The respect for the rule of law has got to be sacrosanct. If you aspire to the number one office in the land, then your respect for law and Nigeria being bigger than your ambition must be evidently displayed in your utterances and more importantly how you live your life, every day.

General Buhari has to apologise to Nigeria and Nigerians for participating in or benefitting from a coup. The apology is necessary because he now has the benefit of hindsight to know that his actions were regrettable regardless of the nobility of his intentions. If any coup plotter/beneficiary was dissatisfied with the way those in government were conducting public affairs, they could have shed their uniform and contested for public office in order to conduct affairs of government in, what is in their view, the appropriate manner. Coup is never a resort let alone the last one. So can General Buhari make us aware of every step he and his comrades took within the ambit of law to bring about change of government attitude during the Shagari regime? Who did they sue to court? Did he or his comrades attempt to shed military uniform and join a political party to seek elective office? If the issue wasn’t important enough for them to shed uniform, who did they encourage from the civil populace to seek office and correct anomalies? Did they publish any article or whistleblow on the government to sensitise the nation on what was wrong and how it could be corrected or was option 1 always a coup d’état? If as it is claimed by some that Buhari was only a beneficiary, who did he prosecute for organising the coup if he respects the law as much as he claims?

On the certificate saga, the General lied on oath about the whereabouts of his certificate. Personally I don’t care about the certificate itself as to me he’s qualified by experience. What I do care about is that he swore an oath that is now proving to be untruthful. I’m not a legal expert but my understanding is that lying under oath is perjury and perjury is a criminal offence. Now that he’s aware that he may have committed perjury, how should the General handle the matter? In his statement on the issue, he said “I would have dismissed it for what it is – sheer mischief…” Are you shocked? Perjury=Mischief – from an anti corruption czar that is a presidential candidate? Or does he not appreciate the gravity of perjury? So when or if he becomes president, what aspects of the rule of law will he dismiss as mischief?

In previous presidential campaigns, General Buhari did not have the quality of people he now has at his disposal running his campaign and so makes clear what has changed. Question is, has General Buhari changed personally? If yes, to what extent? Is it extensive enough to deliver the “change” mantra?

In January, Lagos State Governor Babatunde Fashola accused Jimi Agbaje of the criminal offence of tax evasion. Ideally, we should only find this out after a good investigative journalist unearths it from court filings, but here we are. Jimi Agbaje on his part reacted with surprise at the unprovoked attack but went on to produce a document purportedly signed by the Lagos commissioner for finance commending him for fulfilling his tax obligations. Is Jimi Agbaje’s reaction commensurate to that of someone that has just been accused of a criminal offence? Now consider the profile of those involved in this matter. Governor Fashola is a SAN and Jimi Agbaje is the main opposition in the contest for the Lagos State gubernatorial election. Governor Fashola may possibly have perverted the course of justice by revealing the matter in the court of public opinion. Does the governor’s action follow the normal procedure for dealing with criminal offences against the State? Or is the procedure of dealing with tax evasion that the governor announces offender’s names at conferences? Why should Jimi Agbaje be treated any different to other evaders? Are their actions not reminiscent of that of boys that belong to the same sorority?

Politicians as a matter of course are like parrots, they say a lot and have much to say. However, we need to pay more attention to what they don’t say and be better at reading between the lines so that when a politician tells you “heads I win, tails you lose”, you’ll be able to tell when you’ve been truly buggered.

It is often said that within politics, perception is reality and the truth is negotiable. It is with respect to this saying that I must confess APC have excelled in the current presidential election campaign. The perception of good governance in Lagos especially, has gone some way into solidifying it as a reality. Asiwaju Tinubu has also benefitted immensely from this perception of Lagos and has been able to use it to cement his place as national leader of the APC. Anyone that defeats an Atiku Abubakar in politics without the power of incumbency deserves plaudit.

Asiwaju is a deft politician. However he isn’t doing anything new. He is simply copying what Pa Awolowo did in the South West when he held sway, and what Dr Azikiwe and MI Okpara did in the East and Alhaji Tafawa Balewa and Sir Ahmadu Bello did in the North (collectively our founding fathers). Whilst Pa Awolowo was able to deliver on his electoral mandate in all of the South West, Asiwaju has only been able to do so mainly in Lagos. If Pa Awolowo failed to take his relative South West success to the centre, I doubt very much Asiwaju can as APC still seem a collection of strange bedfellows nationally. The East and Northern regions currently don’t appear to have their own version of Asiwaju, perhaps this supports Asiwaju’s ambition somewhat unlike Pa Awolowo that had commendable opponents in other regions.

What is interesting to note however is that this period, when the regions had considerable power, largely coincides with when all of Nigeria was mostly productive. During the first half of the 60s, prior to oil discovery and military incursion into power, agriculture was Nigeria’s biggest sector (some 60% odd of GDP) and main earner of foreign exchange. None of the regions had a mono control of the sector as each had its own area of strength within the sector. Further, Nigeria was a major exporter of agricultural products and was particularly a global leader in palm oil, cocoa and tomatoes. What the agricultural sector did then was that it allowed each regional leader to negotiate from a position of economic strength whenever they gathered to discuss central matters. It is not entirely clear to me, and I need to read more on this, why the founding fathers wanted control of the centre considering the autonomy and true federal nature of governance at the time. But jostle for the centre they did. We all know what happened in 1966 when tensions got too heated as a result of the failure of the struggle for power at the centre.

Whilst the various killings that led to the military’s incursion into power were wrong and unfortunate, it was hardly surprising considering that the formation of Nigeria as a country was never negotiated among those that were forced to bear the name “Nigerian”. Unfortunately our founding fathers failed to communicate with and reiterate enough to those that they led, the friction that was bound to occur, the length of time it was going to take and the need for patience to be exercised by all and sundry in the negotiation of what the “Nigerian identity” and “Nigerian dream” was. Perhaps, and in hindsight, what should have been made clear by the founding fathers was that all life was equal, irrespective of the region one came from and that justice would be full no matter whose ox is gored. This communication failure perhaps contributed to why the Aguiyi-Ironsi government was lenient and perceived to be lenient on the Majors that initiated the first coup and set of killings.

On the military’s part, the decision to create several states and weaken regional autonomy and power was a good strategy – a good strategy in that it allowed them consolidate power. Good for the military but bad for Nigeria. Why was it bad? It was and has remained ever so because that original question the “Nigerian identity” and the “Nigerian dream” are still unanswered some 55 years on.

The question is can we answer this question without each region going back to its position of economic strength – a position of strength that was largely enabled due to political and economic autonomy?

We’ve spent the last 55 years failing woefully at finding the answer to this question. There’s a Nigerian adage that says “when a youngster trips, they get up and carry on walking, whereas when an adult trips, they get up, look back at what caused the trip before carrying on walking”. At 55, we can safely assume that Nigeria is an adult. So why don’t we do what adults do, look back on what is causing us to trip over ourselves time and time again.

A lot of our national strife has been caused by the jostle for control of power at the centre. The jostle for power at the centre, when cabal interest wasn’t as complex today as it was in the 60s equally stumped our founding fathers. How much so now when vested interests are so vast (local and international), complex and when we have grave national economic and security issues on our hands.

Whilst we may not be able to revert 36 states back into 12 or even the original 3 regions, we should be able to produce a federal Constitution that guarantees the complete economic autonomy of state and local governments. Further, we should be able to come up with a Constitution that politically supports the economic autonomy of the state and local governments whilst at the same time pandering and recognising our multi ethnic multi cultural society.

In my last opinion piece, I mentioned the words “constitutional minimums”. I believe through these minimums, we can deliver a Constitution that guarantees the freedom of rights of every Nigerian citizen equally, whilst also delivering a social contract that is equitable. The basis of these minimums is purely “what is yours is yours, what is mine is mine, and what is ours, we decide”. I mentioned two examples of minimums in my last piece. I’ll give another one now.

Our Constitution can establish a federal police force that focuses on federal crimes eg crimes against the nation, those that threaten national security, sovereignty or crimes in violation of international law and when we’re obliged to cooperate with international partners. The Constitution would also have a law enabling the creation of state police forces. The Constitution would provide for each state to determine how it wants its police force to be structured and administered. The Constitution will also guarantee that any Nigerian can apply to join the police force of any state so long as they are resident in that state as a minimum. Of course such persons will still need to successfully negotiate the state’s police academy. Normal discriminatory laws will apply and would be filed and tried at federal courts. The rest of our judicial system would also have constitutional minimums similar to that of the police force.

The point of this piece is we need each level of government, each ethnic grouping and each state to be free from the fear of ethno-dominance and to be able to negotiate the future of Nigeria, their future, our future from a position of relative strength and not desperation or out of inducement of a stomach nature.

Which way forward?
How we got to where we are as a nation considering not just our level of intelligence but also the number of people perceived to be intelligent is completely mind boggling. Considering the quality of our founding fathers and their level of sophistication, some of our pains could and should have been avoided but just like generations before them, we seem to be committing the same mistakes they did and careering down a ruinous path.

Our history seems to be littered with several spurned opportunities of guiding our nationhood unto a path where the collective hopes of all can be realistically implemented without the fear of ethnic and cultural cannibalism. First, our founding fathers failed to reach a mutually working arrangement following the declaration of independence. Second, we missed the opportunity during the Aburi Accord negotiation to agree on a lasting and workable federal or con-federal structure and thirdly, we failed to use the first parliamentary session of our latest dalliance with democracy to set out and agree a new democratic structure for the long term. In our rush to get rid of the military, we failed to properly consider the sustainability of our new democratic venture; a venture based on a document prepared by the very military we were running from.

Our failure to do the needful, always kicking the can into the future, has led directly to where we are today. A nation without a national identity where none of its citizen knows what “the Nigerian Dream” is. @xeenarh asked on twitter the other day what the ‘Nigerian Dream’ was and the consensus, based on a satirical but truthful comment by a responder, was “to become your own local government”.

There’s no sugar coating it, Nigeria to all intent and purposes is a failed state. The description of the Nigerian dream above is testament to that. Most social institutions, if not all, have failed. The Police are unreliable, other security forces have been compromised, the judiciary is hardly referred to settle injustice between ordinary citizens, healthcare, energy and other infrastructures are all in a dire state. Regardless of what strata of society you look at, there seems to be a clear failure of leadership and followership. Further, the country is one big giant welfare state with the civil/public (federal & state) service the biggest employers. To compound this, many states appear insolvent to the extent that payment of salaries (pension to retirees) to civil servants has become a serious challenge. All we do is consume, consume and then consume some more.

The years of military rule and its attendant abuse of society and its institutions has completely eroded any chance of the current approach working. One of the opening preambles of our Constitution states “We the people of the Federal Republic of Nigeria; having firmly and solemnly resolved, to live in unity and harmony as one indivisible and indissoluble sovereign nation under God….” Unity and harmony aren’t just words that can be declared into being. There has to be a foundation on which basis those words are laid; foundations such as understanding, mutual respect, mutual recognition, truth, sanctity of life amongst others. Without these foundations, the words in the preamble are meaningless and without life. Looking at the Nigeria around us, it is clear that these foundations are not in place otherwise it won’t be so difficult for Nigerians to sit down and have honest conversations with one another. The ‘state of origin’ issue is evidence that there is no mutual recognition as Nigerians; the initial and prolonged indifference to the insecurity and insurgency in the north east is evidence of the little value placed on the ‘sanctity of life’ and its associated freedom of rights.

Whilst there are obvious differences between us, several commonalities also exist. Our reaction to one another regarding these differences reeks of prejudices. Rather than seeking to celebrate, understand and accept, we mostly seem to discriminate against them thereby sacrificing the benefit that we should be getting from our diversity.

The point is we can’t continue like this. We have to make our diversity work for us. We have to remove the contentious issues that so perpetually plague us and make it impossible for us to have peaceful, amicable and honest conversations with each other. We need to charge our National and State assemblies with the task of delivering a new Constitution that identifies and aligns with the cultural diversity in our nation over the next parliament. We need them to deliver a comprehensive political reform that customises the democratic system of governance to our unique national characteristic and panders to our multi ethnic society.

Constitutional Reform
Our current Constitution concentrates too much power in the centre implying that the government with the most power is too far removed from the people that are most in need of its policies. This concentration of power lends the federal government to be perceived as on overlord, whose favour everyone courts. This makes capturing power at the centre a do or die affair. The distrust created by years of military rule, as well as the unresolved repercussion of the civil war has also contributed to a nation where inter-ethnic empathy is almost non-existent. Unfortunately for us, globalization has made it nigh impossible for us to work through our ethnic disharmony without the international community scrutinising and possibly interfering in what should mainly be a private affair. It is to this end that I would suggest that rather than us continuing to painfully try and force the issue of sustaining an overpowering federal government, we should self diagnose and administer a healthy dose of morphine. This can be done by stripping the centre of much of its powers and transferring majority of it to the local and state governments.

The federal government should only have powers that I would refer to as constitutional minimums. Constitutional minimums are laws that will be common to all irrespective of place of birth or location. The minimums will be the social contract among all Nigerians. For example, a constitutional minimum could be a law eradicating the ‘state of origin’ and replacing it with ‘state of residence’. Linked to this law could be a further declaration that any Nigerian can contest for any public office so long as they are locally resident. We may choose to allow each state set the length of time a Nigerian needs to be resident in that state to be eligible to contest public office or we could agree to include the length in the constitutional minimum. Another example is to make education up to WAEC level a constitutional minimum for every Nigerian child. Whether it is an Almajiri school or an anglicised one could be up to the local/state governments. The education minimum could make education up to primary level free for every child with states determining if they want to subsidise secondary school fees. Every other aspect of our social life could have a constitutional minimum that makes sure that certain services and expectations are uniform regardless of where you choose to be resident.

Of course certain aspects of government need to remain national and controlled at the centre, for example, national defence, protecting the sovereignty of the nation, sovereign debt/rating, monetary policies, customs, some infrastructures like nuclear energy, citizenship & immigration, diplomacy and defending our fundamental rights. Everything else currently in the Exclusive Legislative List should be up for negotiation in terms of transference to local and state governments.

Furthermore, I believe the resource/revenue control of the nation should be shared in this manner with complete autonomy among the different levels of government; Local Government 42.5%, State Governments 30% and Federal Government 27.5%. A related constitutional minimum could be a law stipulating that each level of government should commit at least 15% of its revenues to a reserve account, only to be accessed if very specific requirements are triggered. On resource control, the issuance of licenses for exploration of natural resources should be vested with the state government where the resource is found. We need our States to collaborate and compete on their strengths. Whilst there is the Odua Investment Company and an Arewa one, most states in Nigeria can’t afford to cooperate. They’re mostly too insolvent to cooperate. Also, we don’t have any business creating more states. There is simply no economic basis to do so.

Democratic Reform
Alongside the need for constitutional reform is democratic reform. We need to decide what form of democracy suits us. Democracy by default is a system of government that facilitates debate. Plurality of opinions is healthy to any debate and contributes towards a qualitative outcome. The current winner-takes-all electoral system doesn’t appear to be the most suitable to our democratic maturity given the deep rooted disharmony and distrust among ethnicities.

Perhaps a proportional representation electoral system is more suitable to Nigeria. In this system, the distribution of seats gained by a party will be directly related to the proportion of votes cast for that party at a general election. The system is one that ensures all votes contribute towards the result rather than a majority. For example, if during a State House of Assembly election, the APC gets 40% of votes, PDP 25%, Kowa 20% and SDP 15%, this would mean that all parties will have members in the Assembly with the numbers of members gained by each party directly related to the percentage of total votes it received. This system also reduces the scenario where a State or State Assembly will be completely dominated by a single party.

There are no ideological differences between the two main political parties (APC and PDP) – neither political nor economical. What we need to accelerate our development and deepen our democracy are parties that differ along ideological lines. The ideology could even be influenced by culture or tradition. A proportional system almost forces the issue as parties will need to come up with ways of differentiating themselves beyond “they are bad, we are good”, “they are corrupt and we are not”. What I’ve found most disappointing about the current presidential campaign is how the main opposition party and its supporters attack the incumbent party on the very same thing their party is guilty of. For example, on one hand Jimi Agbaje is too old at 57 to be governor but on the other General Buhari is not too old at 72 to be president. If APC are really an anticorruption party, the allegation that Jimi Agbaje is a tax evader should have been found out when the government charged him to court and used as a political tool.

As a party, APC is as weak as the PDP. If APC were truly pro Nigeria, they would not avoid a presidential debate. The avoidance is a good strategy for them to win the election, but definitely a bad thing for our democracy. This tells me they are happy to sacrifice Nigeria, if it means they get their way. The PDP shenanigans regarding INEC can be read in like manner.

A matured democracy is one where the interest and opinion of the minority not only matters, but is protected. A democracy where no one is left behind, where everyone willing and able gets a chance to live a life of dignity. General Buhari referring to smaller parties as ‘mushroom’ parties suggests he doesn’t quite get it yet. As a military man, one would have thought he’d appreciate the importance of the voice of the little man, defending the indefensible etc. Neither of the two main parties is offering fundamental solutions to our problems. Neither of them is asking if our form of democracy is working or if our constitution requires overhauling. If they are, for example, one of them will be seeking to close the loophole used by Speaker Tambuwal to defect from his party yet retain his Speakership. If they truly cared about Nigeria, they will as a matter of principle or ideology be pushing for or willing to sacrifice the cost of maintaining the NASS given our economic headwind.

If the main parties are not going to be pro Nigeria, we the citizen may as well argue for a democratic system that increases the number of debaters and plurality of ideas. We cannot compare ourselves to countries with more mature democracies. What we have to deal with in the open to get to their level, they dealt with centuries ago when no one was looking and when the world wasn’t so global.

So let’s not repeat the mistakes of our founding fathers, let’s stop forcing the centralist issue.

Here are my thoughts on the next presidential election and candidates;

I am pro-Nigeria, pro-democracy and pro-change. By change I mean change of party at the centre. We’ve had 16 years of a PDP government at the centre. That is long enough for any party to effect meaningful change on the polity. The PDP government during its custody did some things right and got some wrong – I won’t go into details.

Signs abound that President GEJ is fatigued. One only need look at his handling of Boko Haram, general insecurity, scandals involving cabinet members and especially the failure of his media/information team to articulate the President’s thoughts, his strategies and accomplishments. President GEJ deserves to rest, he’s done his best.

On Buhari, I am not impressed by his candidacy, primary campaign and manifesto. Truth be told, there are aspects of the manifesto that I agree with. However, all he did was copy and paste the same one he used in 2011. A few commas were moved, 2 changed to 4, 10% changed to 10-12% but other than cosmetic changes, it is practically the same document. Basically, Buhari couldn’t be bothered to try. In 2011, he developed a website to at least articulate his thoughts, on this occasion, he gave us two fingers. We weren’t worth it (if you’re one of his voltrons, feel free to disagree, it’s no less truthful). Compare that to Atiku’s campaign. Nigerians deserve your best effort every time you seek for the highest office in the country.

If one reviews Buhari objectively and against other performing public servants, it is difficult to accept that he is the best we can offer. Buhari’s insistence on himself being the only candidate capable of effecting change and an anti corruption drive is no different to what led Obasanjo to believe that he should seek a third term! Read that again, and now with less emotion (Buhari voltrons only). One would have thought, after vowing in 2011, that the General would have worked on developing a younger protégé. Further, there are as many people that recall Buhari’s tenure as Head of State with pleasure as there are those that recall it with disdain and trepidation.

So his past performance does not particularly swing perception of his record positively regardless of what his voltrons think. In fact Nigerians have soundly rejected him thrice with the 2011 rejection so emphatic that the General vowed never to contest again! In truth, it is President GEJ’s perceived ineptitude and inefficiency that is forcing people to line behind the opposition now. Unfortunately, the opposition has not given Nigeria a real choice.

Our democracy is very much in it’s infancy. For it to progress, deepen and mature, we need incumbents to lose elections from time to time. This will not only be healthier for our democracy, it is the only way to raise and/or improve the campaign bar, electoral promises, public inclusion & sensitisation and hopefully governance. Further, the raising of the governance stakes should, all other things being equal, eventually lead to the emergence of political ideologies. It is when parties begin to differentiate themselves by ideologies and campaign on such basis that the unhealthy focus on ethnicity and religion can take the back seat.

Is General Buhari better than President GEJ? Frankly and in truth, no one knows. He is different, but we don’t know if he is or will be better. So please vote for Buhari, if you must, not because he is better than President GEJ but purely because on the long run, in my opinion, having a different political party run the centre is better for our democracy. Finally, equally as important as incumbents losing elections is for the public to be fully engaged with their legislative representatives, that is the only catalyst for accelerating our democratic maturity.

@grandverve

As those that will be the principal actors at next year’s general election continue to reveal themselves and declare for office, we need to take care and not let our support for whoever our preferred candidate is overshadow or cloud which side we are or should be really on. Let us keep at the forefront of our minds the denominators that is common to us all: corruption, unemployment, inadequate infrastructure, inadequate health service, educational sector reform, insecurity, inadequate energy supply, welfare especially for women and the girl child, our North East countrymen etc. It will be a real shame if we lose our civility as we go about campaigning for our preferred candidates.

Whilst the tendency of us not being able to find a common ground can already be noticed on Twitter from reactions to the various declarations. We need to punish and discourage chaos. Celebrate orderliness. Be disagreeable with each other without resorting to insult or violence. The truth is we all have varying levels of intelligence and exposure, so disagreements will happen between those that have more knowledge or information on issues than those that know less. Imparting knowledge with humility should be seen as a privilege. One is far more likely to succeed in imparting knowledge by being patient, gentle and zeal than through “know-it-all” attitude, cynicism or general obnoxious behaviour.

So please know and accept that it’s okay for others to disagree with your point of view as long as such disagreements does not lead to violations of human dignity or a further weakening of our already near comatose institutions.

#OurCommonDenominator

I haven’t read Barack Obama’s book ‘audacity of hope’ yet, but I’ll title this piece that. I’ve chosen this title as it represents a personal turning point for me. I have up till now held on to the belief that there’s little to no hope of a better Nigeria emerging in my generation (I’m in my early 30s) or worse in my children’s. I didn’t take that stance flippantly. So how did I reach the ‘no hope’ stance? Here goes…

I have a few mottos that I try to use to encourage and/or guide my outlook on life. One of it is “the evidence of desire is pursuit”. I can’t remember where I first heard that statement, but ever since I heard it, I’ve held on to it. I, like many others occasionally desire things. I hold on to those desires and subconsciously wait for it to materialise. Sometimes, I take no active steps to ensure the desire comes to life, yet I hold on. After time passes, with said desire not appearing, I ask myself, where’s your evidence that you truly desire this thing? Where’s your pursuit? Cue light bulb moment. If I can’t show the evidence of pursuit, then it must mean I truly don’t desire that thing, and if evidence of pursuit exists, then I assess why said desire remains elusive and if there’s anything I can do about it.

This brings me to Nigeria’s current situation. I read a lot of complaints by Nigerians about Nigeria re politics, economy, elitism, unemployment, insecurity and the general breakdown of a social contract. With twitter and other social media platforms, instantaneous reactions are easily observed on every government move or societal happenings. So in the midst of all these complaints, quite a lot of Nigerian’s express desires on what they want out of Nigeria and how things should be. This often makes me wonder, where’s the evidence that these people truly desire these turnaround or things they complain about?

Is there evidence of the personal sacrifices necessary to actualise these desires? Can a mentality change be assessed or observed? How do ordinary Nigerians interact with each other? Are they peaceful, cordial, and respectful? Does anything in their interactions with each other demonstrate that there’s a sane and humane value placed on the Nigerian life? For example, people with vocational jobs, do they try and fleece their customers with exorbitant and outright criminal quotation for tasks? Do same customers negotiate project cost down to such an extent where it leaves, say, the plumber no other choice but to seek to cut corners? Think about it, do you expect your vocational worker or handyman to be able to survive (feed a family) on the beat down project cost you’ve just negotiated? Would you survive if it were you? To some it is just business and all man for himself, but it isn’t just business. If there’s breakdown of trust with every market participant suspicious of one another with presumptions that the other participant will, on average, fleece you without thought, how is this not clear to all that this attitude erodes value creation? I mean, look around you. Has this attitude improved the average standard of living of Nigerians in the last three decades? No. Is anything being done to change it? No. It’s PDPs fault says APC. It’s APC’s fault says PDP. And on and on the blame game goes, but does anything get done? No, but rice is shared, perfect, our problem is sustainably solved.

You’re a customer service officer at work, are you cordial, respectful, professional in your dealings with your employers customers? Or do you always have a chip on your shoulder with the intent to prove to the customer that just walked in that you’re in an equal class of society regardless of the Cayenne the customer just parked outside or turn your nose up on those deemed of an inferior class? Whilst it may be true that some employers have failed to train their customer service officers appropriately, basic human decency surely need not be trained or basic common sense need not be farfetched? Take Nigerians working at our various airports, it may be true that the FG or whoever does not pay them well enough, but should that stop them from ensuring that travellers don’t experience hell at airports? I get that they don’t earn enough or working environment isn’t always conducive, but is the traveller the cause of it? Should you then exert your discomfort on them? How does that alleviate your own discomfort? That’s right, it doesn’t at least not permanently or sustainably. What ever relief you get from exerting hell is only fleeting or temporary at best. So why do it? Our IQ can’t be so low to not grasp this.

A good nation does not come about by happenstance. Deliberate and active steps have to be taken by all and sundry to make it so. Those in government don’t exist or live in a vacuum. They dwell among us. Some of them are our blood relations, others are within six degrees of separation from us. So those we’ve saddled with the responsibility of making the collective benefit materialise live among us, why then aren’t we communicating with them? Like walk over to their house, knock on the door and have a proper conversation. Why do we find it so difficult to organise/hold/attend community meetings with an objective view of discussing our common ails with a view to agreeing solutions that make our collective lives better? Why do the so called “elites” think it beneath them to be part of these conversations especially when their lives are so impacted by it? In reality, these conversations are happening somewhat, but who has been attending?

We all need to take stock and appreciate where we are as a society. We need to understand how badly our resources have been embezzled in the past. The fact that the misappropriation continues today does not mean we are wealthy and that we should take “wait your turn” stance, our resources are more finite than we care to admit. The cold truth is we all need to make personal sacrifices. If you want something of value, be ready to pay for it.

We need better education. If teachers, lecturers, VC’s and other admin staff don’t first make a personal commitment to be incorruptible, then it’ll be very difficult to improve our educational standard. Increase the budget all you like, improvement will hardly materialise, those that have made the personal decision to steal will steal any increase. Perversely, the society will celebrate them as material wealth automatically confers character worthy of emulation on thieves. Values, warped.

We need jobs to reduce unemployment, so need to encourage entrepreneurs and small businesses, even accidental entrepreneurs. Whilst company registration process may not be the global standard 48hours, ordinary Nigerians that work for the CAC need not sabotage the process to make it difficult for risk takers to register their businesses. Surely they can and need to appreciate the wider impact of their sabotage on the society? No, they only care about themselves, damn the society. Has the sabotage turned them to billionaires? No. Yet they perpetuate the impunity.

We need improvement in security. Both the public and the police force need to make sacrifices to make our nation more secured. Members of the police force should desist from soliciting for bribes before doing their jobs. You’re there in the first place because you (presumably) had a heart to serve. The public also need to do a whole lot more for our security officers. They deserve a lot more than they’re currently getting for putting their lives in harm’s way so that the rest of us will feel safe. If anything is worth mass protesting for, it’s better working environment for members of our security services. We’ve neglected them over the years, is the current insecurity any wonder?

We need better leaders. That can only happen if the followers are better too. The quality of our present leaders reflects the quality of the followers. Bad followers can’t produce good leaders. The kind of change we yearn for starts with self. We need to improve our political consciousness and engagement. We all don’t need to be political experts or be members of a political party but we do need a significant percentage of the population to understand the various political ideologies that exists, their impact and how they can be applied/customised to the Nigerian situation. At a minimum, the bigger political picture should be clear to a significant portion of the public, how the actions and especially inactions of every individual contribute to the whole. We need to appreciate that we the people create the systems and establish the institutions that allows and enables us to live an equitable life. We need to maintain those systems or ensure that those we select to represent us maintain the systems and institutionalise a decent standard of living. Our collective complacency so far has led us to where we are today. We simply cannot continue like this.

Religious intolerance and the illusion of ethnicity. One of the evidences that is currently absent and shows me a lack of desire for a better Nigeria is the lack of depth to our thoughts. Although, in my opinion, there aren’t enough historical and factual books written by Nigerians about our history, we can and should be able to observe (at least in the last 34years) that ethnic and religious intolerance has never served us. Whilst those we have been unfortunate to have been led by have used religious and ethnic sentiments to divide and rule us, I still struggle to accept how easily we’ve made ourselves susceptible to such bile and bigotry. Indeed our educational standard hasn’t been up to scratch, surely it can’t be that bad that graduates are unable to see through the bigotry of ethno-religious sentiments? I mean, what evidence exists to support the superiority of one ethnic over another? Aren’t we all just as insecure, do we not all suffer from inadequate infrastructural development, aren’t we all affected by inadequate health services? Poverty, corruption, mismanagement of national resources and their facilitators remain indiscriminate, yet we continue to let it divide us and worse, shed blood for the illusion? Surely one doesn’t need an OND let alone a PhD to realise this?

A similar argument can be made for religious bigotry. Those that oppress the masses come from the two main religions, clergy included. Yet, the masses, even the educated ones, continue to allow religious sentiments stoked by false clergies and leaders divide us. If you’re all so righteous, prim and proper why is corruption so high? Why is there no evidence of your moral uprightness as influenced by your religion reflected in your everyday life and dealings with others? Why do you “se aloala” on a Friday, sing kumbaya on a Sunday, but steal blindly on a Monday?

Hard work. Why are we so loathing of rewarding the dignity and integrity of hard work? Why have we made cutting corners a national past time, celebrating those that circumvent due process, giving them national honours, pardoning them after completing unfairly short sentences, making them VIPs at social events. It is abundantly clear that on a cost/benefit basis, our politicians aren’t delivering – most are not even trying to deliver, yet we freely refer to them as “honourables and excellencies”. What exactly is honourable by their conduct? Why are we so docile as a people?

So, back to my original point, in observing how Nigerians interact with each other on social media, the intolerances, the far too often lack of depth to thought, the lack of critical thinking, the irony of accusers and accused behaving in the exact same way, the astounding selfishness, the immoralities in all forms of life – none of these suggests the presence of “evidence of pursuit” of a better Nigeria – yet, I have decided to have the audacity of hope. Perhaps I am foolish, I don’t know. What I do know is, I have no other choice.

When I was growing up, whenever my siblings and I needed something like a new toy or an item of clothing from our parents, I recollect that all we really needed to do was get our mum to ‘ok’ it before asking our dad. If mum agreed to it, it doesn’t matter how long daddy says no, his no will always eventually become yes. Yup, mum was gangster like that. Most mums are. The nature of the relationship between my mum, dad, siblings and I isn’t too dissimilar from how I understand what the nature of the relationship between the executive and legislative arms of government and the public should be in a democratic setting.

As most people know, within a democracy, there are three arms of government: Executive, Legislature and Judiciary. The Executive implements policies, the Legislature creates laws that empower the Executive and the Judiciary enforces the laws created by the Legislature. From a procedural standpoint, it makes sense that each arm of government are in regular contact with each other so that the operations of government, for the benefit of its people, can be smooth. Within a democracy and among these arms of government, it isn’t unreasonable to expect that it is the Legislature and Judiciary arms that will be the ones in most contact with members of the public. Necessary for the legislature so that the laws it creates are relevant to the people it represents and the Judiciary as default for settling disputes and enforcing laws to maintain a sense of justice.

The legislative arm to my mind plays the role of mum. So if I, as a member of the public feel strongly about a need that I’d like my government to meet, I should only need to convince my legislative representative in order to have that need met. Of course, I may need to convince other members of my local community to buy into the need so that together we can gain the necessary traction to encourage the local legislative representative to devote energy into consulting with the executive in order to get the need met.

There is no doubt that current members of the Nigerian legislature do regularly meet members of the public in their capacity as public servants. What is becoming increasingly clear is that the calibre and character of those that these representatives meet for regular public consultations is of the class that isn’t driving and/or inspiring the representatives to move in the direction the country requires.

The probability that a nation will be on the right developmental curve and at a reasonable pace is highly dependent on the quality and quantity of its extant middle-income class as well as the quality of its “emerging middle-income” class. These classes must be actively engaged in politics. They must not only talk the talk but walk the talk. These classes must place a higher value on the sanctity of life than what is currently obtainable in Nigeria. Whilst anappearance of active engagement in politics by the “emerging middle-income or emerging-elites” class exists on social media, this engagement is beginning to prove to be mere voltronism – #EkitiDecides confirmed this. Many of thesevoltrons have very clever punch-lines and cute ways of describing current political ails and plagues. This voltronism means absolutely nothing if it isn’t backed by real life voltronism. I define the “emerging” class not on the basis of income, but by this new and pervasive sense of self-entitlement, awakening and rhetoric reminiscent of a middle-class income earner but without the substance of one.

How many voltrons know who their representative is at the ward, state and federal level? Do they know the local office of these representatives? Do they have contact information for these representatives? When these representatives organise local constituency meetings, do these voltrons attend? The truth is, every government and public office holder needs legitimacy. Without it, they cannot hope to remain in public office. So it is in the interest of all members of the legislature to hold these local constituency meetings so that they can stay in touch with their local base and remain legitimate. Make no mistake about it, these meetings are being held and regularly too. The question is who has been attending from the public? Is it safe to guess it is those that are more likely swayed by “stomach infrastructure”? So whilst voltrons continue in their attempt to outdo each other on who has the best punch-lines on social media, their fate is being decided by ignorant politicians and stomach-induced people at constituency meetings. Yet they continue to wonder why things aren’t improving and why the wrong people continue to get into government?

It is this phenomenon that completely befuddles me about Nigeria and its army of social media voltrons. The thought of attending these constituency meetings seems below them. Their time is too precious to be spent onmundane things like local constituency and ward-level political meetings, yet they fail to realise that it is at these meetings that their fates or its direction are decided? This may sound harsh, and I’m a Christian and a man of faith, but why can’t these elites realise that their public office holders, especially their representative through action or inaction have a more than even chance of impacting their destiny than they themselves can?

Democracy is really a very simple system of government. The checks and balances it provides as enshrined in the Constitution are also simple too. If the public desires the executive to act in a certain way, the lever available to it is via the legislature or at general elections. Public protest is good and has its place in a democracy but mostly lack bite. Nothing in the Constitution compels the executive to act on public protest. However, it is compelled to act on leanings of the legislature. What perplexes me even further is despite the claim to intelligence and exposure by the emerging elites, none have thought to impress it on any legislature national or state to join in the myriad of ongoing public protests especially #BBOG or #ChibokGirls. As we are too cowardly to protest Egyptian style, if we desire any protest with bite, surely we must include the legislators? Just recall the limp #OurNASS protest and one will see how easy we’re making it for the legislature. Let’s consider the LASU fees protest, why isn’t any member of the Lagos State House of Assembly saying anything? Why do we find it acceptable that none of them is saying anything? Is it too farfetched for the protesting students to realise they need their rep backing or take their protest to the Assembly? Is Fashola not more likely to act on orders of the Assembly? Just imagine David Mark and the leadership of NASS leading the #BBOG protest in Abuja. Won’t that have more impact than the commendable effort of Madam Oby? Not even the opposition leaders in the legislature are joining the protest.

If the Judiciary fails, it’s not a direct fault of the public. Failure of the executive is an indirect failure of the public whilst failure of the legislature can and should only be laid squarely on the members of the public.

So what’s the way forward? It’s simple really. Get involved. Know your legislator. Be closely involved with your representatives in the legislature. Know their movement. Attend their constituency meetings. Write complaint letters to them. Shame those that refuse to respond. Encourage your neighbours to attend constituency meetings. Share ideas locally. Online interactions only can be ambiguous. Social media is a tool; it should never replace face-to-face conversations. By doing this you help your legislator understand what their constituency needs. You help them write their campaign agendas. Think about it. If, for example, two-thirds of a constituency write their representative about issues with water in the community, will the legislator base their electioneering campaign on beautifying public spaces? You don’t even need to be an official member of a political party to be engaged. Besides, if we want to influence the calibre of those that get to represent us in government this is the direct way to do so. We want godfatherism to be out of politics, what will replace it? Empty chairs at constituency meetings? What is Nigeria’s problem? Look no further than the mirror.

Finally, becoming a well developed country is a deliberate action, never a happenstance. Every Nigerian must decide to commit them self to a new social contract – a personal contract that places the highest of values on the sanctity and dignity of a Nigerian life. We must determine a minimum standard of equity and justice that we must demand of ourselves and from each other. There must be a line that we must agree, nationwide, not to cross when it comes to service delivery from those that represent us in government. We must realise that our action, inaction and ignorance have far reaching consequences. Don’t pay that bribe, neither should you seek it. Stop seeking short cuts. By cheating the system, you’re cheating yourself. Be vigilant and let’s stop making being Nigerian difficult. Live peaceably. Nigeria is where it is today because of the summation of all of our individual negligence. And by God, please educate yourself on citizenship and democracy especially what it means to be a citizen in a democracy.

So Nigeria is in a quagmire. It’s in a state of confusion of what it is, what it wants to be and how it hopes to get there. Previously what we wanted was the end of military rule and a return to democracy. We didn’t spend much time on what democracy means to us and what type of government structure will best suit us. Should we have accepted the Constitution handed to us by the military in 1999 as a perennially binding document to be the basis of an enduring democracy? Should we have clamoured for a clause within the Constitution that compelled the NASS to produce ‘our’ democratic Constitution, under a democratic government before the expiration of its first full term cycle?

In our rush to be rid of military rule and embrace democracy, we didn’t consider the two most important ingredients of a successful democracy: followership and leadership. What do citizens that constitute Nigeria’s followership know about democracy? How does the followership hope to produce good leadership? Do we have the right structures, systems and institutions in place to produce good leaders? If not how do we go about doing so? None of these questions were sufficiently dealt with so we ended up with a mish mash of political parties (rashly formed by strange bedfellows) without distinct and succinct ideologies, largely founded along ethnic divides. In effect our mish mash political structure, unsurprisingly and in hindsight, has largely produced leaders with immense ineptitude and inability with resultant ‘anyhowness’. We are now faced with a catch 22 situation where bad followership is perpetrating bad leadership and vice versa. Nominally, our diversity is and should be our biggest strength, but years of abuse, civil war and military rule have conspired to deny us the trust necessary to benefit from our diversity.

It is clear that we need to rethink our system of government and political structure such that there’s increased citizen education, awareness, engagement and participation with hope that good followers are created and good leaders produced.

What we know is we want a thriving and successful democracy. What should be open to debate is the political structure and system of government that will deliver the kind of dividends of democracy Nigerians desire and ultimately deserve. It is to this end that I’m writing this article, opening and/or throwing my argument into the debate (is there even any debate?). I’m in favour of the federal system of government which Nigeria currently sort of practices. Where I think our current system is failing is that the federal government is too far removed from local politics needs and wants. The federal government I believe has too much power and control over national resources. I believe more resource control needs to be devolved away from the federal level and vest mainly with the local government and then state government. The federal government should largely be focussed on expounding the nation’s interest within the committee of nations, protecting federal borders, harnessing opportunities where Nigeria as a whole has competitive advantage over other nations. The FG’s activities should be similar to that of a Chambers of Commerce and nothing more. The local and state governments should have control over most of the nation’s resources and revenues and should be mainly responsible for directly generating internal revenues as they are the level of government closest to the people.

Since 1999, the FG including the NASS have scarcely initiated policies and created laws that have local impact, directly emancipate businesses locally and create a thriving entrepreneurial business environment. This lack of FG impact is unsurprising as the system that produces public office holders is largely a top-down selection process rather than a bottom up one. A bottom up process ensures that a voice of the people at the local level is what largely drives who gets to serve in public office. Further, a bottom-up process ensures a proper buy-in by the citizenry into the political process. It makes the citizens the ‘elites’ within a democratic structure. Our political structure as currently constituted can’t produce public office holder’s bottom-up.

I am therefore proposing a radical revolution of how we produce aspirants that vie for public office. My proposal makes local politics the focal and entry point for all politicians thereby dispensing with the probability of someone that has never been involved in local politics vying for office at the federal level. The table below shows a summary of the outcome of my proposed political structure.

Full Count	Office	Eligibility	Eligibility Pool	Max Term	Term Cycle (Years)
1	President	Current SenatorQualifying independent	109	2	4
1	Vice President	Current SenatorQualifying independent	109	2	4
109	Senator	Returning SenatorHouse of Rep. MemberGovernor	503	4	4
360	House of Rep. Member	Returning Rep.LG ChairmanState House of Ass. Member	2,176	4	4
36	Governor	Returning GovernorLG ChairmanState House of Ass. Member	1,780	2	4
72	Dep Governor	Returning Dep GovernorLG ChairmanState House of Ass. Member	1,816	2	4
970	State House of Ass. Member	Returning State Rep.LG ChairmanWard Councillor	11,316	4	4
774	LG Chairman	Returning LG ChairmanWard Councillor	10,346	3	4
9,572	Ward Councillor	Any member of the public	c.160m	6	4

Aspirant Criteria:

1. Must have served at least one full term from a qualifying public office. A qualifying public office is any public office recognised by the Constitution which requires the conduct of an election in order to fill such office.

2. Must have a minimum of school leaving certificate.

Notes:

1. For President/Vice President, independent candidates are allowed provided that:

–  they are a current public office holder;

–  have served at least one full term of office in their previous public office post;

–  they were ranked in the top two in a test of nationwide viability through a by-election voted on by the Council of LG Chairmen.

2. Nationwide viability by-election will be a simple majority, first pass the post contest.

3. If a nationwide viability test only consists of two aspirants, then the aspirant that ranks first will run in the general election.

4. Council of LG Chairmen will consist of all current seating LG Chairmen in Nigeria.

5. LG Chairmen running as independents for the post of President/Vice President cannot also seat on the by-election voting Council.

Political Pay & Finance Reforms

1. Salaries and Allowances paid to all public office holders within the Legislative and Executive arm will be the same as that of the Federal Civil Service.

2. Political campaigns can only be funded from:

– grants from the political parties to which the aspirant belongs.

– funds raised by the aspirants electoral campaign office directly from members of the public.

– the maximum amount a member of the public can donate directly to an electoral campaign office is N250,000.

– the maximum amount an individual official member of a political party can donate to the campaign fund of the party is N5,000,000.

– the maximum amount an official individual electoral political party aspirant can donate to the campaign fund of the party is N15,000,000.

– the maximum amount an institution can donate to a political party is N25,000,000.

– no foreign organisation can donate any funds to any political party or electoral campaign office of any political office aspirant.

– no foreign individual can donate any funds to any political party or electoral campaign office of any political office aspirant.

– every donation worth more than N250,000 to a political party or electoral campaign office must be declared and registered with INEC.

– within three months of the end of each general election, INEC is to publish on its website the list of donations registered with it.

3. Members of the legislative arms should be permitted to hold jobs outside of their legislative roles provided that:

–  such jobs do not, in addition, take up more than 25% of their statutory working hours;

–  they declare how much was earned from all outside jobs;

–  they declare how many hours they worked;

–  they declare who paid them;

–  such jobs do not necessarily need to relate to their political role.

Outcome:

1. Politicians are professionalised.

2. Career politicians are known early on.

3. Everyone public office holder starts or joins politics at the ward level and work their way up.

3. There’ll be a verifiable track record of public service.

4. Campaigns will be based mainly on track record.

5. Members of the public will be able to scrutinise political aspirants’ background and record more effectively.

6. Ensures whoever is President would have started from the bottom.

7. Ward level as a starting point for all politicians at all levels should draw democratic power closer to the people.

8. Increased focus on policies that impact at a local level.

9. Quality of the legislative arm of government should improve.

10. Improved legislative arm should have a knock-on effect of improving the judiciary.

11. The quality of the executive pipeline will be clear to the general public from a pool of approximately 28,155 elected public office holders.

12. The pipeline ensures continuity and focus of policy.

13. The pool for Presidential aspirants will be known very early on which will give the public adequate time to vet potential aspirants.

The above proposal can produce a President as young as 36years old should one go into politics straight after leaving secondary school or a 41 year old President should it be straight after obtaining a university degree. One of the arguments a friend made against my proposal was the risk associated with professionalising politics. There are all sorts of professional careers and none without its risk, pitfalls and issues etc. I see no reason why politics cannot be professionalised in the same way that lawyers, doctors and accountants are especially when its decisions and fallouts can impact the lives of the people more directly and with far reaching consequences. We need to professionalise politics in such a way that only those with genuine heart to serve are in politics. Professionalising politics isn’t about raising a “barrier to entry” but about improving the quality of “barrier” so that just like the days of the old civil service, some of our best brains with the right servitude are in politics. Also, professionalising politics does not in any way reduce or impact the fact that the general public and ordinary members of a political party are and should be the ‘elites’ of our democracy.

Of course those in politics are entitled to a dignified and deserve to earn a decent standard of living. So we should adjust our nation’s Constitution so that enabling law is created that allows public office holders within the legislative arm of government to embark on “outside jobs”. However, “outside jobs” need be monitored due to the political power and influence that politicians have. No one in politics should be in it to make money, at least not directly from government disbursements.  Public office holders should certainly not be earning more than their entrepreneurial or business counterparts of commensurate level or experience. If money is your motivation, then politics shouldn’t be the career for you. We should make politics as much a career as it is a calling.

Our political structure need not be expensive. In fact, it shouldn’t be expensive. We should structurally design it to be inexpensive. If our political pipeline process is bottom-up, there’ll be no need for e.g. a “Fashola” in contesting for Governor to spend billions ‘talking’ to me to vote him into office. As he would have started from ward level, his record should already be doing most of the talking. So rather than spend ungodly amounts bribing and cajoling people, his record would do it for him. If he’s performed well, the need to spend a lot will not be there. In fact, the more a political aspirant spends on his campaign, the more people should run away from him.

Hard Truths

Entrepreneurs and small businesses should be the life blood of our economy. We therefore need to promote entrepreneurial spirit and fair competition better. We need our economy biased and favourable to those that take direct economic and market risks. We need to promote an enabling environment that ensures small & medium enterprises thrive. I believe this can be better achieved if the control of political power is closer to the people.

In my opinion, the LG should be empowered to generate, administer and disburse 50% of the revenues/resources of the Government of Nigeria, 30% by State Governments with balancing 20% by the FG. Each level of government should seek to maximise its revenue generation opportunities. The sharing of revenues shouldn’t be heavily top down as it currently is. We need to get resource and revenue control closer to the people whose lives are directly affected by such resources. For example, I believe it will be difficult for a LG chairman/person that was elected through the bottom-up process to be unfair in the discharge of his/her duties and disbursement of resources when 1) his/her track record is known, 2) his/her family and roots are known within the locality and more importantly those that voted him into office are his/her neighbours.

Nigeria and Nigerians need to get real. Rather than be looking towards the federal government for “hand me downs” we should be looking inwards at the resources local to us that we have competitive advantage for and seek to exploit such resources for revenue maximisation and economic development. We need to stop being intellectually and economically lazy as a people. The get rich quick mentality has to be jettisoned. As a society, we need to celebrate and encourage hard work. Our greedy focus on “easy” oil revenue has killed and continues to kill industries. The North could be earning as much from agriculture as the nation is currently earning from oil if it hadn’t abandoned the famous “rice pyramids”. If revenues raised from agriculture by the North are largely left to the LGs and various SGs of the North, imagine the number of people that will be emancipated from poverty, the opportunity to develop economically by establishing world leading educational institutions, invest in infrastructure, healthcare etc.

Let me paint a picture of what my ideal Nigeria is. This picture assumes the above political reforms are in force. I’ll use the North as an example.

Resource control is 100% local. The LGs generate and collect 50% of taxes, SGs 30% and FG 20%. Agriculture and textile industries are thriving all over Northern Nigeria. LGs are able to design policies that encourage and support local SMEs, have constitutional powers to do so as well as the revenue resources to effect sound policies. The implementation of these policies has led to the creation of several small & medium sized farms and textile businesses. The SG with a more central view is able to invest in roads to link major towns as well as establish industrial storage facilities for farmers to store their goods. The Northern states armed with the knowledge of the competitive advantage it has over other parts of the country in relation to agriculture, establish a regional development agency to pool resources together to invest in transportation and storage infrastructures that will enable it move its products to other parts of the country. As a result of revenue earned from oil, Eastern Nigeria has been able to develop world class engineering industries, so it pitches to the Northern Development Agency for its transportation infrastructure development project. The South-west with its world class financial centre is able to assist with financing the project.

I know the above is simplistic, but it paints a picture of how cooperatively and by localising resource control, we can work together to create a Nigeria where all of our needs are met. Lets us get rid of the shackle of having an overpowering federal government. Let each locality have control over its own natural resource. Let us compete fairly with each other by having confidence in our resources and associated competitive advantage. Let us agree amongst ourselves the industries we need to protect from external (non-Nigerian) competition. Let the West and East buy its food from the North, the East supply engineering, industrial and infrastructural needs to North and West, let the West support the East and North with its strong financial centre, educational institutions and port services. Let us use trading amongst ourselves to develop our products, industries and business acumen. Once we’ve attained global standard, let us export to the rest of the world.

Implementation

I believe implementing this reform proposal will be the most difficult part. Laziness (intellectual and emotional), like any bad habit is challenging to shed/overcome. But first, let us agree to a new secular Constitution devoid of all ethnic and religious biases. Let us agree to protect the rights of every Nigerian child to free access to education and health facilities. Let us agree to jettison the “state of origin” parlance from our societal structures and let “residency” be our guiding claim to the locality of our choice. Let us agree to devolve power away from the federal government and transfer most of it to the local government level. Our current structure makes cutting our nose to spite our face too easy. If we localise power, it’ll make it structurally “less easy” for neighbours to spite each other.

Prior to devolving power, there will be a need to establish a “Nation Fund” to help fund the implementation. The Fund could be set-up as loan custodied at and administered by an organisation like, for example, the World Bank. Let us agree that the Fund should only be accessed by LGs at very minimal interest rates as close to 0% as possible to be paid back fully. Let us agree to a timeline, say 100years, by which the World Bank has to pay the Fund back to Nigeria. By setting the Fund up as a form of loan, it hopefully motivates those that access it to see it as a business and developmental tool rather than a “national cake” to be shared without accountability. We could compel the Bank to publish an annual statement of affairs, so that what has been borrowed and by whom is known.

I implore those that read this to, however difficult, try and not waste too much energy finding faults with this article but rather focus on solutions or better ideas that will help move this debate and nation forward.

To say I am disappointed in how David Moyes has started his reign at OT will be an understatement. His tactics so far suggest he is overawed by the enormity of the task he faces at Old Trafford and that he’s worried about deviating and under delivering on the level of success set by his predecessor over a 26 years period.

United have played three big games this season against Chelsea, Liverpool and City where Moyes’ tactics and team selection have been very negative in all or not as daring as you’d expect from a United manager/team. Whilst it will be easy to say he had at least four (2 strikers and 2 wingers) attack minded players in all these matches, his choice of players exposes his caution first attitude. Over the last two seasons, Ashley Young and Tony Valencia have been really disappointing. They have been even more disappointing this season. Except for the Leverkusen game both players have continued to serve up dire football. Moyes’ insistence on picking these players is worrisome. From the first United match Moyes took charge of, our best wingers have been Adnan Januzaj and Wilfried Zaha. All through preseason and at other times we’ve seen them play this season both have really impressed. By full time, against Palace Januzaj had outshone Valencia even though he only had a 25mins cameo compared to Tony that played a full match. Zaha in preseason was equally devastating on the right wing. So I am surprised that Moyes preferred players that had little to no preseason and certainly didn’t set the pitch alight from the first whistle of the season. Adnan and Zaha in particular must wonder what else they need to do to get a look in.

To further buttress my point on negative tactics, Moyes’ insistence at picking Jones/Smalling at full back over Fabio whilst Rafael is unavailable is completely baffling. Fabio is at worst as good a defender at full back as Jones/Smalling and miles better at offering support going forward than both Jones and Smalling. Against City, playing Smalling for his height advantage was wrong as City all season never played like they depended hugely on set plays. They prefer to keep the ball on the ground and pass. At Everton, Moyes had average height full backs in Coleman and Baines so I was surprised of his fixation on height by selecting Smalling ahead of Fabio. Fabio’s surging runs would have given Kolarov (an average defender) something to worry about especially when it was Nasri playing in front of him, a player that hardly tracks back.

Besides, the negative tilt to team selection, Moyes attacking strategy for his United remains unclear. After the opening 6 games, how United hope to break teams down going forward remains indiscernible. United’s best forward plays this season have come from Rooney’s brilliance as a player rather than an unrelenting attacking team play. Against Liverpool when Rooney was out injured, everyone expected Kagawa to start but Moyes didn’t even include him in the team preferring an ageing Giggs and Nani who had had no preseason up until that point. Besides Rooney, United’s best player at finding spaces and playing behind the main striker is Kagawa. I struggle to understand why Moyes is reluctant to play or start with Kagawa especially when one considers that at Everton Moyes had Steven Pienaar who often played a role similar to Kagawa for Everton. Pienaar and Baines combined well on the left for Everton and I can’t see how Moyes can’t replicate similar with Kagawa and Evra. This is despite not mentioning how much better Kagawa is in comparison to Pienaar and that Kagawa offers so much more.

If Moyes selection is based on merit then it is difficult for me to understand how Young and Valencia are starting ahead of Januzaj and Zaha. Both haven’t only played better but are also not scared about taking on an opponent, something Young and especially Valencia have struggled with so far. Valencia is even more frustrating, unless there is yards of space for him to run into, he’s unable to dribble an opponent. Zaha does this time and time again. Moyes needs to realise that at Old Trafford, we’re not scared of putting kids in the starting XI. Besides, with Carrick & Fellaini in CM and Rooney & RvP striking, Adnan and Wilf will have adequate experience on the pitch to guide them through matches. In fact Moyes and his coaching staff can top up with instructions from the sidelines.

Ferdinand has also been poor this season. This was especially noticeable in the game against Palace, Leverkusen and City. He seems to be losing concentration at crucial times which have led to goals. His pairing with Vidic is still our best CB combination so Moyes could persevere for a few more games before dropping Rio if his performances fail to improve. Rio has pride in his game so I’m sure he’ll be hurting from his bad performances and needs to be given time to make corrections. Besides, Jones, the preferred replacement is out injured.

I’d like to think that most United fans know and expect this season to be a transition one and that a top four finish will suffice. A top four finish with a domestic cup win in Moyes’ first season will be an unexpected bonus. So Moyes should be as courageous and brave as he needs to be without feeling under undue pressure. He should avoid pulling back on any instinct that wants him to not play rampaging and attacking football. He needs to ignore the fact that the team he inherited are the defending champions as that feat showcases more of Fergie’s unyielding desire, will and passion to win than the skill in the team. Of course the drop in standard by other teams also helped.

Moyes cannot allow himself to be overawed by the task in front of him. He must always seek to impose himself and United over every opposition and at every time too. He has the full weight of United’s history, success and global fans behind him. He has all he needs to succeed and that’s all he needs to succeed. Now he needs to show his mettle, and show the whole world why it is them that don’t know it yet – that at Old Trafford, nothing has changed.