standing challenges of the Nigerian nation is the challenge of ethnic division. Ethnicity was at the heart of the collapse of the first Republic, and it was the defining feature of the tragic civil war. It has been said, and for good reason, that the original formation of the Nigerian nation state was artificial, hasty and without adequate thought to the different histories, cultures and values of the constituent ethnicities. There are differences, but difference is not a bad thing. In fact, inherent in the idea of diversity is the fact of differences. Unfortunately, and on account of what is in effect a false start and very poor management at the outset, these differences have escalated into divisions, and the diversity has led to adversity- of pogroms, wars, militancy and insurgencies. Generations of Nigerians, including the vast majority of educated ones, have been nurtured in an atmosphere of mutual mistrust and suspicion. They have been fed half-truths and often malicious lies about other ethnic groups, and the power of the bandwagon is such that this miseducation is difficult to unlearn. There is, of course, the vicious cycle inherent in the fact that this attitude of suspicion is replicated between the various ethnic groups, and suspicion is sustained and aggravated by suspicion. Now, of course, I hasten to say that we must repudiate the simplistic and misguided notion that ethnicity does not matter. Indeed, it is the truth that collective identity cannot be built out of nothing. We must start by not just accepting, but also embracing, our ethnic identity, in order to be able to build a strong and lasting national identity. Part of this process also consists in celebrating the values and contributions of others. The strength of a nation-state consists in the quality of unique contributions by the constituent parts. We can proudly proclaim the uniqueness and value of our contributions, but there is no need to project an air of superiority. It is ironically a sign of insecurity for one ethnic group to project superiority of any sort over the other. Sadly, we see this play itself out as much in social media interactions as it on the arena of partisan politics. The current presidential campaign has, unfortunately, been poisoned by much ethnic division. We can, and must, do differently. We must do better.

3. Lack of robust, well defined agenda: another problem we have faced as nation is that, at different points when there have been campaign or clamour for change, the focus of the agenda, or the lack thereof, is breath-taking in its sheer superficiality and impertinent narrowness. In the end, so much energy is dissipated with little or nothing to show for it. And here again, in the current election campaign, we seem to be repeating the same mistakes of the past. For example, some have defined the new Nigerian project in terms of a change of personality at the helm of the nation. Others have defined it in terms of a change of party. There has been little or no attention on policies and manifestos. Where there has been any interest at all on ideas and policies, such have been remarkably superficial and short-sighted. There is a pressing and critical need to apply more rigour and thoroughness to our collective engagement with policies and ideas for positive change. And in this respect citizens should take the lead, not leaving it to politicians to serve self-half baked ideas and half -hearted promises.
4. Fragmented campaigns for change: The last few years has witnessed a preponderance of various new organisations and associations campaigning for change at various levels from local to national. Many new groups have been started or have been re-invigorated , in various forms from advocacy organisations to pressure groups and think thanks, or some combining two or more approaches and strategies. This is a good thing for our democracy, and there is room for many more. It is especially good and important that many of these groups are concentrating their efforts and projects at their local bases, thereby expanding the democratic space and enriching the values and practices of liberal democracy at the grassroots. The major problem with these local organisations, and sometimes these new national organisations, is that they are especially weak in mobilising bridging and linking social capital in the wider context of synergising for the national agenda. Some of these organisations also over estimate their reach and capability, and the energy of their endeavours is distinctly weakened by a lack of synergy. In order to achieve the goals of the Nigerian project, local and national organisations sharing similar ideas and ideals must come together in a grand synergy to achieve and maintain the critical mass for positive change. They, individually, need not dissolve or close down their organisations, which are, in many cases, providing particular local focus and delivering unique values in local and special contexts, but each organisation, in order to achieve relevance and deliver value to the national project, must begin to reconstruct and redefine their goals and objectives in terms of their relevance and contributions to the national project, and in terms of sustained alliance they are able to forge with other like-minded organisations, preferably under one umbrella.
5. Lack of long term strategy: Finally let us dilate for a moment on the question of strategy. One the perennial features of critical episodes in the history of popular activism in Nigeria is the way they reveal lack of long term strategy. It has become almost predictable, the collective behaviour of Nigerian citizens at these various critical moments in our national life. Check out the story of June 12 campaign, or even, more recently, the story of the anti-fuel subside campaign. Part of these stories is, as we have stated, the lack of well defined, robust agenda, but an equally important part is the lack of durability and resilience. And it is in this respect that the current, some say recycled, political elite, have now and again beaten change campaigners to it. For all their glaring, and far reaching failure to provide purposeful leadership for the nation, they do in fact understand the long game, certainly more than the average Nigerian. They bide their time, wait for the fervency of the activists’ campaign to die out, and then, like vultures, they resume their escapades atop the carcass. They have always, and successfully so, put their bet and base their plan on the energy of momentum of popular activism dying out. And now and again, they have turned out to be accurate in their prediction. The new campaigners must show sustained energy, durability and resilience to achieve their goals. We must stick with it in the long haul. The campaign for positive change in Nigeria is not a sprint. It is a marathon.

Conclusion: new approach, new mind-set

Let us now try and bring all these thoughts together in a final word. Nigeria’s past is a story of unfulfilled dreams, of failed promises and dashed hopes. We made a false start, and made an even bigger mess thereafter. But even in this apparently gloomy shadow we see signs of a great future. It is, for example, a worthy testament of the resilience and dynamism of its people that Nigeria has survived today, largely in spite of its leaders, who, as a member of the political elite recently stated, “do not give a damn!”

But the story to which we have today summoned our collective contemplation is not the one of a failed past but of a promising future. Nigeria has got the numbers, in terms of the people, the land and the resources to take on the world. However, these resources are but dry bones. Now we need to summon the sinews of concrete ideas and the spirit of an inspired and determined citizenry to inject life into these dry bones, and reap enormous progress and prosperity into the bargain.

There is a different vision and dream that lie ahead of us. Nigeria can be the arrowhead of an industrial revolution and economic transformation in Africa. More than that, it can become an economic power house in a real sense, with millions lifted out of poverty to prosperity, and the nation taking the rest of the continent on a sure and certain journey to prosperity. Nigeria can be the bastion of freedom, justice and equity, an example of great and noble things, a corrective to some of the tragic inequalities we have seen in even some of the developed countries of the world today. This is a realistic goal, and we can make it happen.

To do this requires a new mind-set and a new approach to doing things. We must consciously and conscientiously fight the deadly virus of ethnic and religious division. We must eschew nepotism, and fully embrace the noble ideals of accountability and transparency in all levels of public and corporate responsibility, from political office to civil service and the private sector. We must cultivate and maintain new attitudes of tolerance and respect for our differences with as much steadiness as we repudiate corruption and mediocrity with utmost vehemence.

This is Nigeria, another way.

Thank you very much for your attention and God bless!

Seun Kolade, PhD

Research Fellow, Centre for African Entrepreneurship and Leadership University of Wolverhampton E: Seun.Kolade@wlv.ac.uk<mailto:Seun.Kolade@wlv.ac.uk>

[1] Falola, T. & Heaton, M.M., 2008. A history of Nigeria, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

This paper was originally presented at the symposium organised by the Nigerian Students Society, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom, on 10^th March, 2015.

Author: Michael E. Porter

Publisher: Palgrave, New York, 1998

855 pages

Unlike David Landes’ Wealth and Poverty of Nations, which was unashamedly an euro-centric take on the political history of development, and unlike Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs and Steel, the award winning anthropological history of development weakened by its far reaching environmental determinism, Michael Porter’s work may be less entertaining as a prose, but it is, I think, the more rigorous and more credible work of the three. Of course, as we shall soon see, it is not entirely devoid of ideology, even if the author was loathe to admit to any ideological bias.

As with books of this nature, the author begins with the standard repudiation of the old paradigms for explaining comparative, and disparate, development and under-development of nations. Porter’s central argument, quite persuasive on the face of it, is not so much that old explanations are fundamentally wrong, but that they are weak, inadequate to the task of a comprehensive, holistic explanation. For example, says, Porter, the explanations based on macro-economics is weakened by the fact that some nations, including Japan, Italy and Korea, had experienced significant growth in spite of budget deficits, appreciating currencies, and high interest rates. Similarly, the explanations based on cheap and abundant labour could not account for the giant strides of countries like Germany, Switzerland and Sweden. Also, if growth was based on abundant natural resources, nations like Japan and Switzerland should be lagging behind. Finally, Porter contends that neither government policy, nor management practices, offer a complete, coherent explanation for the progress and regress of nations.

Instead, Michael Porter introduces his central idea of competitive advantage, as opposed to the old idea of comparative advantage. The building block of this competitive advantage is the diamond of factor conditions, demand conditions, related and supporting industries, and firm structure, strategy and rivalry. Taking the firm, rather than the nation, as the main unit of analysis, Porter would return now and again to the diamond in his discussion of the competitive advantage of firms within nations. Thus, you will find some terms and themes oft repeated to support the central arguments.

The book itself is divided to four parts: Foundations, Industries, Nations, and Implications. The three chapters in Foundations were devoted to more elaborate introduction and discussion of his main concepts, including the four components of the diamond. In the following parts and chapters, he would take the readers through an extensive body of data obtained from a large study of 10 advanced nations: United States, Britain, Germany, Japan, Korea (South Korea), Switzerland, Sweden, Italy, Denmark, and Singapore. Considering this study was set in the mid and late eighties, it is curious that the Soviet Union, the second biggest economic and military power at the time, got only a very brief mention in page 1. Of course, this may be partly due to paucity of data and lack of access to the Soviet Union, but in terms of the key arguments effectively advanced in the book against the socialist model, it would have been useful to get a more detailed explanation of how that nation was, outside of Porter’s model, able to achieve competitive advantage for a long term, before and since the second world war.

Porter explains that basic factor conditions- natural resources and cheap unskilled labour are mainly relevant only in the earlier stages of a nation’s economic development. If a nation wants to upwards and onwards on the ladder of development, it needs to move first from basic factors to advanced factors- more educated and highly skilled work-force, and modern infrastructure. This is because, within the paradigm of competitive advantage, it is easier for other competing firms to replicate basic factors (for example by shifting production overseas, something American firms have done vis-a-vis China, or importing cheap raw materials), but advanced factors take much longer to replicate. Even so, right from this early stage, the four components of the diamond work hand in hand. The demand conditions are considered in terms both of quantity and quality. For the former, the sheer number of people within the nation where the firm is operating plays a big role, but this role is not as significant as that played by the quality, or sophistication, of this home demand. Put differently, better informed, sophisticated consumers positively influence the competitive advantage of nations by putting pressures on firms to innovate and upgrade their production. Less informed buyers invariably lead to firms’ stagnation and loss of ground in the global market. The third component of the diamond, related and supporting industry, feeds well into the factors and demand conditions, as spin offs and new start ups agglomerate in clusters to enhance productivity and improve national competitive advantage. This process is mutually reinforcing. For instance, progress in an upstream industry like Materials and Metals lead to spin offs in automobile industry. And as the automobile industry progresses, there is more demand for iron and steel. The fourth component of the diamond –firms structure, strategy and rivalry also integrates well into this. With respect to this fourth component, Porter was especially emphatic about the critical role of domestic rivalry for continuous innovations and upgrading of processes and products in a nation’s industry, and he is critical of mergers and acquisitions, as he is scathing about “counter-productive” government interventions by way of subsidies and protectionism.

Porter’s theory is that the competitive advantage of nations is essentially an aggregate of the competitive advantage of individual firms, across the whole spectrum of sectors, in the nation. Even when firms invest overseas, the home base (where the firm’s central management and R &D are located) play the most significant role in terms of contribution to the nation’s aggregate competitive advantage.

I found the book to be quite interesting and thought provoking, and I find most of its central arguments to be quite persuasive. However, I think Porter was hard pressed to underplay the role of government, and his lack of detailed treatment of the Soviet Union was a weakness. I am not convinced that, without more aggressive and focused government intervention at the early stages, nations of Africa, for example, can adopt Porter’s model as it is, and genuinely expect to achieve competitive advantage in the modern global market. Certainly, recent developments in Brazil and China (not covered in the book, of course), appear to show that more aggressive, even centrally planned, government intervention can in fact work well in a nation’s objective to achieve competitive advantage.

Yet beyond the shadows the truth stares us in the face, however much we try to ignore it: Nigerians have had four years to plan, to organise, and strategise, round clear ideas and principles to move the nation forward. But yet again, we fallen back into the old habit, the 11th hour scramble for simple, nay simplistic, solution. Bring in the string man to fix things once and for all.

The logic is clumsy, even perverse: the strong man, we are told, will work with hopelessly corrupt politicians, in a hopelessly corrupt system, to fix the corruption problem. This president will, without so much as penny bribe, get the support of habitually corrupt legislators to push his programmes through. He will get the enthusiastic support of corrupt governors too. And the judiciary and law enforcement? Yes, they will see the light, as the strong man waves his magic wand.

A strong man does not a strong nation make. There is no substitute for a strong, organised citizenry. This is the story of the Magna Carta. It is the story of the Boston Tea Party. It’s the story of Bolshevik Revolution. You can go on an on. Yes, there were strong men at the head of these movements, but it was more about the organisation of critical masses of citizens around clear ideas and principles.

In terms of corruption, nepotism, and bad management of the commonwealth, there is no fundamental difference between PDP and APC. Fact. The only difference is that one, PDP, is controlling power at the centre.

Now, it an understandable matter of practical politics that citizens can mount a charge for positive change through the platform of an existing political party. Inconvenient alliances are often necessary for success of a movement for positive change. Afterall, the American revolutionaries ultimately relied heavily on the support of autocratic Louis 16 of France for the success of their revolutionary endeavour. Crucially, they were not lacking clear ideas and organising principles on how to achieve their republican aims.

What Nigeria need is a virile citizen movement organised around clear ideas and principles, outside of existing political parties. Now, using the platforms of existing or new parties, they could have moved, in the spirit and power of these clear ideas, sponsor citizens for elective posts from local government to state and national levels, both at the legislative and executive arms of government. The presidency can then be part of this organised startegy. You may even start with 20% of elective positions to start with, but that is more than enough to launch a sustained charge for the realisation of the Nigerian dream.

Instead, what we have now is this last minute quest for simple solutions. A quest that is poised, sadly, to end in another disappointment. Hopefully the lessons will be learned, and citizens can start preparing for 2019. Hopefully, there will be a 2019.

And that grey area, not only costs the environment, it also a reason why there are no jobs as they should.
Let me explain it this way – The average spend by UK local councils on waste collection is £22 million a year. And those would be the councils outside of the major economic cities like London, Leeds, Manchester and Birmingham.
Councils in London spend considerably higher.

To help these councils fund the duty of waste collection, the council tax is exclusively charged by the councils on all houses and flats. On average, you pay £98 a month. The cost is dependent on how many rooms the house or flats are, among other considerations.
The councils then use the money to provide trained staff, wheelie bins for residents. And they use part of it to invest in heavy duty waste trucks.
What they achieve year in, year out is a marvel.

1. They keep the environment tidy and minimise the incidence of outbreaks of disease from a filthy environment. The end result of that is that the UK govt will not have to spend, through the NHS, unnecessarily on healthcare for such outbreaks. Cholera could be an example of that.

2. They preserve the value of the houses. If you were looking to move, you’d definitely not spend your cash in a filthy environment. So because the waste management practice is uniform, the real estate, estate agents and builders endeavours benefit from a sure base.

3. Investors in related businesses – recycling and landfill management – are able to bring private cash into a neat waste economy with a long term approach, thereby reducing the associated costs and premiums.

4. Connected businesses, those in the auto vehicles and parts, the wheelie bin manufacturers, plastic waste bags and even deodorants can have regular, long term and profitable businesses with more people kept in employment. That’s in addition to direct investment by the councils in recruitment and labour.
In the UK, public and private money work in tandem to keep that industry rolling with thousands of jobs to boot.
Nigeria.

Contrast that to the Osun State govt’s recruitment of thousands of street workers on the payroll of the government. That translates into using a large chunk of that state’s income on recurrent expenditure like salaries.
Any shock to the allocation system means a lot of redundancies will happen, apart from having limited cash for the projects really needed.
The people of Osun see the employment provided as a good thing. Who would blame them? Any improvement in their personal circumstances is good in their dictionary.

But on the overall scale, it’s a very poor system. And it’s the norm in ALL of the 36 states and the Federal Capital.
A simple understanding of the model of governance leads to all of that.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CONCERNS ITSELF WITH THE ISSUES MEANT FOR THE STATES. AND THE STATES GOBBLE UP THE TASKS MEANT FOR THE LOCAL COUNCILS.

It’s that simple.

The failure of a rich state like Lagos in organising waste collection is down to a lack of proper understanding about who should do what.
The local councils understand their locality. They also know how to communicate with their people in a way they can respond. They know when to apply the carrot and the stick in a way the majority will approve of.

If the state isn’t so greedy about ‘revenue generation’ and useless political posts, the council tax will be deferred to the councils and legal framework put in place to make sure the waste is statutorily, methodically and uniformly collected.
The state government can then build a commercial infrastructure by inviting investment in the area of recycling and landfill management.
And that model can be replicated all over Nigeria.

As things currently stand, we lose all the benefits organised scheme in waste management brings to the UK and how it stimulates other areas of economic activity.

Next time an Ambode or a Kolo asks for your vote in Lagos, put the right questions out to them.
Ask them about waste management. Believe me, all the carcasses of the cars imported at will all over the state will have to be disposed of one day and the manner in which they are disposed would be the difference between life and death.
Not done properly, those nasty and dangerous chemicals will find its way into the water sources and cancer related ailments spike. I am sure there would be other health hazards with the metals disintegrating into the ground.

Listen to them and try to understand how they offer lateral solutions which not only address waste management but link into job provision in the wider economy.
The much touted ‘tourism industry’ is beyond putting up Eyo Festival shows. It’s about the city, it’s dynamism, modernness, friendliness, cleanliness and safety.

They all translate into jobs which can be private sector linked for job provision.
Anyone trying to resolve the joblessness fiasco by bloating up the already Titanic scale public sector workforce is an antediluvian specimen.
he reason why we do not get the result we want is because we do not raise the level of debate so high those who want to contest will think twice.
I see that as a problem because i have consulted for an apsirant who refused to see sense in vying for the top job in Lagos by tackling the vision of what the city will represent in the near future compared to the major cities of the world.

It’s all about base line politics of moneyballs and rhetorics. It’s disappointing.

I got home at around 12.45 last night. Trains were working and the London Underground is even thinking of 24 hour train services to serve business districts in London, not only making the economy more vibrant but making the city a delight for more tourists.
The Nigerian politicians do not realise that there is a symbiotic relationship between the High Street and tourists. That that economic union is blended by excellent transport options and links, great and affordable hotels, landmark buildings and architecture all wrapped by safety.
It’s time for the electorate to set the agenda the politicians cannot just see. It’s time to consign those shameless apologists of every inanity thrown at us to the dustbin of ignorance and test the mettle of those who seek to better the lot of our country.
Raise your game.

 Yet Africa is home to countries that are the least developed of the less developed and consistently rated lowest on the UN Human Development Index, where even the more fortunate live in grinding poverty, anarchy and unimaginable violence.

 Much of African contemporary history is one of war, slavery, colonial oppression, poverty, corruption, dysfunctional government and presentation of “horrible horrible story to the world” (apology to the narrator of Cry Freetown). The billions of Dollars our minerals have generated have brought nothing but misery and death to the very people who live on top of them, while enriching miniscule elites amongst us and foreigners, and underpinning technological innovations and development in the developed world. We are utterly cursed by our very natural wealth.

 What could have delivered us into this irony of emptiness in the midst of fullness and lack in the midst plenty?

 Our apocalyptic history is a product of choices made in the past centuries, and even till now, by imperialists and Africans. Years of slavery and colonialism, consolidated by our own endogenous forces have prepared ground for the limitless problem Africa would face.

 When Europeans came in the 15th century, they realised they had stumbled upon a land of vast natural wealth, rich in resources – material and human. Africa was a source of seemingly inexhaustible supply of strong, disease-resistant slaves hunted down and sold by fellow Africans as well as material resources that would form spurning force for development in Europe and the New World. The Europe quickly found this supply would be easier to tap if much of the continent of Africa was in the state of anarchy; distinct ethnic nationalities were forced together, setting up history statehood without nationhood and peaceful co-existence and  instigating ethnic distrust and mutual hatred (e.g. Tutsis and Hutus in Rwanda and Burundi and Nigeria); brutal, barbaric form of rule was set up.

 Then, there was sustenance of rule meant with little or no interest to develop the continent and forge an attitudinally unified entity from arrays of ethnic groups that constitute each country by keeping Africa at a base level of development that suited the rulers and the comprador bourgeoisie and, and in some cases, making sure that when independence came there was no home-grown elite who could run the country. For instance in the DR Congo, pre-independence, of 5,000 government jobs, just three were held by Congolese and there was not a single Congolese lawyer, doctor, economist or engineer. Thus, when chaos ensued, Belgians left within weeks leaving the country with nobody with skill to manage the government and the economy, and so power got to the hand of Mobutu Sese Seko who consolidated the tragic experience Congo and its people.

 But we must not make mistake about it and delude ourselves with self-defeatism – AFRICA HAS BROUGHT ITSELF TRAGEDY; WE HAVE NO EXCUSE NOT TO SWIM AGAINST THE TIDE AND REPLICATE THE MAGIC IN SOUTHEAST ASIA.

 Regimes of corruption and bad government have meant freeing up of  developmental funds for private use. Our leaders, some supported by the West for Cold War strategic reasons, have all deliberately stifled the development of a strong state, army, judiciary, civil society and education system, because to remove any blockade of their primary focus, making money from what lies under the Earth, off the sweat of citizens, and perpetuation of power. Politicians have bled the continent of trillions of dollars. Just as we talk, the Niger Republic leader just acquired a 40 million USD jet in a country whose citizens are always seen in my country Nigeria begging for clothes. Nigeria has wasted trillions on power supply that would never be up to 4,000 mega watts for over 160 million people.

 Even, if our colonial experience created for us a story of being disadvantaged, we have worsened the situation by participating in the very process of developing our underdevelopment. We have not resolved to climb up developmental platform like countries of East Asia like Singapore and China; Middle East like UAE etc. that were also underdeveloped. For how long do we blame our woes on exogenous forces at a time we ourselves have refused stop presenting developmental tragedy? We do not invest in education, research and innovation in the same proportion as we fatten pockets of public officers. We don’t spend on economic infrastructures that will spurn development. We don’t improve our human capital and socio-economic environment, thereby we  make our countries fertile for recruitment into armed struggles and insurgency. We don’t make bold and pragmatic policies that run in consonance with our internal realities.

 Africa is what it is today – tragedy and embarrassment – partly because of choices the West have made of us and mainly as a result of our own refusal to set ourselves up on the path of development. Singapore with miniscule population and traumatic beginning after humiliating ejection from Malaysia and no material resources, as well as other hitherto less developed countries of the Global South, has made it clear it is possible for a Third World country to even rival the West in terms of development, albeit skewed global order and history of colonialism.  But let me ask: Is there something, naturally, wrong with the black race? Consider that hardly is there any black country in the world that is prosperous and even the Arabs in the North Africa are not so less developed as blacks are.

Adebayo Taiwo Hassan-Justice.

Now it is useful for us to begin by quickly identifying 4 levels of consciousness with regard to citizen engagement with the process of development and governance in a democracy. The first level is what I call the basic awareness stage, where citizens possess mental knowledge of very basic information relating to governance. The basic information often consist of knowing about prominent persons in national government, as well immediate local players. It also include knowledge of existence of main political parties. The second stage is the interest stage, during which citizens are motivated, perhaps by means of major events, to deliberately seek more information about, not just persons and parties, but underlying principles and policies, as well as knowledge of their basic rights as citizens. At this stage the knowledge is more detailed and more specific about manifestos and policies, as well as about persons and performance.

Close to this 2nd stage is the evaluation stage, during which the citizens take more critical and practical approach to assess actual performance of political and civic leaders, and makes value judgements based on careful considerations of the facts. The judgements usually end up with choices with regard to direction of support for candidates and parties, or causes, for that matter. The 4th level is the level of active participation, which may well be broken into a few sub-stages, including volunteering with various grass root organisations on developmental projects, citizens making their voices heard at the ballot box, protecting their votes, and continuous monitoring of office holders, elective and appointed, to ensure they follow through on their promises

Our purpose here, hence, is to facilitate the transition across these levels of consciousness, using various means of engaging with citizens to unlock and unleash the enormous latent energy for revolutionary change. Some will respond quicker than others; others will require special means of engagement. In all cases multiple approach may be required, but the key here is that there are actual measures by which we can access the movement from one level to the other. Many people in the city, especially those with some secondary education, are already in the first stage, including, rather bizarrely, many graduates as well, whose consciousness is still at the level of basic information about persons and parties. It also happens that many rural dwellers, as well as quite a number, especially of illiterate people, in the cities, are not even in the first stage yet.

What then are some of the strategies that can be employed to facilitate movements from one level of consciousness to higher ones, and ultimately to the final point?

1. Take careful account of specific issues that may hinder citizens’ positive and active engagements, including learned cynicism and helplessness acquired over years of neglect and political abuse;  lack of information about what to do or how to do it (like voting centres’); the temptation of little bribes;  indifference arising, for example, from illusion of self-contained security, economic, and political, especially with regard to the middle class.

2. Generate resources specifically targeted to address the issues identified

3. Put resources in different formats for effectiveness of communication, like leaflets, brochures, comics, dvds, online resources, etc.

4. Arrange different means of transmitting these resources, like leaflet distribution by email or post, small-group discussions (over meals, for example); mobile communications by text or phone calls, etc.

Both perspectives represent two sides of a conversation about pitfalls and opportunities, and they have generated much attention and interest, not just on these threads, but nationally, and indeed internationally.  First there is the learned cynicism arising from years of unpleasant experiences of failed promises from self-seeking politicians who perenially promise the high heavens but deliver hell and misery year and after year. We have seen, in our Nigerian experience, the reckless looting that is going on at the hghest echelons of power whilst ordinary citizens wallow in unmitigated misery and uncertainty about the security of their lives and property.

On the other hand we have also seen, amidst the rubbles and tumult of our decadent politics, opportunities for positive engagement. We have seen that, given an opportunity for citizens’ electoral choices to count, they can actually make a difference in choosing those they conside best equipped, in terms of expertise and moral standing, to conduct their affairs at all levels of governance. We have also seen that citizens can in fact exercise the same rights to undo bad choices and continually impose their will in the process of governance. These opportunities, it is true, are still in the infancy of development, and there is much that needs to be done to ensure that the electoral process is transparent and credible, and not just at the ballot box but also in the process leading to selection of candidates for office.

Let us now return to the original concerns that brought about this missive: are development and politics mutually exclusive? Is poltical participation necessarily partisan? And is partisan politics inherently evil or dishonest engagement? To answer the first question just think of any aspect of development that is dear to you. I’m thinking immediately of Education. Who is responsible for building our schools Who pays the teachers and workers in schools? Even for private schhols, who license and regulate them? The government! And who is the government? Those we elect to conduct the affairs of the community at different levels, assisted by civil servants who simply execute the agenda and project set by government officials.

So how do we ensure these elected leaders meet the needs and aspiration of the people with regard to Education, Employment, Infrastructure and other aspects of development? There are lots of ways, actually. One, and very important, is to ensure that we make our voices count in choosing the best in the community. In pursuance of this, it is very helpful, and important that we seek and share information that will help us make the best choices. Two, we must ensure that, beyond the time of choosing leaders, we must continually engage with them, scrutinise and support as occassions arise, and demand acoountability with regard to our aspirations and obligations. Both of these levels of engagement constitute the fundamental essence of political participation. Thus, it is the duty of well-informed citizens to ensure that the political process serve its fundamental purpose of fulfilling the desires and hopes of the citizens, rather than an instrument by which politicians lie and use citizens to achieve their selfish ends.

It behoves us then to ask: if it’s our duty to ensure that the best persons are chosen to conduct the affairs of the community, is there anything inherently wrong for anyone to put himself forward as a representative of the community? It cant be wrong; we can not at the same time seek to choose the best persons and still believe the best persons can not infact volunteer or put themselves forward. Even so, are there no pitfalls or dangers associated with involvement in partisan politics? Of course there are. First, as we have learned in Nigeria, there is always the possibility, nay preponderance, of deception, by means of which political apsirants make all the promises we want to hear in order to gain advantage and attain office, then unleash hell and terror once they attain power. However, to combat this the duty of citizens is to seek more infromation and commitment before making their choices, by scrutinising the antecedents of aspirants who make promises to check how they have done in the past with regard to promises and development efforts before they held any offices, or in the previous offices they held. In this respect it is much easier to filter out liars and opportunists who seek political office for selfish gains.

The second problem associated with partisan politics is the possibility of rancour, by means of which close family members, and otherwise good friends are driven apart to hostility on account of conflicts of interest in position seeking, and conflicts arising from participation on different sides of partisan poltiical divide. In this regard we say differences and debates are constant aspects of human experience, with or without partisan politics, and to grow as humans is to accommodate and learn to deal with, rather than evade, these differences. Only one rule of thumb must here apply: anyone who will take the slightest route of violence and terror is decidely unfit to represent the interest of the community at any level of governance, and citizens must exercise their rights to reject or remove such dangerous impostors from the corridors of political power.

I’ll end this piece with a quote from the ancient philosopher Plato. In The Republic, he quoted Socrates as saying: “He who refuses to rule is liable to be ruled by one who is worse than himself. And the fear of this, as I conceive, induces the good to take office…” (pg 21). And then again, in pg 141, he says : “Until philosophers are kings, or kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy, and political greatness and wisdom meet in one, and those of commoner natures who pursues either to the exclusiion of the other aside, cities will never have rest from evils- and no, nor the human race, as I believe- and only then will this our state have a possibillity of life and behold the light of day.”

By Seun Kolade,

August 2011.