Opinion

The Oracle: Dictatorship: Antithesis to Democracy (Pt 3)

Published

5 years ago

August 6, 2021

Eric

By Chief Mike Ozekhome

INTRODUCTION

Last week, we concluded our discourse on democracy as a form of government. Today, we shall x-ray the meaning, concept, causes and the possibility of having elective dictatorship in governance.

MEANING OF DICTATORSHIP

In all countries of the world, you won’t find a dictator who calls himself a dictator. Instead, dictators bear ordinary titles such as president, emperor, great leader and similar monikers. That’s because ‘dictator’ is a pejorative term assigned to certain rulers by other nations, particularly the developed nations of the West – that is, countries with thriving economies – such as the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and many others.

To be considered a dictatorship means that a country is known to be run by one person without any checks and balances on his/her power. Dictators make unilateral decisions that affect their countries without having to consult any other branch of government. That is because there is no other branch of government that is not controlled by the dictator. Human nature being what it is, dictators do not rise to power for the good of their nations (though, they usually claim otherwise). They seize power to benefit themselves, their families and their close political allies.

Dictators usually come to power through some kind of violent struggle, rather than the peaceful passage of power that we take for granted in the United States. In cases such as the late Kim Jong-il in North Korea, the ruler is even worshiped as a demi-god.

CONCEPT OF DICTATORSHIP

The concept of dictatorship, in its origin and evolution, may be better appreciated both as a complementary and protective constitutional device and as a complete antithesis to the democratic constitutional state. Thus, Carl J. Friedrich (1937), in referring to the ancient Roman model, makes a distinction between constitutional and unrestricted dictatorship. Franz L. Neumann (1957, p. 248) comments that dictatorship may arise and function as “implementation of democracy,” “preparation for democracy,” or the “very negation of democracy.” Plato and Aristotle saw the origin of tyranny in the weaknesses and degeneration of democracy, and political theory has been based on the polarity of democracy and dictatorship ever since. However, the view that a revolutionary dictatorship necessarily presupposes the existence or the counterpart of a democratic constitution is disputed. Answers may be provided by the recent sociological and political research into the historical process of transition from a constitutional, restricted dictatorship to an unrestricted, total dictatorship.

CAUSES OF DICTATORSHIP

The inability to function and the internal weakness of democracy are undoubtedly among the main causes of the establishment of dictatorial rule. The totalitarian communist system of the Soviet Union arose in consequence of the crumbling away of tsarist autocracy, hastened along by a mass movement. In general, it can be shown that unresolved social tensions and economic crises, together with the undermining of constitutional order and the development of undemocratic power aggregates, are among the conditions that give rise to dictatorial regimes.

POSSIBILITY OF HAVING AN ELECTIVE DICTATORSHIP IN GOVERNANCE

Over the years, the executive arm of government has always been seen as the primary source of tyranny, and in Britain the Parliament was developed to control its power. After centuries of struggle, this control was finally achieved in the nineteenth century by making the executive government responsible to the Parliament.

The growth of disciplined political parties in the twentieth century has reversed this responsibility, and the executive government can now often control the parliament, resulting in a form of elective dictatorship.

There is nothing new about the concept of an elective dictatorship. After all, nearly 2500 years ago, the Roman Commonwealth instituted the office of dictator, the incumbent to be chosen by the Senate to deal with crises such as war, sedition and crime, which were too difficult for the two annually-elected and often mutually antagonistic consuls to deal with. The dictator initially held office for six months.

The Nazi government of Adolf Hitler is an extreme example of a modern elective dictatorship, but Hitler was elected and his dictatorship was legal under the Weimar Constitution. The Weimar Republic had responsible government, with a Chancellor as head of government. The president-the aged Field Marshal Hindenburg at the time of Hitler’s accession-had considerable authority, including dictatorial power if public order and security were threatened.

The Weimar Parliament was elected by proportional representation, with consequent difficulty in forming stable governments.

The constitutional tradition and the rule of law are much more firmly established there than they were in the Weimar Republic. Nevertheless there are disturbing common patterns in all elective dictatorships.

In modern times, attention was first called to the new elective dictatorships by Lord Hailsham, in a famous address on the BBC in 1976. He later wrote:

Disregard the fundamental human values of justice and morality and you will soon turn majority rule into unprincipled tyranny. But in practice, human nature being what it is, every human being and every human institution will tend to abuse its legitimate powers unless these are controlled by checks and balances, in which the holders of office are not merely encouraged but compelled to take account of interests and views which differ from their own.

In pointing to the dangers of an elective dictatorship, Lord Hailsham was in fact echoing the views of a long tradition of political theorists, dating back to the times of ancient Greece. Even the expression ‘elective dictatorship’ was similar to Thomas Jefferson’s description of a type of government as elective despotism. He wrote

The concentrating [of all the powers of government] in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation, that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. One hundred and seventy-three despots would surely be as oppressive as one … An elective despotism was not the government we fought for.

The founders of the United States of America, particularly Jefferson and Madison, brought remarkable intellectual rigour and imagination to the problems of creating a new democracy. They may have been somewhat misled by the French philosopher Montesquieu, who thought that the separation of the executive, legislative and judicial powers was the secret of the success of the English system after 1688, and the American system was modeled on that principle. ‘The Americans of 1787’, wrote Bagehot, ‘thought they were copying the English Constitution, but they were contriving a contrast to it.’ In fact what Montesquieu was emphasising was the importance of the independence of the judicial system from political forces (unlike the situation in France), and this separation of powers is common to both the British and American systems.

As Lord Acton put it: ‘Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.’ Edmund Burke was also aware of the dangers of untrammeled power. Two hundred years ago he wrote that ‘in a democracy the majority of citizens is capable of exercising the most cruel oppression upon the minority.’ His views were echoed nearly a century later by J.S. Mill when he wrote of:

‘the evil effect produced upon the mind of any holder of power, whether an individual or an assembly, by the consciousness of having only themselves to consider … A majority in a single assembly easily becomes despotic and overweening, if released from the necessity of considering whether its acts will be concurred in by another constituted authority. One of the most indispensable requisites in the practical conduct of politics, especially in the management of free institutions, is conciliation: a readiness to compromise; a willingness to concede something to opponents, and to shape good measures so as to be as little offensive as possible to persons of opposite views.’

He went on to say that, to control a government, it was essential to:

‘throw the light of publicity on its acts; to compel a full exposition and justification of all of them which anyone considers questionable’.

This attitude was totally different to that of Dicey three decades later. Dicey believed that the true source of the life and growth of the British Constitution was ‘the absolute omnipotence, the sovereignty of parliament’. It must be admitted, though, that when this sovereign Parliament was prepared to take action with which Dicey disagreed-as in Home Rule for Ireland, his respect for the Constitution seemed to vaporize. He recommended a referendum (so much for the sovereignty of Parliament) and, if a majority voted for Home Rule, he was prepared to see armed insurrection (so much for respect for the British Constitution).

None of the countries above has anything approaching responsible government in Bagehot’s sense, though all pretend they have. What they have is party government, where the party which wins the majority of seats in the lower house forms the government and its leader become prime minister. The government is responsible, not to the parliament, but to the caucus of the government party MPs. The lower house merely registers the laws proposed by the government, after discussions with the government party caucus. The caucus relies for its electoral success on the party organization, which in some of the parliaments may give orders to the parliamentary party.

There are also other constraints. The doctrine of the sovereignty of parliament, under which its enactments cannot be struck down by any court, now applies only in New Zealand. Canada and Australia are federations, with entrenched constitutions. The powers are divided between the federal and state governments, and any disputes are decided by the courts. The UK is a de facto provincial member of the European Federation, with laws enacted by its Parliament liable to be overridden by European Union laws on certain designated subjects, and disputes resolved by a Union court.

These restraints still leave formidable and effectively unreviewable powers in the hands of a government which controls the lower house. The only remaining barriers to party despotism are upper houses, but these barriers are of very uncertain strength. If the government party has the numbers in the upper house it is really no barrier at all for, except in the UK, where party members of both houses meet in a common caucus where the upper house members are usually heavily outnumbered by those from the lower house. The decisions of this caucus are usually binding on upper house members, even in cases where most of them actually oppose the decision. Cross voting is rare; it is effectively non-existent among Labor members in Australia. The House of Lords was a special case, for most of the peers did not accept party discipline. The answer was inevitable. Exploiting the non-elective character of the House of Lords, governments managed to reduce its power to a mere delaying role.

However, if the government party does not have the majority in the upper house-and this is becoming increasingly common, with four of the six elected upper houses using proportional representation-the upper house can be a formidable obstacle to an elective despotism, reviewing legislation thoroughly, and amending and sometimes rejecting it. Government activities may be closely and critically scrutinized and inquiries held into matters the government does not want investigated. If elected by proportional representation, upper houses can reasonably claim to be more reflective of actual community opinion than a lower house elected by single member constituencies. This claim should be slightly qualified, if only part of an upper house-usually half-retires at each election. This is deliberately done to make the upper house a continuing body, without violent fluctuations in balance caused by temporary changes in public opinion. (To be continued).

FUN TIME

There are two sides to every coin. Life itself contains not only the good, but also the bad and the ugly. Let us now explore these.

“Yesterday, I attended a burial of a friend’s grandfather. But their tradition is that at every burial ceremony, an old man would come out and announce the next person to die. So this old man said the first person to leave the burial ground will be the next person to die. Since yesterday, we are still at the burial. Even one elderly man that is over 95years is asking me if my parents won’t be looking for me.

THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK

“Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty.” (Plato).

Opinion

How an Organist Can Live a More Fulfilling Life

Published

4 days ago

February 23, 2026

Eric

By Tunde Shosanya

It is essential for an Organist to live a fulfilling life, as organ playing has the capacity to profoundly and uniquely impact individuals. There is nothing inappropriate about an Organist building their own home, nor is it unlawful for an Organist to have a personal vehicle. As Organists, we must take control of our own futures; once again, while our certificates hold value, organ playing requires our expertise. We should not limit ourselves to what we think we can accomplish; rather, we should chase our dreams as far as our minds permit. Always keep in mind, if you have faith in yourself, you can achieve success.

There are numerous ways for Organists to live a more fulfilling and joyful life; here are several suggestions:

Focus on your passion. Set an example, and aim for daily improvement.

Be self-reliant and cultivate harmony with your vicar.

Speak less and commit to thinking and acting more.

Make choices that bring you happiness, and maintain discipline in your professional endeavors.

Help others and establish achievable goals for yourself.

Chase your dreams and persist without giving up.

“Playing as an Organist in a Church is a gratifying experience; while a good Organist possesses a certificate, it is the skills in organ playing that truly matter” -Shosanya 2020

Here are 10 essential practices for dedicated Organists…

1) Listen to and analyze organ scores.

2) Achieve proficiency in sight reading.

3) Explore the biographies of renowned Organists and Composers.

4) Attend live concerts.

5) Record your performances and be open to feedback.

6) Improve your time management skills.

7) Focus on overcoming your weaknesses.

8) Engage in discussions about music with fellow musicians.

9) Study the history of music and the various styles of organ playing from different Organists.

10) Take breaks when you feel fatigued. Your well-being is vital and takes precedence over organ playing.

In conclusion, as an Organist, if you aspire to live towards a more fulfilling life in service and during retirement, consider the following suggestions.

1) Plan for the future that remains unseen by investing wisely.

2) Prioritize your health and well-being.

3) Aim to save a minimum of 20 percent of your monthly salary.

4) Maintain your documents in an organized manner for future reference.

5) Contribute to your pension account on a monthly basis.

6) Join a cooperative at your workplace.

7) Ensure your life while you are in service.

8) If feasible, purchase at least one plot of land.

9) Steer clear of accumulating debt as you approach retirement.

10) Foster connections among your peers.

Opinion

The Power of Strategy in the 21st Century: Unlocking Extraordinary Possibilities (Pt. 2)

Published

6 days ago

February 21, 2026

Eric

By Tolulope A. Adegoke PhD

“In Nigeria, strategy is not an abstraction imported from elsewhere—it is forged daily in the crucible of reality. Here, global principles meet local truths, and the strategies that work are those humble enough to learn from both. The future of this nation will be written not by those who wait for solutions, but by those who create them from the raw materials of our own experience” – Tolulope A. Adegoke, PhD

Introduction: Why Strategy Matters More Than Ever

There was a time when strategy meant creating a detailed plan and sticking to it for years. You would map everything out, follow the steps, and expect success to follow. That world no longer exists.

Today, change happens too fast for rigid plans. Industries transform overnight. Skills that were valuable last year become obsolete. Global events ripple through local economies in ways we could never predict. In this environment, strategy has evolved into something more dynamic—less about predicting the future and more about building the capacity to navigate it successfully.

This is the power of 21st-century strategy. It helps individuals chart meaningful careers in uncertain times. It enables businesses to thrive despite constant disruption. It allows nations to build prosperity that outlasts any single administration.

Nowhere is this more evident than in Nigeria. Here, strategy is not an abstract exercise. It is a daily necessity. Nigerians navigate unreliable infrastructure, policy shifts, and economic volatility while pursuing their ambitions. The strategies that work here are not imported from textbooks. They are forged in the reality of local experience—blending global knowledge with gritty, on-the-ground wisdom.

This exploration looks at how strategy works at three levels in Nigeria: for the person trying to build a meaningful life, for the business striving to grow, and for the nation working to secure its future.

Part One: For the Nigerian People—Redefining Success in a Changing World

The Old Promise That No Longer Holds

Not long ago, the path to a good life seemed clear. You went to school, earned your degree, found a job, and worked your way up. That degree was your ticket. It signaled to employers that you had what it takes.

That promise has broken.

Today, Nigeria produces hundreds of thousands of graduates each year. Many of them are brilliant. Many of them struggle to find work. The degree that once opened doors now barely gets a foot in. Employers have changed what they look for. They want to know not what you studied, but what you can actually do.

This is not unique to Nigeria. It is happening everywhere. But in Nigeria, where formal jobs are scarce and the youth population is massive, the shift hits harder. For the average Nigerian young person, the message is clear: waiting for someone to give you a job is not a strategy.

A New Way of Thinking About Yourself

The most important strategic shift for any individual is this: stop thinking of yourself as someone looking for work and start thinking of yourself as someone who creates value.

This is not just positive thinking. It is a fundamental change in perspective. When you see yourself as a value creator, you ask different questions. Not “who will hire me?” but “what problems can I solve?” Not “what jobs are available?” but “where can I apply my skills?” Not “what degree do I need?” but “what can I learn to become more useful?”

This mindset matters because it puts you in control. You are no longer waiting for opportunities to be given to you. You are actively looking for ways to contribute. And in an economy where problems are everywhere, people who can solve them will always find a way to earn a living.

What Skills Actually Matter Today

If degrees no longer guarantee success, what does? The answer lies in skills that are both practical and adaptable.

Problem-solving sits at the top of the list. Every organization, every community, every family faces challenges. People who can look at a difficult situation and figure out a way forward are always needed. This skill does not come from a textbook. It comes from practice—from learning to think clearly when things go wrong.

Communication matters more than most people realize. The ability to express ideas clearly, to listen carefully, to persuade others, to write simply—these are not soft skills. They are the tools we use to turn thoughts into action. In any field, people who communicate well stand out.

Digital literacy is no longer optional. It is the baseline. Using spreadsheets, collaborating on online platforms, understanding how data works, knowing your way around common software—these are not technical skills for specialists. They are basic tools for modern work. Without them, you are locked out of most opportunities.

Adaptability might be the most important of all. The willingness to learn new things, to admit what you do not know, to try something different when the old way stops working—this is what keeps people relevant over a lifetime. The person who can learn will always find a place. The person who stops learning will eventually be left behind.

Learning That Fits Real Life

The traditional model of education assumes you learn first and work later. You spend years in school, then you start your career. But in a fast-changing world, that model breaks down. By the time you finish learning, what you learned may already be outdated.

This is why many Nigerians are turning to micro-credentials—short, focused courses that teach specific, job-ready skills. These programs take weeks or months, not years. They cost a fraction of what university costs. And they signal clearly to employers what you can do.

A certificate in data analysis, digital marketing, project management, or solar installation tells a clear story. It says: I have this specific skill, and I can apply it right now. For employers, that is often more valuable than a general degree.

The beauty of this approach is flexibility. You can learn while working. You can stack credentials over time, building a portfolio of skills. You can pivot when opportunities shift. This is lifelong learning made practical—not an ideal, but a working strategy for staying relevant.

Taking Control of Your Financial Life

Strategy also applies to money. For years, most Nigerians had limited options. You saved what you could, kept it at home or in a bank, and hoped it would be enough. Inflation often ate away at whatever you managed to put aside.

Technology has changed this. Today, anyone with a smartphone can access tools that were once available only to the wealthy. Apps allow you to save automatically, invest small amounts, and get advice tailored to your situation. You can build a diversified portfolio with whatever you have. You can protect your money against inflation. You can plan for goals that matter to you.

The key is to start early and stay consistent. Small amounts saved regularly, invested wisely, grow over time. This is not about getting rich quick. It is about building a foundation that gives you choices. The person with savings can take risks. The person with investments can weather storms. Financial strategy is not just about money—it is about freedom.

Part Two: For Nigerian Businesses—Thriving in a Complex Environment

The End of the Five-Year Plan

There was a time when companies created detailed five-year plans and followed them religiously. Those days are gone. Markets move too fast. Technology changes too quickly. Consumer behaviour shifts in ways no one predicts.

Today, successful companies think differently. They set direction but stay flexible. They plan but remain ready to pivot. They treat strategy not as a document but as a continuous conversation—a way of making decisions in real time as new information emerges.

This is especially true in Nigeria, where the business environment presents unique challenges. Electricity is unreliable. Roads are poor. Policy can change overnight. Currency fluctuations affect everything. Companies that succeed here learn to adapt constantly. Rigidity is a recipe for failure.

What Digital Transformation Really Means

Every business today hears about digital transformation. But in Nigeria, going digital looks different than it does elsewhere.

You cannot simply move everything online and expect it to work. Internet access is not universal. Many customers prefer cash. Trust is built through personal relationships, not just websites. The purely digital model that works in London or Singapore will hit walls here.

Successful Nigerian companies understand this. They build hybrid models—digital at the core, but with physical touchpoints where needed. They offer online ordering and offline delivery. They accept digital payments but also cash. They use technology to enhance relationships, not replace them.

This is not a compromise. It is a sophisticated adaptation to local reality. The companies that get it right are not less digital. They are more intelligent about how digital actually works in their context.

Digital maturity matters more than digital adoption. This means building systems that function even when infrastructure fails. It means training people to use tools effectively. It means integrating technology into every part of the business, not just tacking it on at the edges. Companies that achieve this maturity outperform their competitors consistently.

Building Trust in a Low-Trust Environment

Nigeria faces a trust deficit. Years of broken promises, failed institutions, and economic volatility have left people cautious. Consumers do not easily trust businesses. Employees do not easily trust employers. Partners do not easily trust each other.

For companies, this is both a challenge and an opportunity. The businesses that earn trust stand out. They build loyal customer bases. They attract committed employees. They form partnerships that last.

Building trust takes time and consistency. It means delivering what you promise, every time. It means being transparent when things go wrong. It means treating customers and employees with respect, not as transactions. It means showing up consistently, even when it is difficult.

Some of Nigeria’s most successful companies have built their reputations on this foundation. They are not necessarily the flashiest or the most innovative. They are the ones people know they can count on. In an environment where trust is scarce, reliability becomes a competitive advantage.

The Power of Collaboration

The old model of business assumed competition was everything. You fought for market share. You protected your secrets. You went it alone.

That model is breaking down. The challenges businesses face today are too complex for any single organisation to solve alone. Climate change affects everyone. Skills gaps require industry-wide responses. Infrastructure deficits need collective action.

Forward-thinking Nigerian companies are embracing collaboration. They share data with competitors to build industry standards. They partner with government on infrastructure projects. They work with educational institutions to shape curricula. They understand that when the whole ecosystem grows, everyone benefits.

This is not charity. It is enlightened self-interest. A rising tide lifts all boats. Companies that invest in the broader environment create conditions for their own success.

Artificial Intelligence: Proceed with Purpose

Artificial intelligence is everywhere in business conversations. The hype is enormous. The fear of being left behind is real.

But for Nigerian companies, the strategic question is not whether to use AI. It is how to use AI wisely. Jumping on every trend without purpose leads nowhere. Building AI capabilities without governance creates risk.

The smart approach starts with problems, not technology. What specific challenges does your business face? Where could better data or smarter algorithms help? What decisions could be improved with more insight? These questions point to where AI might actually add value.

Equally important is data governance. AI learns from data. If your data is poor, your AI will be poor. If your data is biased, your AI will be biased. If your data is insecure, your AI creates vulnerability. Building strong data practices is not a technical detail. It is a strategic foundation.

Some Nigerian companies are already showing the way. They are using AI to assess credit risk for customers without formal banking history. They are using it to predict crop yields for farmers. They are using it to personalize learning for students. These applications solve real problems. They are not imported from elsewhere. They are built for Nigeria, by Nigerians.

People First: The Talent Challenge

Every business leader in Nigeria will tell you the same thing: finding and keeping good people is the hardest part of the job. The best talent is scarce. Competition is fierce. Many of the brightest leave for opportunities abroad.

This makes talent strategy central to business success. Companies that win the talent game win everything else.

What does good talent strategy look like? It starts with recognizing that people want more than money. They want to grow. They want to be valued. They want to do work that matters. Companies that provide these things attract and retain better people even when they cannot pay the highest salaries.

This means investing in training and development. It means creating clear career paths. It means building cultures where people feel respected and supported. It means giving people autonomy and trusting them to do good work.

Some Nigerian companies have built their own universities—internal training programs that develop talent systematically. Others partner with online learning platforms to give employees access to courses. Others create mentorship programs that connect experienced leaders with younger staff. These investments pay back many times over in loyalty, productivity, and innovation.

Part Three: For the Nigerian Nation—Building a Future That Works for Everyone

From Short-Term Thinking to Long-Term Vision

For decades, Nigerian governance has been shaped by election cycles. Each new administration brings its own plans, its own priorities, its own language. Programmes start and stop. Momentum is lost. Progress is fragmented.

This is changing. Slowly but significantly, Nigeria is building long-term strategic frameworks that outlast any single government. The Nigeria Agenda 2050 looks three decades ahead. The Renewed Hope Development Plan (2026-2030) translates that vision into concrete action for the next five years. These documents are not just paperwork. They represent a commitment to continuity—a recognition that real development takes time and persistence.

The shift matters because it changes how decisions get made. When long-term goals are clear, short-term choices can be evaluated against them. Does this policy move us toward the future we want? Does this budget advance our long-term priorities? These questions create discipline. They reduce the risk that immediate pressures will derail important work.

The Nigeria First Approach

There is a quiet revolution happening in Nigerian economic thinking. It is captured in the phrase “Nigeria First.”

For too long, Nigeria has been a consumer of other people’s products. We import what we could make. We buy what we could build. We send our resources abroad and buy back finished goods at higher prices. This pattern has kept us dependent. It has limited our industrial development. It has cost us jobs.

The Nigeria First approach aims to change this. It says: where possible, we should buy Nigerian. We should build Nigerian. We should invest in Nigerian capabilities.

This is not protectionism. It is strategic procurement. Government spending accounts for a significant portion of the economy—as much as 30 percent of GDP. When that money flows abroad, it creates jobs elsewhere. When it stays home, it builds local industry. Directing even a portion of procurement toward Nigerian producers could unlock millions of jobs and stimulate manufacturing capacity.

Agencies like NASENI (National Agency for Science and Engineering Infrastructure) are driving this agenda. They are not just talking about local manufacturing. They are building it—developing products, training innovators, creating infrastructure for strategic industries like battery manufacturing. They are proving that Nigerians can make world-class products.

The challenge now is scaling this approach. Moving from pilot projects to systemic change. Embedding Nigeria First in procurement rules, in investment decisions, in the daily choices of businesses and consumers. Making patriotism practical—not just a sentiment but a force that shapes economic behaviour.

Digital Sovereignty: Owning Our Future Online

The digital economy runs on infrastructure. Data centers, fiber networks, cloud platforms—these are the roads and bridges of the 21st century. Countries that own their digital infrastructure have sovereignty. Countries that depend on others are vulnerable.

Nigeria is building toward digital sovereignty. Agencies like Galaxy Backbone are laying fiber across the country, connecting states, building data centers that meet international standards. This infrastructure ensures that government data stays in Nigeria. It provides continuity even when commercial providers face challenges. It builds capability that can serve the whole economy.

The vision goes further. With robust digital infrastructure, Nigeria can become a regional hub—serving West and Central Africa, attracting investment, creating jobs in technology and services. This is not just about catching up. It is about leapfrogging—using digital technology to accelerate development in ways previous generations could not.

But infrastructure alone is not enough. Digital sovereignty also means data sovereignty—control over the information that flows through these networks. It means policies that protect privacy while enabling innovation. It means building the human capacity to manage and secure digital systems. It means creating an environment where Nigerian technology companies can thrive.

The Demographic Dividend or Disaster?

Nigeria’s young population is often described as an opportunity. With a median age of eighteen, we are one of the youngest countries in the world. These young people could drive decades of economic growth.

But demography is not destiny. Young people are only an asset if they are productively engaged. If they are educated, healthy, and employed, they create wealth. If they are not, they become a source of instability.

This makes human capital development the most important investment Nigeria can make. Every child who receives quality education adds to our future capacity. Every young person who learns a skill becomes a potential contributor. Every life saved through better healthcare strengthens the whole society.

The challenge is scale. Nigeria’s education system is underfunded and overstretched. Millions of children are out of school. Quality varies enormously. The same is true for healthcare, for skills training, for social support. Building systems that reach everyone is a massive undertaking.

Yet progress is possible. Technology offers new ways to deliver education at scale. Community health workers can extend care to remote areas. Apprenticeship models can train young people in practical skills. The building blocks of human capital exist. The task is to assemble them into functioning systems.

The Governance Challenge

None of this works without effective governance. Good plans fail without good execution. Vision without implementation is just dreaming.

Nigeria’s governance challenges are well documented. Implementation gaps separate policy from reality. Coordination failures mean different agencies work at cross purposes. Capacity constraints limit what even dedicated officials can achieve. Trust deficits make collaboration difficult.

Addressing these challenges requires its own strategy. It means investing in the civil service—training, motivating, and supporting the people who run government day to day. It means using technology to improve transparency and accountability—making it harder for things to fall through cracks. It means creating platforms for dialogue between government, business, and civil society—so policies reflect real needs and real constraints.

It also means accepting that governance reform is slow work. Institutions are not built overnight. Trust is earned over years. Capacity grows through practice. The goal is not perfection but progress—steady, cumulative improvement in how things get done.

Conclusion: The Power of Small Wins Adding Up

There is a temptation to think of strategy as something grand—bold visions, dramatic transformations, sweeping changes. And certainly, those have their place.

But in Nigeria, the most powerful strategy may be something more modest. It is the individual who learns a new skill and applies it. The business that delivers on its promises, day after day. The policy that works as intended and makes life slightly better. These small wins, repeated millions of times, accumulate into something extraordinary.

This is the power of compounding progress. Each skilled graduate adds to the talent pool. Each reliable business builds trust in the market. Each functioning program demonstrates that government can work. These gains build on each other. Over time, they transform what is possible.

Nigeria has immense resources—human, natural, cultural. It has a young population full of energy and ambition. It has entrepreneurs solving problems every day. It has officials working to build systems that serve everyone. The foundation is there.

Strategy provides the framework—the way of thinking that helps individuals, businesses, and the nation make good choices amid uncertainty. It does not guarantee success. Nothing does. But it improves the odds. It helps us see more clearly. It keeps us moving in the right direction, even when the path is unclear.

That is the power of 21st-century strategy. Not predicting the future, but preparing for it. Not controlling events, but navigating them. Not waiting for possibilities to arrive, but working to make them real.

For Nigeria and Nigerians, those possibilities are extraordinary. The work of strategy is to bring them within reach.

Dr. Tolulope A. Adegoke, AMBP-UN is a globally recognized scholar-practitioner and thought leader at the nexus of security, governance, and strategic leadership. His mission is dedicated to advancing ethical governance, strategic human capital development, and resilient nation-building, and global peace. He can be reached via: tolulopeadegoke01@gmail.com, globalstageimpacts@gmail.com

Opinion

In Defence of Atiku Abubakar: Experience, Reach and the 2027 Reality

Published

2 weeks ago

February 15, 2026

Eric

By Tim Okojie Ave

The debate over who should carry the opposition banner in 2027 must be guided by political reality, not ethnic sentiment or social media noise. Nigeria is at a crossroads, and defeating President Bola Tinubu in 2027 will require experience, national reach, and electoral strength—not experiments.

I do not believe in, nor do I promote, ethnic politics. Recent Nigerian history proves that elections are not won by zoning rhetoric but by strategic calculations. Former President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan, a southerner, was not allowed to complete a second term—not because of performance alone, but because power blocs rallied against him. When the then-opposition APC sought a candidate capable of defeating Jonathan, they did not argue that it was “still the South’s turn.” Instead, they searched across the country for a candidate with massive grassroots followership and electoral weight. That search led them to Muhammadu Buhari, despite his past electoral losses and controversial human rights record as a former military ruler.

The result is now history.

It is therefore laughable when uninformed voices argue that Atiku Abubakar should be denied the ADC ticket because he has contested elections before. By that same logic, Buhari should never have been given the APC ticket. Political persistence is not a crime; it is often the mark of conviction and relevance.

Others argue that Atiku is “too old,” forgetting that leadership is not a sprint but a test of wisdom, stamina, and experience. Age did not disqualify global leaders like Joe Biden or Nelson Mandela, nor did it stop Buhari himself. What matters is physical fitness, mental clarity, and capacity—and on all counts, Atiku Abubakar remains fit.
The argument that it is “still the South’s turn” in 2027 is politically weak and strategically dangerous. When APC wanted to win, they ignored zoning sentiment and focused on victory. That is exactly what the African Democratic Congress (ADC) must do if it is serious about defeating Tinubu and reducing him to a one-term president. Political parties exist to win elections, not to appease ethnic emotions.

ADC must ensure party supremacy and resist being bamboozled into handing its ticket to candidates who exist mainly on social media but lack nationwide structure and grassroots acceptance.

If asked for my candid opinion on who best fits the ADC ticket in 2027, my choice is clear: Atiku Abubakar.

He possesses unmatched political experience, having served eight solid years as Vice President under President Olusegun Obasanjo. He is globally recognised as an astute politician and a patriotic business mogul. His wealth is independent of public office, meaning he is unlikely to treat Nigeria’s treasury as a personal bank.
Since leaving office, despite relentless political persecution, Atiku has not been successfully linked to any proven corruption case—an indication of transparency and resilience. He is healthy, active, and capable of representing Nigeria internationally without embarrassment.

Ultimately, elections are not won by sentiment but by strategy. If ADC truly seeks victory in 2027, it must choose a candidate with national appeal, experience, credibility, and structure. On all these counts, Atiku Abubakar stands tall.

This is not ethnic politics.
This is political realism.

Tim Okojie Ave is the Publisher, National Chronicle newspaper