It’s been 31 years since a seismic event triggered by the June 12, 1993 election nearly brought Nigeria to its knees. The presidential candidate of the Social Democratic Party (SDP), M.K.O Abiola, was on the cusp of a resounding victory when the military government of General Ibrahim Babangida interrupted and later annulled the election.

That action sparked nationwide protests that ultimately consumed Babangida’s government and his successor, General Sani Abacha. It set the stage for a transition that,over Abiola’s dead body, produced Nigeria’s luckiest former military leader, Olusegun Obasanjo, as civilian president in 1999.

Every May – and later June – since then, Nigeria has marked its successful transition to democratic rule, the most extended 25 years of unbroken civilian administration in its 64-year history.

How far?

But the lingering question remains: how democratic have we truly become? If the martyrs of June 12 could witness the nation's current state, would they have made the same sacrifices? Is this the Nigeria that the survivors, still bearing the scars of the struggle, fought for? Would some of the beneficiaries, now in their 30s, sometimes question the validity of the struggle? Do they even care or remember? These are complex questions with no easy answers.

This week, I read two significant articles that left no doubt that Nigeria is in a tough place. The point of the articles is that democracy is more than campaign promises, more than periodic elections, and much more than the absence of military rule. It's a system that is currently under severe strain in our country.

The first, by the New York Times, was entitled, “Nigeria Confronts Its Worst Economic Crisis in a Generation.” Citing the widespread hardship, the newspaper said, “Nigeria is facing its worst economic crisis in decades, with skyrocketing inflation, a national currency in free-fall and millions of people struggling to buy food. Only two years ago, Africa’s biggest economy, Nigeria, is projected to drop to fourth place this year.”

A country adept at coping with misery, the paper said, appears to have reached its wits end.

The second article was by Jonathan Power, one of Europe’s most knowledgeable writers on foreign affairs and a friend of Obasanjo.

In his article this week, “Democracy on the Run?”, Power cited Freedom House and several other reports that indicated a qualitative and quantitative decline of democracy in several countries, including Nigeria, because of “a lack of vigorous policy implementation and good public administration.”

We know what we know

We don’t need foreign newspapers to tell us. The daily lives of most Nigerians today, whether at home, school, work or in the market, tell the story unedited. And folks are beginning to ask, first in whispers and now in louder, angrier tones, what is the point of democracy that does not put food on the table?

China is not a democracy, but it runs a system that has lifted millions out of poverty and has created the largest middle class in the world. Its science, technology and infrastructure investment makes the United States look like a third-world country. Nor was Singapore a Western-type democracy when it leapt from third to first world under Lee Kuan Yew. And Libya’s best years yet were under Moammar Ghaddafi.

Impatience with democracy has also led to a rash of military coups in several African countries – actually seven in three years in West and Central Africa – led by soldiers who seem to be succeeding in dragging the continent back to the era of military demagogues.

They use the same messianic rhetoric, but only this time, they are succeeding far more easily because, as we say, reason flees the head when hunger enters the stomach. Flawed elections are making matters worse.

Matter of framing

But are we framing the question correctly? Is autocratic rule in whatever guise – including the Rwandan variant that extends one-person rule in the middle of the game – superior to democracy simply because of stability and an appearance of material prosperity?

And, in any case, is the problem with democracy, or is it a matter of performance? In other words, isn’t it the quality of governance that makes democracy meaningful?

For all its progress, and it’s a lot, I would still not trade democracy for autocracy – whether it’s of the variety of its poster boy, China; its latter-day nationalistic face, Russia; or its pseudo-domesticated cousin, Rwanda.

Nigeria is far from the promise of 1993 or 1999, but it has produced some of the world’s most insulted presidents who, by and large, we can still call goats and get away scot-free. That’s not a trophy. It’s not a substitute for bread and butter, either. But you never know the value of free speech, association or movement until these rights have been abridged or taken away.

World not smiling

The point is weariness – not necessarily with democracy, but with performance – is not only a Nigerian thing. A Pew Research Center study in December 2022, which covered 19 countries from Sweden and Singapore to Canada and from the UK and South Korea to the US, France and Spain, showed mixed outcomes in satisfaction with democracy and political efficacy.

While only 20 percent were not satisfied in Sweden, and 43 were not in Canada, for example, the figure in the UK was 46 percent, 56 percent in France, 62 percent in the US, and 68 percent in Spain. The 19-country median was 48 percent – a weak pass.

Citizens were generally dissatisfied by polarisation, exclusion, inequality, corruption and lack of trust.

Nigerians are unhappy, not with democracy, but with the failure of performance. For example, an Afrobarometer survey of 2022 showed that while 70 percent of Nigerians prefer democracy, 77 percent of the population are unhappy with the quality of governance. If that same survey were conducted today, the figures would be starker.

But that is understandable. Two significant decisions by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s government – the partial removal of petrol subsidies and the floating exchange rate – have had the unforeseen effect of significantly worsening hardship. On top of that, when the government calls on citizens to tighten their belts, some public officials appear to be living it up with large convoys,personal aides and extravagant foreign trips.

It’s precisely this feeling among citizens of baboon “working” and monkey “chopping” that has given democracy a bad name.

Tinubu’s luck

Tinubu made his own luck by asking for the job of president at what would always be one the worst times in Nigeria’s history in a generation. Of course, there are broader issues like weak institutions, ineffective governors, election fraud, and a deep feeling among voters that elections are useless to remove bad leaders, not to mention limited faith in the judiciary. These issues require the collective effort of citizens, leaders, and institutions to solve them. But in the end, one man leads.

What Tinubu makes of it – not only through his speeches but, more importantly, through his performance – in the next one or two years will determine what is left of the heavily eroded confidence in democracy. He can’t afford to fail.

** Ishiekwene is Editor-In-Chief of LEADERSHIP and author of the new book, Writing for Media and Monetising It,

The hardest step is usually the first one. So make it short.

Entrepreneur attended BetterUp's Uplift summit San Francisco on April 11, where renowned author and public speaker, James Clear, who is best known for his New York Times bestselling book, "Atomic Habits," spoke about the key to building habits that stick.

His book, which teaches people the importance of building better habits on a scaleable level and finding success with these newly adopted behaviors, has sold more than 15 million copies. Still, he knows that when people want to make massive changes, it can feel completely overwhelming.

"We're so focused on optimizing that we don't give ourselves permission to show up even if it's just a small way."

But Clear said there's one technique that only takes two minutes of your time.

By using the "two-minute rule," you can begin implementing habits into your daily lives, no matter how farfetched (or big) the new habits might be. The strategy can be applied to any habit you're trying to build, he says, in both a professional and personal capacity.

What Is the Two-Minute Rule?

The two-minute rule is when you take the new habit or task you want to accomplish and no matter how big it seems, break it down into a short task that can be done in two minutes or less.

"Take whatever habit you're trying to create and scale it down to something that takes two minutes or less to do," Clear explained. "So 'read 30 books a year' becomes 'read one page' or 'do yoga four days a week' means 'take out my yoga mat.'"

Clear says critics have raised issues with this strategy because they are consciously aware that they are trying to trick their brains, which makes it harder to implement. But Clear says to take a step back and just begin — the hardest step is usually the first one.

"This is a deeper truth about habits that people often overlook, which is a habit must be established before it can be improved," he said. "It has some standard in your life before you can scale it up and optimize and turn it into something more."

Clear compared this to going to the gym and knowing that your initial habit-building step might just be putting on your workout clothes and walking out the front door, not starting with a 5-mile run or an intense exercise class.

"At some point, planning becomes some form of procrastination."

"And I don't know why we do this. But we get very all-or-nothing about our habits a lot of the time," he said. "We're so focused on finding the best workout program, the perfect sales strategy, the ideal diet plan — we're so focused on optimizing that we don't give ourselves permission to show up even if it's just a small way."

Sometimes deciding to start instead of planning to start is the shift you need, he said.

"The two-minute rule kind of pushes back perfectionism, fear, and this tendency to over plan or over research," he said. "Planning and preparation can be useful. But if you're planning and research and preparation are substituting for actions that you should be taking, now it's kind of outlived its usefulness and become a crutch — at some point planning becomes some form of procrastination."

Entrepreneur

The exodus of several international companies from Nigeria has resulted in a significant reduction in Company Income Tax (CIT) revenue, which fell to N984.6 billion in the first quarter of 2024. This represents a 12.87 percent decrease from the N1.13 trillion collected in the fourth quarter of 2023, according to data from the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS).

Since President Bola Tinubu assumed office, at least seven multinational corporations have exited the country, citing an unfavorable business environment and a shortage of foreign exchange. The NBS report highlighted that local CIT payments amounted to N386.49 billion, while foreign CIT payments contributed N598.13 billion in Q1 2024.

The report also noted that on a quarter-on-quarter basis, "activities of households as employers, undifferentiated goods and services-producing activities of households for own use" recorded the highest growth rate at -330.42 percent (N70.5 million), followed by administrative and support service activities with a growth rate of 33.18 percent (N6.7 billion). Conversely, the manufacturing sector saw the lowest growth rate at -70.24 percent (N73.1 billion), followed by the electricity, gas, steam, and air conditioning supply sector at 69.14 percent (N5.1 billion).

In terms of sectoral contributions for Q1 2024, the top three were mining and quarrying at 20.94 percent (N80.9 billion), financial and insurance activities at 18.73 percent (N72.4 billion), and information and communication at 12.56 percent (N48.5 billion). Activities of households as employers, water supply, sewerage, waste management, and remediation activities, and activities of extraterritorial organizations and bodies recorded the least shares.

Despite the quarterly decline, CIT collections in Q1 2024 increased by 109.93 percent compared to Q1 2023.

The Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) announced that Nigeria's average daily crude oil production fell to 1.25 million barrels per day (bpd) in May. This information was detailed in OPEC's monthly oil market report released on Tuesday, which was based on direct communication with Nigerian authorities.

OPEC collects crude oil production data through two main sources: direct communication from member countries and secondary sources such as energy intelligence platforms. According to the report, the current output represents a 2.34 percent decline from the 1.28 million bpd recorded in April.

Despite the decline, Nigeria remains the largest oil producer in Africa, followed by Libya, which produced 901,000 bpd in May. Algeria was the third-largest producer with 264,000 bpd.

Interestingly, secondary sources reported an increase in Nigeria's crude production by five percent, reaching 1.41 million bpd, up from 1.35 million bpd in April. However, both figures—whether from the government or secondary sources—fall short of the 2024 production quota of 1.5 million bpd set for the country by OPEC.

The report also highlighted that crude oil output increased mainly in Nigeria, Gabon, and Equatorial Guinea, according to secondary sources, while production decreased in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Libya, and Congo.

"According to secondary sources, total OPEC-12 crude oil production averaged 26.63 mb/d in May 2024, 29 tb/d higher month-on-month," the report stated. "Crude oil output increased mainly in Nigeria, Gabon, and Equatorial Guinea, while production in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Libya, and Congo decreased. At the same time, total non-OPEC DoC crude oil production averaged 14.29 mb/d in May 2024, 152 tb/d lower month-on-month. Crude oil output increased mainly in Mexico, while production in Russia and Kazakhstan decreased."

President Bola Tinubu’s Democracy Day broadcast on June 12, 2024, marked 25 years of Nigeria’s return to democracy. In his address, the President acknowledged the economic difficulties facing the nation and emphasised the need for reforms to rectify decades of over-reliance on oil revenues. However, the reality of his administration’s economic reforms paints a starkly different picture.

The withdrawal of subsidies from petrol and electricity, coupled with the floating of the Naira leading to a massive devaluation, has plunged Nigeria into a severe economic crisis. These measures, often lauded by Bretton Woods Institutions, have resulted in hyperinflation, widespread hunger, and a cost-of-living crisis that is strangling the Nigerian populace.

The consequences are dire: rampant smuggling of homegrown food across borders to fetch higher prices, the closure of hundreds of manufacturing concerns, and the alarming trend of de-industrialisation. Furthermore, these policies have failed to attract the necessary foreign investments, exacerbating an already precarious security situation.

Mr. President, the narrative that these reforms will lay a stronger foundation for future growth is a dangerous fallacy. The harsh reality is that these Bretton Woods Institutions-inspired policies have historically failed underdeveloped economies and are failing Nigeria now.

The withdrawal of subsidies, while intended to rectify fiscal imbalances, has disproportionately impacted the most vulnerable segments of society. Floating the Naira without adequate safeguards has unleashed a tidal wave of inflation, eroding the purchasing power of everyday Nigerians. These policies, far from being the “necessary repairs” you describe, are dismantling the economic bedrock on which Nigerian society stands.

It is time to chart a new course. Nigeria needs economic policies that genuinely address the needs of its people. Policies should be designed to stimulate local production, support small and medium-sized enterprises, and protect the most vulnerable from the shocks of economic adjustment. Investment in infrastructure, education, and healthcare should take precedence over austerity measures that deepen poverty and inequality.

Moreover, it is imperative to address the systemic issues that stifle economic growth. Corruption, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and inadequate infrastructure are barriers that no amount of subsidy withdrawal or currency devaluation will resolve. A robust anti-corruption framework, streamlined regulatory processes, and strategic investments in infrastructure are essential for sustainable development.

Mr. President, it is time to abandon the failed prescriptions of external financial institutions and adopt a homegrown economic strategy that prioritises the welfare of Nigerians. Engage with local economists, entrepreneurs, and civil society to develop policies that foster inclusive growth and economic resilience.

The path to true economic reform lies not in policies that inflict widespread hardship but in those that build a resilient and inclusive economy. It is time for bold leadership and visionary policies that will truly improve the lives of all Nigerians. The nation stands at a critical juncture; the decisions made now will shape the future for generations to come. It is imperative to steer Nigeria towards a path of sustainable and equitable growth.

Blinken says some of Hamas' proposed changes to a cease-fire plan in Gaza are workable and some not

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Wednesday that mediators would keep trying to close an elusive cease-fire deal for Gaza after Hamas proposed changes to a U.S.-backed plan, some of which he said were “workable” and some not.

The back-and-forth laid bare frustration over the difficulty of reaching an accord that could end eight months of war that has decimated the territory, killed tens of thousands of Palestinians and left scores of Israeli hostages still languishing in militant captivity. Previous moments of optimism have been repeatedly dashed by the differences between the two sides.

The cease-fire proposal has global support but has not been fully embraced by Israel or Hamas. Blinken did not spell out what changes Hamas sought, but he said the mediators — Qatar, Egypt and the U.S. — will keep trying to “close this deal.” He put the onus on Hamas, accusing it of changing its demands.

“Hamas has proposed numerous changes to the proposal that was on the table. ... Some of the changes are workable. Some are not,” Blinken told reporters in Qatar. “I believe that they (the differences) are bridgeable, but that doesn’t mean they will be bridged because ultimately Hamas has to decide.”

Blinken’s comments came as Lebanon’s Hezbollah fired a massive barrage of rockets into northern Israel to avenge the killing of a top commander, further escalating regional tensions.

Hezbollah, an Iran-backed ally of Hamas, has traded fire with Israel nearly every day since the Israel-Hamas war began and says it will stop only if there is a truce in Gaza. That has raised fears of an even more devastating regional conflagration.

Air-raid sirens sounded across northern Israel, and the military said about 215 projectiles were fired from southern Lebanon, making it one of the largest attacks since the fighting began. There were no immediate reports of casualties as some rockets were intercepted while others ignited brush fires.

Hamas asks for changes

Hamas conveyed its official reply to the proposal to mediators on Tuesday. Hamas spokesman Jihad Taha told the Lebanese news outlet ElNashra that the “amendments” requested by the group aim to guarantee a permanent cease-fire and complete Israeli troop withdrawal from Gaza.

The proposal announced by U.S. President Joe Biden includes those provisions, but Hamas has expressed wariness about whether Israel will implement the terms. While the U.S. says Israel has accepted the proposal, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has given conflicting statements, saying Israel is still intent on its goal of destroying Hamas.

Blinken, on his eighth visit to the region since the start of the war, said the deal on the table was “virtually identical” to one Hamas put forth on May 6. The U.N. Security Council voted overwhelmingly in favor of the plan on Monday.

“At some point in a negotiation, and this has gone back and forth for a long time, you get to a point where if one side continues to change its demands, including making demands and insisting on changes for things that it already accepted, you have to question whether they’re proceeding in good faith or not,” he said.

Speaking alongside Blinken, Qatari Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani said there had been “counterproductive” actions by both sides.

The proposal’s three-phase plan would begin with a six-week cease-fire and the release of some hostages in exchange for Palestinian prisoners. Israeli forces would withdraw from populated areas, and Palestinian civilians would be allowed to return to their homes. Aid distribution would also increase.

At the same time, negotiations would start over the second phase, which is to bring “a permanent end to hostilities” and “full withdrawal” of Israeli troops from Gaza in exchange for the release of all remaining hostages.

Phase three would see the launch of a reconstruction plan for Gaza and the return of remains of deceased hostages.

A major hitch for both sides appears to be the negotiations for the second phase.

Israel’s ambassador to the U.N., Gilad Erdan, said Israel will demand that Hamas be removed from power as part of any agreement on that phase.

“One of our conditions is not only the release of the hostages, it’s also the future of Gaza,” Erdan told CNN’s “The Source” on Monday. “We cannot agree to Hamas continuing to be the rulers of Gaza because then Gaza will continue to pose a threat to Israel.”

He also said Israel opposes a provision extending the initial cease-fire as long as talks are going on, saying it would allow Hamas to “continue with endless and meaningless negotiations.”

Hamas, in turn, appears to want stronger guarantees up front that the talks will lead to the permanent cease-fire and withdrawal.

Netanyahu’s far-right coalition allies have rejected the proposal and threaten to bring down his government if he ends the war leaving Hamas intact. But Netanyahu is also under mounting pressure to accept a deal to bring the hostages back. Thousands of Israelis, including families of the hostages, have demonstrated in favor of the U.S.-backed plan.

Israel’s bombardment and ground offensives in Gaza have killed over 37,000 Palestinians, according to Palestinian health officials, who do not give the breakdown of civilians and fighters. The war has also driven some 80% of the population of 2.3 million from their homes, and Israeli restrictions and ongoing fighting have hindered efforts to bring in humanitarian aid, fueling widespread hunger.

Israel launched its campaign after Hamas and other militants stormed into Israel on Oct. 7, killing some 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and taking around 250 hostage. Over 100 hostages were released during a weeklong cease-fire last year in exchange for Palestinians imprisoned by Israel. Hamas is believed to be holding around 80 hostages and the remains of another 40.

Revenge for slain commander

Netanyahu’s office said he was conducting a security assessment in light of Hezbollah’s barrage in the north and what it called Hamas’ “negative response” to the proposal.

Hezbollah said it fired missiles and rockets at two military bases in retaliation for the killing of Taleb Sami Abdullah, 55. Known within Hezbollah as Hajj Abu Taleb, he is the most senior commander killed since the fighting began eight months ago. The Israeli strike late Tuesday destroyed a house where Abdullah and three other officials were meeting, about 10 kilometers (6 miles) from the border.

A Hezbollah official told The Associated Press that Abdullah was in charge of a large part of the Lebanon-Israel front, including the area facing the Israeli town of Kiryat Shmona, which Hezbollah has repeatedly attacked in recent days, causing fires in the area.

The official, who was not authorized to speak to media and spoke on condition of anonymity, said Abdullah had joined Hezbollah decades ago and took part in attacks against Israeli forces during their 18-year occupation of southern Lebanon that ended in May 2000.

Israeli airstrikes on Lebanon have killed over 400 people, most of them Hezbollah members, but the dead also include more than 70 civilians and noncombatants. On the Israeli side, 15 soldiers and 10 civilians have been killed since the war in Gaza began.

Other groups allied with Iran, including powerful militias in Iraq and Syria, and the Houthi rebels in Yemen, have also attacked Israeli, U.S. and other targets since the start of the war, often drawing Western retaliation. In April, Israel and Iran traded fire directly for the first time.

AP

WESTERN PERSPECTIVE

Russian missile strike kills 9, injures 29 in Ukraine's Kryvyi Rih

A Russian ballistic missile strike on Ukraine's southern city of Kryvyi Rih on Wednesday killed nine people and injured 29, including five children, Interior Minister Ihor Klymenko said.

The deadliest attack in weeks damaged an administrative building and an apartment block, Ukraine's military command said on the Telegram messaging app.

Klymenko said recovery work was now complete.

"Every day and every hour, Russian terror proves that Ukraine, together with its partners, should strengthen air defences," President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said, commenting on the attack. Kryvyi Rih is his hometown.

In video shared by Zelenskiy, one man was shown being carried out of the rubble on a stretcher. Firefighters battled blazes and rescuers heaved a block of concrete in the ruins.

RUSSIAN PERSPECTIVE

Battlegroup Dnepr inflicts defeat on two Ukrainian military brigades

Battlegroup Dnepr has inflicted a defeat on two brigades of the Ukrainian armed forces in the Zaporozhye and Kherson Regions, with the enemy’s losses amounting to 80 troops, the Russian Defense Ministry said.

"The Battlegroup Dnepr units have inflicted a defeat on the military personnel and equipment of the Ukrainian armed forces’ 128th mountain assault brigade and 35th marine brigade near Kamenskoye, Pyatikhatky, Stepovoye in the Zaporozhye Region and Lvovo in the Kherson Region," the statement said.

The Defense Ministry said that the Ukrainian military had suffered losses of up to 80 troops, three vehicles, a US-made 155-mm M109 Paladin self-propelled howitzer and two US-made 155-mm M777 howitzers.

Ukrainian army lost over 500 servicemen from Battlegroup West operations

The Ukrainian armed forces lost over 500 servicemen over the day from operations of the Russian Battlegroup West, the Russian Defense Ministry said.

"The Ukrainian army lost over 500 servicemen, three pickup trucks, a 155 mm Braveheart artillery unit produced by the United Kingdom, a 152 mm 2S3 Akatsiya self-propelled artillery unit, a 152 mm D-20 cannon, two 122 mm 2S1 Gvozdika self-propelled artillery unit, and a 105 mm M101 howitzer of the US make," the ministry said.

"Tactical aviation, unmanned aerial vehicles, rocket troops and artillery of battlegroups of the Russian Federation Armed Forces engaged concentrated manpower and materiel of the adversary in 113 areas, the ministry added.

Russian Air Defense downed 61 drones, 9 ATACMS missiles over day

The air defense systems shot down nine ATACMS missiles and 61 drones over the day, the Russian Defense Ministry said.

"Air defense assets over the day shot down: nine ATACMS tactical missiles of the US make, two Hammer guided air bombs of the French make, three Olkha rocket projectiles, and 61 unmanned aerial vehicles," the ministry informed.

According to the ministry, 613 airplanes, 276 helicopters, and 25,620 unmanned aerial vehicles were destroyed from the start of the special military operation.

Reuters/Tass

Each time a country goes through minimum wage negotiation, you can take it for granted that the argument to put politicians on that same salary scale will come up. It is a common argument, one that the Victorian Socialists Party in Australia included in their campaign promises. Granted, they were an upcoming party—the equivalent of the many political parties in Nigeria that exist through their press releases until elections are around the corner—and were unlikely to win anyway. Still, asking politicians to feel what they dish out is a universally resonant sentiment. In 1816, when the United States Congressmen voted to increase their salaries to $1500 a year (from the cumulative $900), a significant number of them were promptly voted out! Such reactions show how much people have always resented their delegates living above the majority of the people they are supposed to represent.

In Nigeria, we have repeatedly heard versions of the argument as the Nigeria Labour Congress slugs it out with the Federal Government on calibrating the pay scale. The NLC started out with N615,000, a rather outrageous sum even for a negotiation starting point. They revised their offer to 495,000 and are now down to N250,000. The Federal Government, meanwhile, is offering them N62,000. In bargaining, the union leaders justify their figures by comparing the sum with politicians’ income. To enhance the moral legitimacy of their stance, the breakdown of lawmakers’ income has been circulated in the media along with the payslip of a prominent media aide. If they could earn that much, the workers too should be able to up their demands. While we know it is highly improbable that our politicians would ever legalise such a proposal, it is a discussion still worth having. The Nigerian political class earns a high income. If placed on a minimum wage, will it make a difference?

Arguments in favour of the proposal assert that politicians are public representatives and their realities should not be distant from the society they purportedly administer. Besides, politics is not a profession one should embark on for the salaries but for the prospect of making a social impact. This line of argument is not entirely without provenance. Until the 20th century, lawmakers in Britain (the country that colonised/modernised half of the world) were unpaid. In those times, it was not a full-time job but a partial vocation for propertied men who could afford to take some time off to deliberate for society.

Several analysts suggest a correlation between the income we pay politicians and the quality of governance. They argue that better salaries induce better people into politics, which is good for the system. The standard reference point for those who take this position is Singapore. Their lawmakers are officially the highest paid in the world earning about $900,000 per year (for comparison, US congressmen earn about $178,000). Singaporean ministers earn around $1.1m, while their president earns about $1.7m (the US president earns $400,000). Other countries, especially in the Middle East (like Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Kuwait) and Europe (Monaco, Norway, and Sweden), also have leaders earning humongous salaries. What do these countries have in common? Good governance, high quality of life, minimal corruption, and leaders who demonstrate public accountability.

Now, as even an elementary analyst knows, correlation is not causation. The fact that higher salaries have something to do with better governance elsewhere does not necessarily make it the defining reason those countries enjoy good leadership. Nigeria is a fantastic example of higher salaries not making any difference in leadership quality. In fact, all the arguments advanced for paying politicians higher salaries fall apart in Nigeria. They say politics is an elite enterprise and if you want to draw the best minds in your society, you must pay them well above—or at least the equivalent of—what they would have earned if they worked for wealthy private corporations. People who get into power should enjoy a high quality of life to free them from pursuing other enterprises that will expectedly bring them money. That idea does not quite hold up here because the meritocracy that selects people in those societies is still largely alien to us. People frequently get into power in spite of—not because of—merit.

That explains why, except for a handful, Nigerian politics is mostly populated by a category that does not even represent the quality of minds that freely litter its landscape. Looking at those who represent us in power, you would never quite know that Nigerians are brilliant people who excel in parts of the world where they are allowed to thrive. Our politics is skewed in such a way that the worst of us mostly tends to represent the best of us. Ironically, some analysts use African countries such as Nigeria as an exemplar of the low-quality governance you get when you underpay your public administrators.

Nigerian lawmakers earn as much as their US counterparts, but they do not compare favourably. Listen to our lawmakers debate an issue, and you will understand that they themselves are a problem that higher salaries simply cannot fix. For instance, the quality of their “debate” over the re-introduced national anthem was beneath the level of what you will get at a newspaper stand where the Free Readers Association members converge to argue everything from world politics to sports. The discussants did not come across as if they did any homework on the subject; their contributions were mostly extempore and hardly insightful. I have witnessed agboolé meetings where the old men who mediate conflicts demonstrate far better rhetorical and oratorical skills. So where exactly is the elitism that is supposed to distinguish them from the rest of us and justify their pay?

They also confound the idea that if politicians earned enough, they would look away from bribes. Nigeria serially defies abstract postulations in this respect. Someone like Orji Uzor Kalu was not a pauper before he got into politics, yet he once went to jail on allegations of corruption. His story is not even unique. Governors steal and steal while they are in office, and when they are leaving, they will still get the lawmakers to sign them unconscionably fat pensions. Then they will go to the Senate where they will continue to steal. Nothing is ever enough for them, no matter how much they manage to amass.

To be fair to them, the nature of public office in Nigeria induces stealing, especially if you already lack a strong moral core. The average politician is always hustled by the mass of beggars who throng their abode in search of kobo tokens of survival. Such demands on public leaders push them to steal to augment their earnings. Still, that does not change the argument that in our society, our politicians are the same breed of hustlers whether rich or poor. There are hardly any distinctions between them when it comes to corruption. Paying people who have no such self-awareness higher salaries will not raise their standards. It will only widen their already wide mouths.

If more money has not allowed them to create the space necessary to develop themselves intellectually and ideologically, paying them less (by putting them on a minimum wage) will not make much difference either. No reasonable person thinks there is any path to that proposal ever getting actualised, but we bring it up because it is a good argument that at least reminds our out-of-touch politicians to stay level-headed. In the ongoing context of wage negotiation in Nigeria, it is funny seeing people pointlessly arguing against the idea. There is no path to ever paying politicians minimum wage, but bringing it up is also not an entirely futile exercise. Leaders who determine our lives need such occasional reminders to be—hopefully—empathic.

Punch

Hint: Effective communication isn't just about talking.

With the increase in flexibility in how and when individuals work, people are reporting higher levels of burnout and difficulty in finding work-life balance.

To combat this, leaders and employees alike will have to focus on increasing their empathic social skills. One skill, in particular, increasingly separates average leaders from great ones: Active listening.

Activating Your Active Listening Skills

Effective communication isn't just about talking; it's having the ability to listen intuitively to the other person's story, ask questions and search conversations for depth, meaning and understanding with their needs in mind. This is active listening at its best.

With technology and social media ruling our lives, we are becoming less opportunistic in developing our active listening skills and less socially aware of its effect on business as a competitive advantage. As you develop professional relationships, leverage active listening by being able to understand what's happening on the other side of the fence.

This is a key differentiator of great leaders – listening to understand. It's also fast becoming a rare and forgotten leadership skill. The great ones, you'll notice, don't dominate the conversation by talking only about themselves or the task at hand.

In meetings, huddles, or one-on-ones, they listen and reflect back on what they heard to clarify ("What I hear you saying is ...") and they ask questions to probe the other person's feelings or opinions on a task or direction a project is heading. That can be as simple as: "Tell me how you feel about this".

The listening has one overarching goal: To find ways to connect with and help the other person succeed. Having your employees' best interests in mind gives leaders the edge in building trust when it matters most.

People underestimate the power of the great leadership skill of active listening. When a person feels that they are listened to, it goes directly to their self-worth. When someone demonstrates that they care about what concerns them and that the other person really understands their perspective, it validates that individual.

As you identify future leaders to promote to higher ranks within your organization, pay attention to the ones who listen with the intent to help each team member be the best person they can be. This is someone worthy of being in the esteemed role of a leader.

Inc

When former President Olusegun Obasanjo addressed the nation during his inauguration on May 29, 1999, he embodied the hope and promise of a new era. His words reflected the aspirations of millions of Nigerians yearning for a break from the past and a leap into a future filled with economic prosperity, security, and democratic governance. "Together, we shall reach the Promised Land," Obasanjo declared, igniting a flame of optimism across the country.

Twenty-five years later, as Nigeria marks a quarter-century of constitutional democracy, the reality starkly contrasts with the high hopes of 1999.

Each successive administration—Obasanjo's own, followed by those of Umar Musa Yar’adua, Goodluck Jonathan, Muhammadu Buhari, and now Bola Tinubu—has faced a complex web of challenges, some inherited, others self-inflicted. The collective legacy is a tale of unfulfilled promises and growing disillusionment.

Obasanjo's Era: The Dawn of Disappointment

Obasanjo's tenure, despite initial efforts at reform and reconciliation, quickly encountered obstacles. His administration grappled with corruption, poor economic management, and persistent security issues. While he did succeed in securing debt relief and laying the groundwork for telecommunications and banking sector reforms, the broader vision of a transformed Nigeria remained elusive. The hope of a better life for ordinary Nigerians was soon overshadowed by the realities of graft and inefficiency.

Yar’adua and Jonathan: Flickers of Hope, Shadows of Regression

President Umar Musa Yar’adua's brief term brought a glimmer of hope with his Seven-Point Agenda, which aimed to improve infrastructure, the power sector, and the Niger Delta situation. However, his untimely death meant that many of his initiatives never came to fruition. Goodluck Jonathan's presidency continued some of Yar’adua's policies but was marred by significant challenges, including widespread corruption and the escalation of Boko Haram insurgency. His tenure ended amid declining public confidence and economic instability.

Buhari's Promise of Change: An Unmet Aspiration

Muhammadu Buhari's ascent to power in 2015 was marked by the promise of change. Nigerians hoped for a break from the past, with Buhari's campaign focusing on anti-corruption, security, and economic revitalisation. However, his administration struggled to deliver on these promises. Despite some efforts to combat corruption, the scale of systemic rot proved overwhelming. Economic policies failed to spur significant growth, and security deteriorated, with widespread violence and insurgency persisting.

Tinubu: A Year of Pain and Uncertainty

One year into President Bola Tinubu’s tenure, the cautious optimism that accompanied his inauguration has dissipated. His controversial economic policies, including the removal of fuel subsidies and the liberalisation of the foreign exchange market, have triggered a severe economic downturn. Hyperinflation, joblessness, and a depreciating naira have left many Nigerians in dire straits. The World Bank's report of 104 million citizens living in poverty underscores the depth of the crisis.

Under Tinubu, Nigeria's security situation has continued to deteriorate. The country's landscape is marked by abductions, killings, and a general sense of lawlessness. The economic and social policies of his administration have yet to provide the relief and development that Nigerians desperately need.

The Verdict: Unfulfilled Promises, A Nation in Need

As Nigeria reflects on 25 years of democracy, it is clear that the journey has been fraught with missed opportunities and unfulfilled promises. While there have been pockets of progress—such as improvements in telecommunications, banking, and some infrastructure projects—the overarching narrative is one of decline. The aspirations articulated by Obasanjo in 1999 remain largely unachieved, and the socio-economic status of Nigerians has not significantly improved.

The current administration must urgently address these challenges. There is a need for a compassionate and strategic approach to governance that prioritises the welfare of the people. Tinubu's government must focus on security, economic stability, and the implementation of policies that genuinely benefit the populace. The promise of democracy should be more than just the right to vote; it should translate into tangible improvements in the quality of life for all Nigerians.

Conclusion

The past 25 years have shown that democracy alone is not a panacea. Effective governance, visionary leadership, and genuine commitment to the public good are essential to realising the potential of Nigeria. As the nation commemorates this milestone, it is imperative to recommit to these ideals and work towards a future where the hopes of 1999 can finally be fulfilled. The road ahead is challenging, but with collective effort and responsible leadership, Nigeria can still reach the Promised Land.