TheNewsGuru

Tag: Magnus Onyibe

  • Explaining PDP and LP’s trials and APC’s triumphs – By Magnus Onyibe

    Explaining PDP and LP’s trials and APC’s triumphs – By Magnus Onyibe

    Over the past month or so—particularly since Governor Sheriff Oborevwori and the entire political structure in Delta state defected to the ruling party —not a day has passed without a significant and consequential member or group of political actors from the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) defecting to the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC).

    Metaphorically, the PDP is hemorrhaging, with critical members fleeing the party.

    The alarming rate at which PDP members are shedding the party’s identity—as though it were a bad habit—includes not only regular members but also bigwigs ranging from some ex-governors and the incumbent governor to senators and members of the House of Representatives as well as state house of assembly members including even Local Govt. Area, LGA chairmen, and councilors.

    In addition to the high-profile defections, rank-and-file PDP members are also making their way en masse to the ruling APC nationwide. This political migration is akin to the seasonal movement of birds or animals from their native habitats to new environments—often in search of more favorable breeding conditions, better climates, or simply survival.

    Just last week the three PDP senators from Kebbi state visited President Tinubu in Aso Rock Villa to announce their imminent defection to the APC.

    Beyond those that have openly defected, there are lots whose bodies are in their current political platforms but their souls are in the APC and plan to step out of the shadows at the appropriate time.

    Given this wave of defections from various opposition parties to the ruling APC, Nigerian politicians appear to be behaving like the migrating animals just described.

    The APC, like a pride of lions on the prowl, seems to have stumbled upon a herd of confused gazelles—the PDP—unsure of their direction or destiny. Like the lions which are carnivores, the APC is devouring the gazelles-opposition parties particularly, the PDP, but not excluding the Labor Party, and the New Nigeria National Party, NNPP.

    Apart from the Delta state arm of the PDP, which has dissolved into the ruling party, elected politicians from the LP and NNPP stables are also pivoting to the APC without fanfare.

    Arising from the above developments, the former ruling party has been severely weakened and battle-weary, worn down by unending internecine wars since 2010, when sitting president Umar Yar’Adua passed away and then Vice President Goodluck Jonathan inherited the presidency.

    Apparently, what is currently unfolding in Nigeria’s political landscape can be likened to a concept from the business world: a “flight to quality” or “flight to safety.”

    This is a financial market phenomenon where investors sell off riskier assets and turn to safer ones, such as gold or government bonds, to protect their investments.

    At the moment, President Tinubu is increasingly projecting the image of a politically savvy leader—perhaps even a political maverick.

    This is underscored by his use of realpolitik to gain ground, as he continues to reach out to governors across the political divide, regardless of party affiliations.

    He reminds me of Senator Barack Obama, who, in his 2004 address at the Democratic National Convention, famously declared: “There is no blue America or red America; there is only the United States of America.”

    By adopting a bipartisan approach, Obama broadened his base of support.

    As a result, the then-freshman senator was able to defeat Hillary Clinton—the Democratic establishment’s favorite—in the primaries and later overcame all odds to defeat Republican Senator John McCain in the 2008 presidential election, serving as the 44th U.S. president from 2009 to 2017.

    Now, I’ve heard former President Joe Biden blame Kamala Harris’s gender for her loss to Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election. Just as l do not buy the rhetoric by PDP members that Tinubu is responsible for their woes,

    I do not share the sentiment of the leadership of the Democratic party in the US that Kamala Harris’s gender alone was her Achilles heels.

    In my view, several factors played a role in her loss, including the short campaign window of just four months, the immigration crisis that had reached epidemic proportions and overwhelmed the administration, and key “kitchen table” issues like high inflation manifesting as high cost of living—all of which created unfavorable political headwinds for her candidacy.

    A combination of all these factors frustrated the electorate—along with the superior campaign skill and style deployed by her opponent, then highly experienced President Donald Trump. Enriched by his previous experience in office, Trump executed a strategic and convincing campaign, winning more popular votes, securing more electoral college votes, and capturing all seven swing states.

    Trump’s emphatic victory is evidence of the kind of superior strategy that wins elections—a playbook that President Bola Tinubu appears to be replicating in Nigeria, thereby expanding the fortunes of his party, the APC.

    In the U.S., the reality is that like Vice President Harris, former President Barack Obama also faced significant barriers to the White House because of his skin color—an impediment that had derailed the ambitions of numerous Black presidential hopefuls from both major parties before him.

    Notably, before Senator Hillary Clinton’s bid for the White House in 2016, Shirley Chisholm—a trailblazer—was the first African-American woman to run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1972. Chisholm faced both racial and gender biases that proved to be formidable obstacles which Harris might have also contended with in 2024. But they were not insurmountable with the right strategy as underscored by how Obama prevailed when faced with similar barriers.

    Following Chisolm, Jesse Jackson was one of the blacks who made two attempts at the Democratic nomination in 1984 and 1988. Alan Keyes ran for the Republican nomination in 1996, 2000, and 2008. Carol Moseley Braun and Rev. Al Sharpton contested on the Democratic platform in 2004. Herman Cain joined the Republican race in 2012, Ben Carson in 2016, and most recently, Tim Scott in 2024.

    A simple trend analysis reveals a common thread among all these candidates: none succeeded in winning the White House. This failure cannot be attributed solely to racial bias but also to their inability to craft a political message with broad appeal beyond the African-American and Hispanic communities as Obama did.

    Together, Black and Hispanic populations make up about 30% of the U.S. demographic—14% and 16% respectively. Without expanding their appeal to the larger Caucasian electorate, the chances of any Black candidate securing the presidency were slim. That is why, before Obama, no Black candidate had ever succeeded in turning their aspiration into reality.

    It is particularly striking that Shirley Chisholm—the first Black woman to run for president—faced the double disadvantage of race and gender, much like Vice President Kamala Harris contended with in 2024.

    As it may be recalled, Hillary Clinton, a white female was on track to win the party primaries until Obama, through superior strategy and political brinksmanship, outmaneuvered her.

    Clinton would later face Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election. Although pre-election polls projected her as the favorite and she won the popular vote by nearly three million, Trump ultimately triumphed through the Electoral College—again, a demonstration of strategic superiority.

    The context above underscores a crucial truth: political brinksmanship matters. It is what enabled Obama—a Black minority candidate—to overcome the challenges that had historically thwarted other Black aspirants, making him the first African-American president of the United States.

    A similar “business-unusual” approach is what President Tinubu is now employing in Nigeria. Through legitimate means, he is effectively destabilizing, weakening, and disorganizing the opposition parties ahead of the 2027 election, positioning himself for re-election.

    For that, he deserves to be credited for his political dexterity. The two closest rival parties in the 2023 presidential election—the PDP and the LP—are currently in disarray and disorganized, largely due to the leaders of the parties being bereft of basic ethos in leadership and the strategic political maneuvers such as the charm offensive unleashed by Tinubu and APC.

    The Unraveling of the Opposition and APC’s Strategic Triumph.

    The current state of affairs within the PDP and LP reminds me of the coordinated actions taken by President Ronald Reagan of the United States and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of the United Kingdom in December 1991. Together, after they discovered the prevailing economic weakness of the country on the other side of the Iron Curtain, the USSR, they plotted to dismantle the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), which, like Humpty Dumpty in the famous nursery rhyme, had a great fall and could not be put back together again, and a remnant of which is Russia of today.

    It is rather inconvenient but quite comfortable for the political class that halfway into Nigeria’s four-year electoral cycle, with general elections scheduled for 2027, both veteran and emerging politicians have begun jostling for tickets in anticipation of the next political season, a huge 24 months away.

    In media statements, former President Goodluck Jonathan—who rose to the highest office under the PDP—raised the alarm that with President Tinubu’s conquests, or consolidation of his political influence, Nigeria may be drifting toward becoming a one-party state, a scenario he believes could be detrimental to the country’s fledgling democracy. He echoed concerns previously expressed by former Sokoto State Governor Attahiru Bafarawa, who alleged that the growing wave of defections is fueled by fear of the anti-corruption agency, EFCC, with opposition members joining the ruling party out of self-preservation.

    Similarly, Dr. Umar Ardo, convener of the League of Northern Democrats, recently argued that politicians are abusing the constitutional provisions that prohibit elected officials from defecting while still occupying the positions they won on a different party platform. However, the same constitution permits defections if the politician can prove that it is a result of a serious crisis plaguing their party. In that context, Dr. Ardo’s assertion may not be entirely valid.

    It appears instead that the hemorrhaging opposition parties have failed to effectively challenge these defections in court. When they do pursue legal recourse, their inability to prove that there are no internal party schisms as justification or insufficient evidence to establish that the party is in pristine condition and not wracked by crisis would prevent them from securing favorable judgments. This suggests that the parties themselves are bleeding membership due to self-inflicted wounds.

    In my view, contrary to unsubstantiated claims that President Tinubu is using the EFCC to coerce defections, he appears to be employing a more subtle and strategic method—courting opposition figures as a groom woos a bride. A recent example is his state visit to Anambra, where Governor Charles Soludo warmly received him. In appreciation, President Tinubu was jointly honored with a chieftaincy title conferred by all the state’s traditional rulers—a symbolic endorsement of his outreach by ndi-Igbo.

    In my assessment, Tinubu’s approach is part of a larger charm offensive aimed at winning hearts and minds across party lines, regardless of creed or political affiliation, as he positions himself for re-election in 2027. During his Anambra visit, he greeted the crowd in halting Igbo, calling them Ndi-Igbo—a term of endearment. He was also served popular local dishes like ukwa and abacha. Earlier, he was similarly welcomed in Enugu by Governor Peter Mbah where after commissioning remarkable projects executed by the PDP state governor, showers of encomiums were traded between the host and guest. During his visit to Katsina state, a praise song was composed by a popular local musician in his honor and performed at a banquet held by the state governor to welcome him.

    That was after the president visited the war theatre and charged the commanders in the frontline to fish out the bandits and religious insurgents wreaking havoc on the lives of those living in the locations considered to be the ground zero for insecurity in Nigeria.

    These engagements reflect personal efforts by President Tinubu to build goodwill while awaiting the tangible impact of his economic reforms. Though Nigeria’s macroeconomic fundamentals are reportedly improving, the effects have yet to trickle down to the average citizen, hence there still exists apathy. Therefore, claims that the EFCC is the tool behind the APC’s current political gains appear to ignore these broader, more nuanced efforts.

    In truth, what afflicts the opposition parties is not fear of the EFCC—but leadership paralysis.

    Let me illustrate this with a simple idiom from my native Ika dialect: “It is the grass that grows on a well-trodden path that invites being trampled.” Translated, this reflects the fate of the PDP and LP, which have exposed themselves to erosion by failing to address internal crises. As a result, they resemble vulnerable landscapes—barren and deteriorating under the weight of neglect and the pursuit of personal agendas by their leaders.

    Disappointingly, the PDP, which ruled Nigeria from 1999 to 2015, now resembles a devastated terrain—akin to parts of Zamfara State scarred by illegal mining. The trenches and ditches left behind are symbolic of the reckless internal strife and lack of control within the party. While its leaders engage in endless legal battles, the APC continues to harvest its members—senators, governors, legislators, and local government officials.

    The LP, which had a meteoric rise in 2023 with Peter Obi’s populist-driven campaign, is now facing a similar fate. After its surprising superlative performance in the 2023 presidential election and emerging as the second main opposition force, the party began to unravel almost immediately. Internal disputes, leadership disarray, and missed opportunities have weakened its structure significantly, such that it is no longer the winning machine that it used to be barely 24 months ago.

    In an attempt to salvage the PDP, a meeting of its Governors’ Forum—hosted in Ibadan by Oyo State Governor Seyi Makinde—advised against any coalition with other opposition parties. Rather than heal wounds, the decision further alienated members, culminating in a massive defection in Delta State, where a wave of leaders and grassroots supporters switched allegiance to the APC. From governors and senators to local councilors, the exodus has been described as unprecedented and monumental.

    In a last-ditch effort to stop the bleeding, Bauchi State Governor Bala Mohammed, who also chairs the PDP Governors’ Forum, convened a high-level meeting over the weekend. Attendees included acting National Chairman Iliya Damagun, former Senate President Bukola Saraki, and several former governors. Whether this effort can halt the party’s decline ahead of its upcoming National Working Committee meeting remains uncertain.

    As I see it, the trials of the PDP and LP, and the triumphs of the APC, are not merely due to coercion or external manipulation as some PDP leaders are claiming. They are primarily the result of poor planning, shallow strategy, and leadership failure within the opposition. Conversely, it is the strategic and tactical brilliance of President Tinubu—marked by calculated outreach and political brinksmanship—that is driving the ruling party’s exponential growth.

    While each party may have its version of the truth, one fact remains incontestable: the opposition parties are their own worst enemies. Their inability to maintain internal cohesion and vision has led them to the edge of political irrelevance.

    Perhaps as a demonstration of political machismo and to bolster confidence amongst PDP members that have remained faithful, Sule Lamido, an ex-governor of Jigawa state and a PDP stalwart, has predicted that by accommodating politicians from multiple orientations and ideologies the APC will soon disintegrate with members returning to the APC. Something akin to the Big Bang theory in the political sphere.

    That expectation appears to me as utopian because the APC after its founding in 2013 was deemed by skeptics as a Special Purpose Vehicle, SPV is expected to disintegrate after winning the presidency and more states in the 2015 general elections.

    Perhaps due to some inbuilt mechanisms for coping with internal intrigues, APC has continued to wax stronger to the chagrin of the opposition parties that have been in the death throes like patients in Intensive Care Units, and ICU in hospitals.

    Even worse is the fact that some aggrieved politicians who have quit or planning to quit the PDP and APC and are seeking to berth or migrate to the less visible parties such as the Social Democratic Party, SDP, are currently in limbo.

    Unsurprisingly that crop of politicians is experiencing roadblocks with the hostile original owners of the party platform that they are eying.

    That said, it is morning yet to decipher the possible outcome of the unfolding 2027 general elections that promises to be a showdown if the opposition parties get their acts right, or a no-show with the president cruising into his second term unchallenged in any significant shape or form.

     

    Magnus Onyibe, is an entrepreneur, public policy analyst, author, democracy advocate, development strategist, alumnus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Massachusetts, USA, and a Commonwealth Institute scholar as well as a former commissioner in the Delta State government, sent this piece from Lagos, Nigeria. To continue with this conversation and more, please visit www.magnum.ng.

  • MAGNUS ONYIBE: President Trump’s tariffs and the Big Bang effect

    MAGNUS ONYIBE: President Trump’s tariffs and the Big Bang effect

    By Magnus Onyibe.

     

    A peek into Canadian, Mexican, Chinese, European, Japanese, and Korean media platforms reveals palpable angst, driven by strong expressions of nationalistic passion against the 47th President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, and his administration. Citizens of these countries are expressing indignation due to the ongoing trade war—especially regarding the 10% across-the-board tariff on imports from 180 countries and, in some cases, additional tariffs of up to 54% on imported vehicles and other goods into the US from around 60 nations.

    The tariffs took effect on April 2, a date President Trump has dubbed Liberation Day—drawing a parallel to July 4, 1776, when the original 13 American colonies declared independence from Britain after a brutal war.

    In line with America’s foundational respect for freedom of speech and association, it’s remarkable—and indeed ironic—that, unlike other nations whose media are responding with patriotic fervor, the American media have not rallied behind their president. Instead of pushing back against foreign hostility, the highly vibrant US media have joined the global chorus in criticizing President Trump’s “America First” policies. In some quarters, they are even vilifying or outright demonizing their own president.

    Such is the potency of free speech in the United States—a feature perhaps best captured by the concept of American Exceptionalism.

    Despite a tumbling stock market and widespread protests fueled by fears of inflation and an impending recession—as predicted by anti-Trump politicians—President Trump appears unperturbed by the tumultuous effects his tariff policies are having on US trading partners. In fact, he has threatened to raise tariffs even further if Canada and European countries attempt to collude against the US. Although this has yet to happen, China—arguably the hardest hit—has retaliated with a 34% tariff on US imports.

    In my view, these developments are reshaping the global trade ecosystem. As countries seek alternative trade partners to avoid the constraints of trading with the US on Trump’s terms, they may carve out entirely new trade pathways. Thus, the net effect of President Trump’s sweeping tariff hikes—targeting both allies and rivals—can be likened to the Big Bang.

    The Big Bang theory, the leading explanation for the origin and evolution of the universe, posits that the universe began as an infinitely hot and dense singularity about 13 billion years ago. According to its proponents, this singularity expanded rapidly, cooling and giving rise to subatomic particles, atoms, stars, and galaxies. The universe, they say, is still expanding—accelerated by the mysterious force known as dark energy.

    President Trump’s “bang” can be seen through a similar lens: an explosive policy shift—rooted in an unconventional America First ideology—that has disrupted all previous global trade arrangements. Like a singularity, his approach is transforming the established order, replacing it with an untested but highly consequential framework. Though unproven in the modern era, it already appears to be generating seismic changes across the global economy.

    Trump is leveraging tariffs as a strategy to boost job creation and repatriate manufacturing to the US. He also views them as a tool to generate revenue to reduce the national budget deficit, which stands at a staggering $36 trillion and continues to grow.

    Given the global upheaval triggered by this astronomical tariff increase, it is difficult to find a better metaphor for Trump’s trade policy than the Big Bang. The ripple effects are so powerful that fear has gripped not only North and South American neighbors, but also Europeans, Asians, Arabs, and Africans—on both sides of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

    The only country that might remain untouched or unaffected by the far-reaching Trump effect is one operating in complete autarky—such as the reclusive regime of Kim Jong Un in North Korea.

    While the Big Bang theory provides a comprehensive explanation for the origins of the universe, many unanswered questions remain—such as what caused the universe to begin expanding in the first place, and what is the true nature of dark matter and dark energy.

    Similarly, what explains President Trump’s determination to upend the old world order remains an enigma to his opponents. At this point, not even his staunchest devotees can convincingly argue that his motives are purely patriotic, driven by the Make America Great Again (MAGA) ideology with the primary aim of correcting trade imbalances and closing the deficit gap that has led to a massive budget shortfall.

    Of course, as is typical in opposition politics, Trump’s high tariffs and efforts to reduce the size of the US government—driven by the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DoGE) under the leadership of Elon Musk, the world’s richest man—are being framed as a gambit to cut taxes for billionaires. That narrative seems to have resonated, as Americans have taken to the streets in protest, in ways that suggest resistance to what former President Joe Biden described as an “oligarchic regime,” citing the number of billionaires in Trump’s cabinet.

    The reality, however, is that Trump’s “bang” is not a one-size-fits-all solution. It affects different countries and regions in different ways.

    Starting with Africa, where aid is critically needed to manage persistent social and public health challenges like HIV/AIDS, the suspension of USAID funding by President Trump is deeply concerning. USAID has been a vital source of funding for health and humanitarian initiatives, and its absence poses a significant threat. This is especially so because many African leaders have practically abdicated their responsibilities in this area, relying heavily on donor countries—led by the US—to provide for their citizens.

    With USAID funding now cut off, many African countries are left scrambling to fill the gap. In Nigeria, the government has made an extra-budgetary provision of $200 million for healthcare services, while the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) has injected almost $200 million into the foreign exchange (FX) market to help cushion the volatility and uncertainty resulting from the tariff hikes.

    In Europe, the 25% tariff imposed on vehicles and alcoholic beverages—particularly from France and Scotland—poses a massive economic challenge. Many European economies are either already in recession or teetering on the brink. Even more alarming is the US threat to withdraw from its heavy financial commitment to NATO, coupled with demands that member nations pay up their dues. This creates a sense of vulnerability, especially as fears rise that Vladimir Putin may turn his attention to another European country after Ukraine.

    From my perspective, the European Union’s support for Volodymyr Zelensky and Ukraine is less about altruism and more about self-interest—the first rule of nature. This is evidenced by the show of unity by European leaders around Zelensky after he was snubbed at the White House by President Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance. This strategic interest is also why Europe is now planning to set up a joint European military force as an alternative to NATO—an initiative already underway. But given the current economic strain on European economies, is the formation of a standing European force feaseable?

    Regarding the high tariffs, Europe appears to have adopted a measured response, likely in line with the counsel of Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Director-General of the World Trade Organization (WTO).
    Hence it seems to have adopted a studied approach.

    The Arab world is also not left out. President Trump’s “drill, baby, drill” mantra means that the US will reduce its dependence on oil imports from countries like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, and Oman. Instead of preserving strategic oil reserves, the US will now focus on domestic drilling. Trump’s rationale appears to be that if fossil fuels are eventually being phased out due to the rise of Electric Vehicles (EVs), then it makes sense to exploit the existing oil reserves before combustion-engine vehicles become obsolete.

    In any case, Trump has never embraced climate change in the way it is currently framed. The world is alarmed that he has once again pulled the US out of the Paris Climate Accord, after former President Biden had rejoined during his administration. With oil prices crashing due to the tariff shock, an OPEC strategy meeting may soon be on the horizon.

    China, currently celebrated as the world’s foremost manufacturing hub and the second-largest economy, has borne the brunt of Trump’s trade war. The 54% tariff imposed on goods ranging from vehicles to washing machines has essentially locked China out of the US market. These items were previously taxed at 10–25%, but after Trump’s April 2 Rose Garden announcement, the tariff soared to 54%. In response, China has imposed a 34% tariff on US exports. That has excerbated the chaos already wracking the global economy in the past couple of days.

    The rationale behind these tariffs, according to Trump, is to bring manufacturing back to the US from Mexico, Canada, China, and Europe, where it had migrated due to what he deems as unfair trade practices. His strategy is designed to reverse this trend.

    By understanding how President Trump’s influence is shaping events across Western, Asian, Middle Eastern (Arab), and African regions, we can better grasp the phenomenon—The Trump Effect—that I am likening to the Big Bang. Hopefully, this will encourage a more balanced perspective and lead to negotiations rather than a tit-for-tat trade war.

    One irrefutable fact is that Trump is rewriting the global trade rulebook, and he is doing so by squelching globalization—a phenomenon that began between the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Placing this into historical context, the Silk Road and the Industrial Revolution—which began in Great Britain following the invention of the steam engine and the mechanical loom—kickstarted global trade by enabling mass production for markets beyond local demand.

    In the modern era, global trade received a significant boost from the establishment of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in 1971, in Davos, Switzerland. Since then, global trade has been guided by the Davos Manifesto, which champions ethical entrepreneurship, responsible governance, and the neutral ideals of Swiss diplomacy—underpinning the spirit of globalization. A formal charter for this vision was adopted in 1973 and renewed in 2020.

    History shows that global trade thrives when protected—and falters when it is not. For instance, trade in silk and spices between China and Rome during the first century BC flourished when protected by powerful empires. Once those empires declined, so did the trade routes and their prosperity.

    Now, as President Trump—the leader of the current global hegemon—takes a protectionist stance, it is consistent with his past. He has long used tariffs as a tool for economic leverage. Even back in 1988, in an interview with Oprah Winfrey, Trump,then a real estate mogul criticized China for what he saw as exploitation of the US economy.

    Trump is not alone in this. A resurfaced video from 1996 shows Nancy Pelosi, then a Congresswoman from California, opposing a bill that would give China a special trade status. She argued against tariff exemptions for Chinese products—effectively advocating for the same policy Trump now champions.

    In summary, the use of tariffs as a strategic tool in global trade has bipartisan roots in the US. What has changed is the scale and audacity of the Trump administration’s approach, which has sent shockwaves across the global economic landscape—earning it the moniker of a Big Bang moment in trade history.

    So, Trump is literally echoing Pelosi’s sentiments with his current introduction of high tariffs. The only difference is that the tariff hike is not limited to China but has been extended to roughly 180 countries, with an estimated 60 nations significantly affected.

    Even more interestingly, reports suggest that as recently as 2019, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders was also on record proposing the use of tariffs as a defense against unfair trade practices—an argument now forming the basis of Trump’s ongoing global tariff war, which has placed the world on edge.

    Experts familiar with the history and current application of tariffs reveal that about $400 billion worth of U.S. products were tariffed during Trump’s first term. In his current second term, projections suggest that up to $1 trillion worth of goods may fall under U.S. trade tariffs.

    According to estimates by economists, approximately $3.3 billion worth of imports arrive in the U.S. annually.

    President Trump is convinced that his high-tariff regime will generate more wealth for the United States through increased domestic production, which would, in turn, boost employment for working-class Americans. Another key objective is to create fairness in trade between the U.S. and its trading partners, whom Trump has accused of benefiting unfairly at America’s expense.

    Ultimately, President Trump aims to use the proceeds from these high tariffs to help close the $36 trillion budget deficit currently facing the world’s largest and most powerful economy.

    In light of this, Mr. Peter Navarro, Trump’s trade adviser, believes that high tariffs have the potential to generate over $6 trillion for the U.S. in the short term.

    In all of this, my main concern and interest ly in how Africa can benefit from the reimagining of the global socioeconomic ecosystem, as President Trump upends the old world order.

    With a 14% tariff now imposed by the U.S. on Nigerian goods and 10% across most of the 54 nations continent , Nigeria’s exports to the U.S.—valued at between $5–$6 billion (with oil and gas making up over 90% and non-oil/gas exports accounting for less than 10%)—are under threat.

    Even among non-oil/gas exports, the bulk comprises raw materials such as urea/fertilizer, ammonia, flower plants, and cashew nuts, which make up about 8%.

    It is disappointing that value-added or processed exports from Nigeria to the U.S. are so minuscule—just 2%.

    Despite this low figure, the imposition of a 14% tariff on Nigerian goods—despite the trade balance favoring the U.S.—should serve as a wake-up call for Nigeria, and indeed all of Africa, to begin adding value to their exports. If non-oil exports, facing a 10% tariff, are to be competitive in the U.S. market, they must move up the value chain.

    The dominance of raw materials in Nigeria’s exports reflects the country’s continuing role as a supplier of raw materials to the industrialized nations of Europe, North America, and Asia.

    Among the six continents, only South America and the Arab world have yet to fully exploit Africa as a raw material source and dumping ground for finished products. So, for too long Africa has remained the weeping child as it has held the wrong end of the stick and it must make strategic and intentional efforts to change the negative narrative.

    What the Trump tariffs spells in my mind is deglobalization as economic trade and investments between countries go on decline. But the global tariff war is also an opportunity for the continent to reposition herself on the global stage by taking a collective stance on how African countries can trade amongst themselves who to trade with in global south or west and even Asia based on her terms not the Berlin, Germany type of framework and agreement when she was not at the table when her resources were being shared as war spoils amongst Europeans who transformed from African slave traders into colonialists exploiting the resources of the continent.

    Although, stocks have been crashing worldwide since the hike in tariffs by Trump it may be recalled that stock prices also rose sharply upon the innauguration of Trump on 20th January and has fallen therafter. Similarly, the stocks that have tanked globally in the past few days may rise again once clarity is achieved. With barely 100 days into his four (4) years tenure those projecting that President Trump and the Republican party may be punished by the electorate during mid -term elections that comes up 100 days shy of two (2) years, may be too hasty in their judgement.
    That is because in politics a lot could still happen in the lifespan of Trump’s administration which is still 100 days shy of the 730 days(two years ) tenure to change course if the reciprocal high tariffs imposition on trading partners does not pan out well with high inflation wrecking the economy or unemployement rising astronomically to the point that US economy stagnates or goes into recession as being predicted by those against Trump’s unorthodox policies.
    In the event that the unique approach defies the logic of economists, Trump may turnout to be the a hero of the new world order.

    Magnus Onyibe, an entrepreneur, public policy analyst, author, democracy aadvocate, development strategist, alumnus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Massachusetts, USA, and a former commissioner in the Delta State government, sent this piece from Lagos, Nigeria.
    To continue with this conversation and more, please visit www.magnum.ng.

  • As political opponents prepare to challenge Tinubu’s 2027 re-election – By Magnus Onyibe

    As political opponents prepare to challenge Tinubu’s 2027 re-election – By Magnus Onyibe

    My family and I join millions of Nigerians in extending our warmest birthday wishes to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, a formidable political strategist of our time, as he turns 73.

    This particular birthday holds unique significance, as it coincides with the conclusion of both Ramadan and the Christian Lenten period. For Tinubu, a devout Muslim, celebrating his birthday on March 29 at the end of one of Islam’s most sacred periods—Ramadan—adds a profound spiritual dimension. Additionally, the fact that it aligns with the conclusion of Lent, observed by his wife, Senator Oluremi Tinubu, a pastor in the Redeemed Christian Church of God (RCCG), makes it even more remarkable. The convergence of these three significant religious events is certainly noteworthy.

    It is, therefore, unsurprising that the First Lady, Senator Oluremi Tinubu, paid a heartfelt tribute to her husband, referring to him as her “knight in shining armor.”

    For those unfamiliar with the phrase, “knight in shining armor” originates from medieval European folklore and symbolizes chivalry, bravery, honor, and unwavering loyalty. This image, which first emerged in 12th-century literature, embodies key virtues such as:

    1. Chivalry – Upholding a code of honor, loyalty, and the protection of the weak.

    2. Bravery – Courageously facing challenges and adversity.

    3. Loyalty – Demonstrating steadfast devotion to one’s cause, country, and loved ones.

    4. Honor – Committing to principles that uphold personal and family integrity.

    These attributes align closely with Tinubu’s public service record. From his early days as a pro-democracy activist to his tenure as a senator, governor, and national leader of the ruling party, he has consistently demonstrated political resilience and strategic brilliance. It is in this context that the First Lady’s description of him as “My Knight in Shining Armor” appears fitting.

    Beyond his wife’s admiration, Tinubu has also received praise from past Nigerian leaders. Former President Muhammadu Buhari, under whom Tinubu served as the ruling party’s key strategist, described him as an influential figure in Nigeria’s political history:

    “No doubt, the annals of the country will not be complete without mentioning President Tinubu’s significant roles as an entrepreneur, party stalwart, activist, and a serial winner of democratic elections. I am truly proud of my association with Asiwaju.”

    Similarly, former Military President Ibrahim Babangida, under whose regime Tinubu was forced into exile due to his pro-democracy activism, acknowledged his leadership qualities:

    “There comes a time in the life of a nation when an uncommon personality and courageous disposition define the essence of problem-solving leadership. With your background in the struggle for the emancipation of ordinary Nigerians and your commitment to deepening democracy, your history speaks for itself.”

    Babangida further praised Tinubu’s resilience, stating:

    “You have come to lead Nigeria at a very challenging time in our history, and your leadership thus far has been remarkable, bold, and encouraging. Only those who have been in leadership positions understand the complexities involved in governing a nation like Nigeria.”

    These endorsements reinforce Tinubu’s political standing. However, as he marks this milestone, opposition forces are mobilizing to challenge his presidency in the 2027 election.

    Going by his concluding part of his tribute, Babangida has apparently endorsed Tinubu for a second term.

    “A results-oriented and pragmatic leader like you is well-suited to tackle the current challenges, particularly given the innovative policies and strategic direction your administration has pursued so far.”

    Babangida’s tribute stands out to me because, in several of my past media engagements, I have argued that President Tinubu is making the tough decisions that Babangida, as a former military head of state, was unable to implement to rescue Nigeria from economic decline. Specifically, Babangida’s failure to fully execute the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) of 1984/85—choosing instead to step aside under pressure—plunged the country into a state of arrested development, leading to the socio-economic and political struggles that persist today and which Tinubu’s reforms are dismantling.

    It is noteworthy and commendable that Babangida himself has acknowledged Tinubu’s determination to follow through on difficult reforms, a path he hesitated to complete before stepping down in 1993.

    Even former President Muhammadu Buhari—whose tenure as a military ruler from 1983 to 1985 was marked by repression, rivaled only by General Sani Abacha’s rule from 1993 to 1998—has given due recognition to Tinubu’s critical role in helping him achieve the presidency in 2015 after multiple failed attempts.

    For me, the key takeaway from the tributes by both Buhari and Babangida is that they reinforce the “Knight in Shining Armor” title bestowed upon Tinubu by his wife, First Lady Senator Oluremi Tinubu. Their acknowledgments align with the characteristics of a knight: chivalry, bravery, loyalty, and honor.

    While we have yet to see birthday tributes from other former Nigerian leaders like General Abdulsalami Abubakar and former President Goodluck Jonathan, there appears to be a broad consensus on Tinubu’s political influence.

    I have previously stated that Tinubu is implementing reforms that past leaders should have introduced and completed over the last four -five decades.

    In his book Political Style: The Artistry of Power (1995), Robert Hariman examines the political craftsmanship of historical figures, including Vaclav Havel, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton. He highlights how each leader’s style shapes their political effectiveness and the crises they encounter.

    Tinubu exemplifies this idea of political artistry. Aristotle famously described humans as “political animals,” naturally inclined to engage in governance and power dynamics. Though trained as an accountant, Tinubu has evolved into a master politician, refining his approach from his early days as a senator under Babangida’s transition to democracy. His journey—from opposition leader to president—has drawn both admiration and criticism, particularly from former allies like Nasir El-Rufai and Rotimi Amaechi, who are now among his growing list of political adversaries.

    Hariman identifies four dominant political styles in his book:

    1. Realist Style – Rooted in Machiavelli’s The Prince, this approach prioritizes power, calculation, and emotional control.

    2. Courtly Style – As seen in Kapuściński’s The Emperor, it revolves around hierarchy, decorum, and reverence for leadership.

    3. Republican Style – Inspired by Cicero, this style emphasizes rhetoric, consensus-building, and civility.

    4. Bureaucratic Style – Echoing Kafka’s The Castle, this focuses on institutional procedures and governance structures.

    Tinubu has, at different times, demonstrated elements of these styles. His distinct mannerisms, strategic thinking, and political resilience have made him a phenomenon in Nigeria’s contemporary political landscape.

    This explains why, ahead of the 2023 presidential election, he confidently declared “Emi lo kan” (It’s my turn) in Yoruba, asserting his right to lead after years of king-making—a claim even former President Buhari acknowledged.

    Despite his proximity to power, Tinubu faced significant obstacles, including the naira redesign policy, which created cash shortages and threatened his campaign. He later recounted how a close associate questioned whether he could succeed under such conditions. Yet, he remained resolute, stating, “I will make it.” True to his words, he secured the presidency.

    In my book Becoming President of Nigeria: A Citizen’s Guide (2023), released before the party primaries, I argued that Tinubu had a strong chance of winning the presidency, even though zoning considerations had not officially favored him.

    In chapter six (6) titled Political Frenzy and Fireworks Surrounding the Jostle for Presidency of Nigeria in 2023 Against a Politician from the Yoruba Ethnic Stock as detailed from pages 99-100, the case was made for Tinubu’s eligibility based on former Ogun state governor, and elder statesman,Aremo Segun Osoba’s optics.

    At that time, Peter Obi’s rise through the Labour Party was not yet fully in play. In the Conclusion chapter of the book (p.301) one had also predicted the contest would primarily be between Tinubu (APC) and Atiku Abubakar (PDP).

    All that is contained in my article titled “How to Become the President of Nigeria , 2023” first published on September 15, 2021 by Thecable.ng and later on page 331 -332 in my book by the same title published in 2023.

    Tinubu’s political acumen is well-established. However, some believe he may have weakened his position by declaring a state of emergency in Rivers State on March 18, 2024. Critics argue this move could alienate Niger Deltans, while his supporters maintain that he acted decisively to prevent a violent crisis in the volatile region.

    Among his challengers is Nasir El-Rufai, the former Kaduna governor who was instrumental in Tinubu’s 2023 victory but was later sidelined from a ministerial position, after being nominated. El-Rufai is reportedly working to unify opposition parties under the Social Democratic Party (SDP) to replicate Tinubu’s 2015 strategy against the PDP. Whether he will succeed remains to be seen.

    Another formidable opponent is Rotimi Amaechi, the former Rivers governor and transportation minister, who contested against Tinubu in the APC primaries. While it wise not to take any threat forgranted, he may not be such a threat as his influence in Rivers state politics has been whittled down by the immediate past governor and current minister of the F.C.T, Nyesom Wike.

    An anecdote: ‘l once asked a wiseman, how do l know who is real (amongst my followers) and he replied, ‘Remove the benefits and see who’s left’ appears to ring true in Rivers state, as loyalty is being determined by who is benefiting and who has the ability and capacity to keep dispensing benefits.

    Regardless of opposition, Tinubu remains a master strategist who has reshaped Nigeria’s political landscape. His ability to build coalitions and outmaneuver opponents was evident in the formation of the APC, which unseated the PDP in 2015. As governor of Lagos, his policies—including the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system and revenue reforms—laid the foundation for the state’s economic growth.

    His adaptability is another strength. Over the years, he has adjusted to shifting political realities, often turning challenges into opportunities.

    Of course, Tinubu is not without controversy. Some critics allege discrepancies in his age, questioning whether he is truly 73, as officially stated, or older, based on past reports. However, in a world where information can be manipulated with Aritificial Inteligence tools, such claims remain unverified. Moreover, age falsification is widespread among Nigerian civil servants, with many reducing their official ages to extend their careers.

    To address this issue, the National Assembly should consider criminalizing age falsification and making it highly enforceable as part of the ongoing constitutional review.

    Ultimately, Tinubu’s rise to power is a testament to his political skills. While some admire his leadership, others strongly oppose his methods. But instead of resorting to insults to me for this analysis based on objective principles, critics should articulate their reasons for opposing him so that meaningful political discourse around the strenghts and weakness of president Tinubu’s reforms can take place.

    On that note, once again, on behalf of my family and l, happy birthday, Mr. President—Asiwaju of Lagos and Jagaban of Borgu, and congrats to madam first Lady Oluremi Tinubu who has been standing by her husband like the Rock of Gilbraltar.

     

    Magnus Onyibe, an entrepreneur, public policy analyst, author, democracy advocate, development strategist, alumnus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Massachusetts, USA, and a former commissioner in the Delta State government, sent this piece from Lagos, Nigeria.

    To continue with this conversation and more, please visit www.magnum.ng.

  • Tinubu reforms: Efficacy of executive order over legislative and judicial order – By Magnus Onyibe

    Tinubu reforms: Efficacy of executive order over legislative and judicial order – By Magnus Onyibe

    The decision of President Tinubu to end the roughly forty (40) years policy of subsidizing petrol pump prices on the day he was inaugurated as the president of Nigeria on 29 May 2023 is the case of the use of executive order which is one of the three (3) legitimate told of governance. Subsequently, the policy of a fixed exchange rate of the Naira to foreign currencies which has been the practice in the country over the past several decades was also halted.

    As a consequence of the two (2) drastic reform measures via executive orders, the Nigerian economy went into a tailspin recording an inflation rate of over 34% from which stability is currently being restored to the relief of the leadership of the current administration and the good and long-suffering people of Nigeria.
    Below is how President Tinubu made the two (2) executive orders in his inaugural speech on 29 May 2023 which triggered socioeconomic turmoil : (speech)

    In the twenty-two (22)months of President Bola Tinubu’s taking over the leadership of Nigeria following his victory at the presidential polls held on Saturday, February 25, 2023, he has been directing the affairs of our country from Aso Rock Villa Nigeria’s presidential seat of power and his policies have been, to say the least and putting it lightly, revolutionary with the cost of living spiraling to unprecedented high levels.
    In presiding over Nigeria since 29 May 2023 when he was inaugurated, as highlighted earlier, the president has leaned heavily on executive orders in his governance style rather than relying on traditional procedures such as the use of legislative and judicial processes.

    Generally, the preference for executive orders by President Tinubu appears to have proven to be more efficacious for the current administration compared to the traditional methods of governance or so it seems.
    It is to ascertain the veracity of the above assumption that this piece is written as a comparative analysis of the three approaches to governance in a democratic setting. To achieve that set objective, we have to examine the merits and demerits of the executive, legislative, and judicial instruments as tools for governance particularly concerning Nigeria under the watch of President Tinubu.

    Before delving further into whether the referenced operational procedures for governance in the Nigerian democratic environment have been efficacious or not, it is appropriate to take a cursory look at how executive, legislative, and judiciary tools of governance are applied in the democratic world.
    For holistic assessment and understanding of the utility of governance tools, it is pertinent that we go back to the ancient times in Athens, Greece, which is the birthplace of democracy in …BC. We will also need to shine the light on

    France where democracy was further refined under the influence of Enlightenment philosophers.
    Then we can take a look at India which is the largest democracy in the world with 1.4 billion people in population. Then finally reflect on the situation in the United States of America, USA, the world’s foremost democratic country and leader of the free world from where Nigeria borrowed the presidential system of governance that she is currently practicing.

    To carry out the above-mentioned action effectively, below is a comparison of the three (3) well-established governance tools in the democratic settings earlier referenced. The governance tools focused include Executive Orders, Legislative Procedures, and Judicial Actions.

    Executive Orders
    1. These are Official documents issued by the head of state or government, outlining policies, decisions, or actions. We see this in the USA where President Donald Trump has leveraged Executive Orders to speed up the implementation of his far-reaching policies and programs aimed at delivering on his Make America Great Again, MAGA agenda.
    2. Purpose: Enable swift decision-making, bypassing legislative delays.
    3. Characteristics: Binding, enforceable, and often irreversible without subsequent orders or legislation.
    4. Examples: US Presidents’ executive orders, Nigerian Presidents’ executive orders.

    Legislative Procedures
    1. These are Processes by which laws are created, amended, or repealed by elected representatives.
    2. Purpose: Ensure representation, deliberation, and accountability in lawmaking.
    3. Characteristics: Involves debate, voting, and potential amendments.
    4. Examples: US Congressional lawmaking, Nigerian National Assembly’s legislative processes.
    5. Remarkably the policies being processed via this process- the four (4) tax reform bills are still stuck in the

    National Assembly where they are receiving legislative attention. We will duel further on that in the later part of this discourse.

    Judicial Actions
    1. These are decisions, rulings, or orders issued by courts to interpret laws, resolve disputes, or enforce rights.
    2. Purpose: Uphold the rule of law, protect individual rights, and provide checks on executive and legislative branches.
    3. Characteristics: Binding, precedent-setting, and subject to appeal or review.
    4. Examples: US Supreme Court decisions, Nigerian Supreme Court judgments.
    5. A typical example in Nigeria is the Supreme Court judgment on local government autonomy in Nigeria. Long after the court ruling, local governments’ autonomy has not been implemented. In fact, the Punch newspaper of yesterday, Monday march 17 reported that state governors are lobbying the federal government not to implement the judgment. We will also delve deeper into the issue in the later part of this intervention.

    Again, to get to the granular details of how the three (3) governance tools in a functional democracy are wielded so that readers can fully understand and appreciate why some presidents of nations apply the three processes depending on needs assessment, here is a comparison of the
    Governance Tool, its key characteristics, and advantages/ disadvantages.

    While Executive Order is defined by its swift, binding, enforceable, efficient decision-making process and its fitting qualities for crisis management, it has the potential for abuse and is susceptible to misuse as it bypasses: legislative oversight. In the US. The raft of executive orders rolled out by President Trump on his first day in office and subsequently the number of which are currently too numerous are considered by his political enemies as an abuse of the process. But to Trump and his supporters who are in the majority because he defeated his opponent Kamala Harris in the November 5, 2023 presidential contest, he needs the speed to accomplish his mission in the limited time of four (4) years that he has in office.

    In light of what we know about the advantages and disadvantages intrinsic in the governance procedures, if Trump followed the legislative or judicial route, he would have been unable to deliver on his campaign promise hence he opted to leverage the Executive Order option.

    Concerning Legislative Procedures, the good side is that it is representative, deliberative, and amendable and ensures accountability and representation via debate.

    But it can be slow, prone to gridlock, or dominated by special interests. In the US upturning Row.V. Wade- an over a half-century-old law on birth control bordering on the freedom of the female genders to determine what they can do or not do with their reproductive organs without the consent of government. We also see the hands of special interests in Nigeria, this time around, some northern leaders, of thought that are afraid that the tax reforms, especially concerning the retention of about 60% of the Value Added Tax, VAT by the source of the product generating the VAT as proposed in the new tax law will hurt and disadvantage their region. It is a notion that the tax reform committee chairman, Taiwo Oyedele has been struggling to assure the concerned leaders it is unfounded.

    In the case of Judicial Actions, the ruling is binding, precedent-setting, and reviewable just as it upholds the rule of law, protects individual rights, and provides checks on power. However, the downside is that it can be slow, dependent on judicial independence, and subject to interpretation.
    The legal fireworks that trailed the local government autonomy judgment went all the way from the lower court to the highest level of the judiciary which is the Supreme Court, and to a lesser extent, the multiple interpretations of the recent court judgment on who is the authentic and current emir of Kano between Sanusi Lamido Sanusi and Ado Bayero in Kano is another example of a drawback in relying on the judiciary.

    As the analysis above reveals, there are good and bad sides to the use of the three (3) governance tools as enumerated above. So it is how adept and savvy a president is in political calculations that determines the best tool to apply at any given time to achieve a desired outcome.

    Ideally in democratic settings, these governance tools interact and balance one another.

    Another important point to note is the fact that- Executive Orders can be challenged or overturned by legislative or judicial actions, just as the Legislative procedures can be influenced by executive orders or judicial interpretations and Judicial actions can be affected by executive orders or legislative changes.

    All the situations cited above- especially courts suspending implementation of executive orders are currently playing out in the USA. Several executive orders have been suspended by courts in the course of President Trump’s taking over the reins of governance in the White House he has only one term to deliver the change that he promised voters hence he is applying the governance tool that is most amenable to speed which although legitimate is challengeable in court.

    This balance of powers in action in the three (3) branches of government ensures that no single branch dominates the others, thus promoting accountability, representation, and the rule of law.
    It is in the context of the scenario described above that Nigerians should consider the decisions made by President Tinubu from the get-go to make the pronouncement: “petrol subsidy is gone” during his inaugural speech on 29 May 2023.

    It is a decision that many Nigerians have criticized as he has been roundly blamed for not consulting widely before he made the declaration which has had a profound effect on the lives of Nigerians- both rich and poor.
    In light of the enlightenment about the use of the three (3) tools of governance in democratic settings elaborately discussed above, in hindsight, it would be interesting to know if those who were lambasting Tinubu for being hasty in his decision to end petrol subsidy from day one, as some had put it, would still stand by their earlier point of view, POV.

    By that l mean his genuine critics who did so for altruistic reasons and not based on partisan bias.

    The reason l would like to wager a bet on Tinubu’s reasonableness in his decision to end petrol subsidy and float the naira through executive orders would be better appreciated now.
    That is because when the decision is juxtaposed against the backdrop of the rub-a-dub situation with the tax reform bills which are still bugged down in the legislative branch of government since the 8th of October 2024 when it was first read in the parliament and arising from the fact the Supreme Court judgment on local government autonomy is still in abeyance since 11th July 2024 after the ruling, compared to the alacrity with which petrol subsidy removal and the end of multiple rates of naira exchange the naira were implemented, and which are responsible for the positive economic fundamentals which our country can now boast of, then it would be clear to all that Tinubu did what he had to do to prevent our country from further hemorrhaging and avert a possible collapse which was imminent as our economy was practically tethering on the brinks.
    By and large executive orders have proven to be a more efficacious governance tool if time constraints are a significant factor as they save time and allow a dynamic president to cut through the bureaucraticvbottlenecks to quickly achieve set goals.

    The above strategy is exactly the methodology that President Tinubu has adopted to achieve success in his deep reforms which peaked in less than 18 months after which the negative consequences petered out and the positive gains began to manifest before the midterm of his administration which is coming up on 29 May- mere two months.

    Imagine if Tinubu had applied the legislative or judicial option in governance, petrol subsidy, and multiple naira exchange rate windows would still be in operation and Nigeria would be mirred in retrogression as it has been in the past four (4) decades (1984/5) or so since the nation was advised by development experts and institutions against retaining the obnoxious subsidy on petrol and buffeting the naira which we all agree were wrong-headed policies but which no leader in the past had the guts or gumption to end.

  • The Trump-Vance approach to Zelensky and the emergence of a new world order – By Magnus Onyibe

    The Trump-Vance approach to Zelensky and the emergence of a new world order – By Magnus Onyibe

    During his visit to the White House on Friday, February 28, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky faced a tough reception from President Donald J. Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance. Their handling of him demonstrated their firm approach to diplomacy, signaling a shift in global power dynamics.

    As the saying goes, a beggar has no choice—their hand is always beneath that of the giver, not above it. This principle was clearly reinforced when President Trump made it explicit that Ukraine had little say in negotiations regarding the resolution of the ongoing three-year war with Russia. Initial discussions had already taken place in Saudi Arabia without Ukraine or European nations at the table. Instead, the negotiations involved Saudi Arabia, the U.S., and Russia.

    In response, Zelensky expressed his frustration:

    “It feels like the U.S. is now discussing the ultimatum that Putin set at the start of the full-scale war. Once again, decisions about Ukraine are being made without Ukraine. I wonder why they believe Ukraine would accept all these ultimatums now if we refused them at the most difficult moment.”

    Similarly, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer voiced concerns over Trump and Vance’s strategy of excluding Europe from the discussions:

    “Nobody wants the bloodshed to continue, least of all the Ukrainians. But after everything that they have suffered, after everything they have fought for, there can be no discussion about Ukraine without Ukraine, and the people of Ukraine must have a long-term, secure future.”

    However, the reality is that Zelensky is in no position to dictate terms. This was emphasized when Vice President Vance rebuked him during the Oval Office meeting:

    “Mr. President, with respect, I think it’s disrespectful for you to come into the Oval Office to try to litigate this in front of the American media.”

    Trump had long accused Zelensky of being a shrewd negotiator who, during Biden’s presidency, would visit Washington and leave with massive financial aid. Determined to change this dynamic, Trump made it clear that such a practice would not continue under his administration. Summarizing the meeting, he stated:

    “We had a very meaningful meeting in the White House today. Much was learned that could never be understood without conversation under such fire and pressure. It’s amazing what comes out through emotion, and I have determined that President Zelensky is not ready for peace if America is involved because he feels our involvement gives him a big advantage in negotiations. I don’t want advantage, I want PEACE.”

    Trump went further, saying:

    “He disrespected the United States of America in its cherished Oval Office. He can come back when he is ready for peace.”

    By securing a deal that would grant the U.S. control over some of Ukraine’s rare earth resources as repayment for previous military aid, Trump demonstrated his negotiation skills. This approach mirrors historical precedents, such as Kuwait compensating the U.S. with oil after being liberated from Iraq in 1990 and Europe repaying America for the post-World War II Marshall Plan by allowing the formation of NATO under U.S. leadership.

    The war itself stems from Ukraine’s desire to join NATO, which Russia perceived as a threat, prompting the invasion. Biden’s administration rallied U.S. allies to support Ukraine, possibly influenced by Biden’s personal connections—especially considering that Zelensky previously shielded Biden’s son, Hunter, from scrutiny over alleged financial misconduct in Ukraine. This decision may have played a role in Biden’s election victory in 2020, sparing him political damage from Trump’s opposition research.

    However, Zelensky’s alignment with one side of U.S. politics carried risks. Hunter Biden’s business dealings eventually came under investigation, leading to his conviction, though his father pardoned him before leaving office. Some speculate that Biden’s support for Ukraine was a way of repaying Zelensky, providing him with financial and military backing against Russia.

    This led Ukraine into a protracted war, with devastating consequences. Europe, drawn into the conflict through NATO, has suffered economic strain due to sanctions on Russian energy, with Germany experiencing economic downturns and the UK entering a recession. Africa has also been affected, as food shortages have worsened due to disruptions in wheat exports from Ukraine and Russia.

    Had former President Barack Obama acted in 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea, this war might have been avoided. However, Obama, who prioritized ending wars rather than starting them, resisted calls for military action, despite pressure from figures like then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Ironically, Biden, who was Obama’s vice president at the time, later led Ukraine into a war that his former boss had deliberately avoided.

    With around 400,000 Ukrainians killed or wounded and much of the country’s infrastructure in ruins, the war has proven catastrophic. As Trump attempts to broker peace, it remains uncertain whether Zelensky will adapt to the new realities of U.S. foreign policy. Unlike the previous administration, Trump and Vance do not view Ukraine as a victim but as a country that must make concessions to secure peace.

    Trump has already played a key role in de-escalating the Gaza conflict, and a similar approach could be applied to Ukraine. However, for this to happen, Zelensky must recognize that the geopolitical landscape has shifted and that the U.S. will no longer provide unconditional support. If Ukraine truly seeks peace, its leadership must engage with the new administration on its own terms.

    The cold reception President Trump gave to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was evident when he labeled him a dictator and accused him of starting the war—though he later jokingly retracted the statement, expressing disbelief that he had said it. This exchange took place in response to reporters’ questions on the matter.

    Trump’s firm stance signaled a shift from past U.S. support, and Zelensky might have adjusted his approach accordingly, handling the new White House administration with more caution. However, he chose a more assertive approach and was met with strong pushback from Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance. The two leaders discarded diplomatic formalities and sternly reprimanded Zelensky for what they perceived as arrogance regarding global security and an attempt to exploit perceived U.S. vulnerabilities—something they were unwilling to tolerate.

    Through their bold policies, which are reshaping international relations, Trump and Vance are clearly dismantling the old world order and crafting a new one. This is evident in Trump’s imposition of steep tariffs on U.S. trading partners, a move that is redefining alliances worldwide. Simultaneously, he is pushing for a swift resolution to conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine—wars he insists would never have started under his leadership. Despite domestic political challenges, Trump has vowed to bring these conflicts to an end.

    For the sake of a more comprehensive global peace effort, it would be worthwhile for Trump to extend his focus to ending conflicts in Africa, particularly in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Sudan. These regions hold vast reserves of critical resources—Congo with its cobalt and Sudan with its oil—both vital for sustaining global energy production and technological advancement.

    Even before formally taking office, Trump’s aggressive rhetoric influenced global events. His warning that chaos would erupt if Hamas refused to negotiate a ceasefire prompted a temporary truce between Hamas and the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). A pattern of strategic pressure appears to be emerging. After Trump excluded Europe from negotiations on ending the Russia-Ukraine war, French President Emmanuel Macron, a longtime acquaintance of Trump, was among the first European leaders to visit him in Washington, seeking clarity on France’s position in the shifting geopolitical landscape. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer soon followed, with Zelensky arriving thereafter.

    Notably, Scholz maintained Germany’s trademark direct and pragmatic approach during his White House visit. Macron, having built a rapport with Trump during his previous presidency, engaged in lighthearted banter, reflecting the French leader’s personable style. Starmer, adhering to Britain’s tradition of diplomatic finesse, presented Trump with a letter from King Charles III, inviting him for a state visit—an overture that reportedly charmed the U.S. president. This diplomatic strategy was reminiscent of how North Korean leader Kim Jong Un had won Trump over with personal letters, following initial hostilities.

    Unlike these European leaders, who carefully navigated discussions with Trump, Zelensky adopted a confrontational tone, attempting to lecture Trump on why defending Ukraine was also in America’s best interest. He argued that, despite the Atlantic Ocean separating the U.S. from Europe, Russia still posed a threat. However, Trump and Vance found this stance presumptuous and swiftly dismissed his arguments, reminding him that he was in no position to dictate U.S. security policy.

    Zelensky’s misstep revealed his lack of diplomatic finesse, likely stemming from his inexperience—having transitioned directly from a comedian satirizing politicians to a wartime president. His extensive international support, largely driven by Western sympathy for Ukraine as the underdog in its struggle against Russia, may have inflated his sense of importance, leading him to expect universal backing. But Trump was not swayed by this sentiment.

    The flurry of European leaders visiting Washington underscores Trump’s influence as a dominant global figure. While critics often overlook it, Trump’s approach is rooted in pragmatism and his commitment to his “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) agenda. His numerous executive orders are designed to strengthen the U.S. economy and give it an edge over competitors.

    A key aspect of Trump’s legacy-building efforts is tackling the U.S. budget deficit, which currently stands at approximately $36 trillion. He is also seeking to reverse trade imbalances with major partners like China, Mexico, and Canada. One of his unconventional strategies to generate revenue is the significant increase in the EB-5 visa investment threshold—from $1 million to $5 million—offering a direct pathway to U.S. residency for high-net-worth individuals willing to invest in the country.

    Similarly, his tariff hikes are aimed at shifting trade dynamics in America’s favor. These strategies are already causing ripples globally, sending shockwaves across markets and international relations. While some argue that Trump’s ambitious goal of attracting 10 million investors through the $5 million EB-5 visa is unrealistic—citing the UK’s modest intake of 1,000 applicants for its similar program—others believe the U.S. will draw significant interest, particularly from wealthy individuals in China, Korea, the Middle East, Russia, and even Britain.

    For many affluent foreigners, the opportunity to secure U.S. residency through the “Golden Green Card” is worth the steep price tag. With Trump’s administration pursuing aggressive economic and geopolitical strategies, the global landscape is rapidly evolving—whether the world is ready for it or not.

    A provision in the U.S. Constitution, which the new administration attempted to nullify through an executive order, was subsequently suspended by a court ruling.

    Many may be surprised to learn that people worldwide already pay amounts equivalent to or even exceeding $5 million to participate in the U.S. citizenship-by-investment program. This is similar to how, in Nigeria, bureaucratic hurdles and corruption sometimes force citizens to pay up to four times the official cost to obtain an international passport. Likewise, visa application fees for certain countries are often inflated by syndicates, as seen in recent allegations against South African High Commission officials accused of visa racketeering.

    The current $5 million fee is significantly higher than the original cost when the EB-5 visa program was introduced in 1990. To put this into perspective, the U.S. Congress initially established the EB-5 Program to stimulate the economy through job creation and foreign investment. In 1992, lawmakers expanded the initiative by creating the Immigrant Investor Program, or Regional Center Program, allowing investors to fund projects tied to designated regional centers that promote economic growth. While the program initially required a $1 million investment, this amount increased to $1.8 million in 1992 and has now been raised to $5 million under President Trump in 2025.

    Critics who accuse Trump of being overly transactional for increasing the cost of the EB-5 visa may be unaware—or deliberately ignoring—the fact that he is not the first president to revise its pricing.

    Following his tense meeting at the White House, Zelensky has shifted his tone, seemingly acknowledging the need for a more conciliatory approach. On Saturday, he issued a statement of appreciation, saying, “America’s help has been vital in helping us survive, and I want to acknowledge that.” He also emphasized the need for open dialogue, stating, “Despite the tough discussions, we remain strategic partners. But we need to be honest and direct with each other to truly understand our shared goals.”

    At its core, Zelensky’s visit aimed to secure U.S. security guarantees against future Russian aggression. His skepticism toward any agreement with Moscow is understandable, given that Russia previously invaded Ukraine in 2014, annexing Crimea during President Obama’s tenure. Zelensky does not trust Putin, especially since Russia violated the 2015 peace agreement with Ukraine.

    However, his confrontational approach—marked by emotional appeals rather than pragmatic diplomacy—worked against him. As a result, he left the White House empty-handed, failing to secure his key objectives, including a potential deal to trade rare earth minerals in exchange for U.S. military protection.

    Zelensky has since sought solace among European leaders, but this offers little real security. Even those comforting him recognize their own vulnerabilities, as they, too, rely on U.S. military support. Despite Europe’s show of solidarity with Ukraine during a recent meeting in London on March 2—where they agreed to form a coalition—it remains clear that Europe cannot effectively defend itself without the United States. This reality, which became evident after World War II and led to NATO’s formation under U.S. leadership, remains unchanged.

    Recognizing this, European leaders—including those from France, the UK, Germany, and Italy—have prioritized maintaining strong ties with the U.S., frequently traveling across the Atlantic to engage with President Trump, despite the turbulent state of their current relationship.

    Trump has made it clear that he intends to end both the Israel-Hamas and Russia-Ukraine wars, possibly through unconventional means. In a phone conversation with Putin, he reportedly expressed no opposition to Europe deploying a peacekeeping force in Ukraine—a concept that closely resembles Ukraine’s original desire to join NATO, which sparked Russia’s invasion in the first place.

    Strangely, this significant development has received little attention, with European leaders instead opting to continue funding Ukraine’s war efforts. The UK, for instance, approved a $2.8 billion loan to Ukraine just last Sunday, despite the reality that Ukraine is unlikely to achieve a decisive military victory, no matter how determined it remains.

    Ultimately, the U.S. remains central to resolving these major conflicts in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. This reality must be acknowledged in any serious discussion about achieving lasting peace in regions where wars have left millions dead or struggling with extreme hunger.

  • Socioeconomic storm over Nigeria – By Magnus Onyibe

    Socioeconomic storm over Nigeria – By Magnus Onyibe

    The socioeconomic storm over Nigeria is by no means over, but by all indications, it is blowing away.

    When I noted in my column titled “Rising Cost Of Living Crisis And Nicknaming Of President Tinubu T-Pain” that our country is on the pathway to regaining its past glory, so it behoves of us to make the sacrifice of leaving our comfort zone to face the reality of our economy which has been in dire straights needing rescue ,not many Nigerians were in agreement with me.

    In fact ,some angry Nigerians  literarily jumped into my throat.

    The gripe of my traducers was that the ice was not thawing in the economy of Nigeria which had become frosty as a result of the ongoing reforms , which some describe as socioeconomic restructuring by another name.

    Although the journey with President Bola Ahmed Tinubu as the president and commander- in-chief of the armed forces of Nigeria so far can best be described as a rough and tumble ride during which the weak and vulnerable have faced severe hardships, the storm seems to be calming down and all things being equal,the long suffering Nigerians who have been negatively impacted seem to be on the cusp of being able to breathe again-to borrow a phrase attributed to senate president,Godswill Akpabio.

    It may be recalled that during a debate session in the red chambers on whether to make a decision that could further exert burden on Nigerian masses , in defense of the vulnerable in our society, Akpabio and other senators quipped “Let the poor breathe” eliciting laughter.

    Thereafter the phraseology started trending in the social media to the extent that it has became a popular part of Nigerian lexicon.

    Today, one can say without equivocation that Nigerians are beginng to regain their breath and there are a plethora of reasons for the assertion above.

    Amongst them are:

    (A)The naira-dollar rate of exchange that was at close to

    N2000/$1 is currently trading at N1,450 or thereabouts to $1.

    (B) Crude oil production which was at the rate of 900,000 to 1,000,000,per day is currently at a production rate of 1.7-1.8m barrels per day,including condensate.

    (C)Petrol  pump price which had risen to N1,300 when fuel subsidy got removed on the 29 May 2023, (the day president Tinubu was inauguarated ) is currently selling slightly above N900 per litre.

    (D)lnflation rate which had nearly hit the 35% point a couple of weeks ago is currently 24.48%. Although the reduction is induced by the rebasing exercise that has just been carried out by government, and it is still more than the 15% that my friend, Dr.Taninu Yakubu, the director of Budget Office in the presidency had projected, its reduction is having a positive impact on the cost of living.

    (E) Bank interest rate has dropped slightly to 27.5% with expectations that it will drop further with Central Bank of Nigeria, CBN’s Monetary Policy Commitee,MPC not raising,but maintaining it’s last 800 basis points.

    Based on data from Bashir Adeniyi Centre For International Trade And Investment, BACITl  investors carefully assess an economy before making investement decisions. Hence it reckons that a combination of the current economic fundamentals may result in:

    “(1) Lower investment costs, making it cheaper for businesses to access credit (2)Appreciation of the local currency (naira),as the real interest rate(interest rate minus inflation) remains positive which ultimately raises investors confidence”

    At this juncture l would like to crave the indulgence of readers to reproduce copiously the article published in my column where l made the case that there was no more space for prices to rise up to, so it was bound to remain stable , then start

    dropping as it is currently doing.

    Please find below a reproduction of the nearly three (3) months old article.

    ————————————————

    “Rising Cost of Living Crisis And Nicknaming President Tinubu T-Pain.”

    To summarize, the extensive socioeconomic reforms implemented by the current administration since May 29, 2023—about 18 months ago—are aimed at resetting our nation. This effort is crucial because we have been on the wrong path since the military coup of 1966, just three years after becoming a republic in 1963 and six years post-independence from British colonial rule, which began in 1885 following the Berlin Conference that partitioned the African continent.

    In my opinion, the presidency shouldn’t be overly concerned about President Tinubu being nicknamed “T-Pain” by Nigerians feeling frustrated by the hardships. As humans, we naturally respond to pain and pleasure, so those suffering from the impacts of the president’s stringent reform policies have every right to express their feelings in whatever manner they choose.

    If calling the president “T-Pain” provides some comfort to those affected by the reforms, even if it seems a bit harsh or playful, then that’s acceptable. Psychologists might suggest that this nickname could serve as a coping mechanism for Nigerians facing tough times. Perhaps, if President Tinubu successfully navigates the current economic turmoil, he could eventually earn the title of “Miracle Worker” from those who once referred to him as “T-Pain.”

    Given this context, criticizing leaders is part of the political landscape and can serve as comic relief in an otherwise grim situation, even if the humor has a darker edge. Wasn’t it the same Tinubu, during his 2022/2023 presidential campaign, who was mocked for allegedly speaking nonsense, like “bala bulu”? Did he attempt to halt the spread of such disinformation?

    For many Nigerians, it has been an eye-opening experience to realize that the opposition’s claims about Tinubu’s slurred speech as a sign of a serious health issue were unfounded. After winning the election in May of last year, he suddenly became articulate. It was as if a magic wand had been waved to eliminate the health issues his opponents claimed he had.

    It is now evident that the allegations of Tinubu’s incoherence during the campaign were fabricated and part of the political gamesmanship of that time. I believe that just as he overcame those pre-election attacks, he will also succeed in improving the economy and, consequently, the living standards of ordinary Nigerians in the near future, barring any unforeseen circumstances.

    Moreover, President Tinubu’s predecessor, Muhammadu Buhari (2015-2023), was also labeled ‘Baba Go Slow.’ Goodluck Jonathan (2010-2015), who Buhari succeeded, was called ‘clueless,’ and his wife, Patience, was mockingly referred to as ‘hippopotamus.’ Similarly, Gen. Ibrahim Babangida (1985-1993) was nicknamed ‘Maradona’ after the famous Argentinian footballer known for his exceptional dribbling.

    It’s worth noting that the practice of assigning negative labels to leaders by their constituents is not unique to Nigeria. Similar instances have occurred in the United Kingdom, where the late Margaret Thatcher (1979-1990) was given the title ‘Iron Lady’ due to her lengthy battle with powerful labor unions that dominated the workforce in the UK before her time at No. 10 Downing Street, the residence of the British prime minister.

    In the USA, former President Ronald Reagan (1981-89) had the moniker ‘Nuke Head’ attached to his name because of his perceived penchant for starting wars during his tenure.

    In light of the above, nicknaming political leaders by those they lead is not an anathema but a universal phenomenon, as outlined above. Therefore, the Nigerian presidency cannot stop or ban by fiat those who are expressing their angst or resentment towards President Tinubu and referring to him as T-Pain, as my good friend Mr. Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to President Tinubu on Media and Publicity, is reportedly trying to do.

    After all, President Tinubu is also popularly called ‘the Jagaban,’ and I believe he is unperturbed by the nickname—whether it portrays him in a positive or negative light.

    Back in the days when then-Information and National Orientation Minister, the late Dr. Dora Akunyili, did not find it acceptable that our youths had rebranded Nigeria in their own lingo with the moniker ‘Naija’ and she banned it and tried to stymie it, she failed to succeed. As it turned out, her disapproval of the use of the term ‘Naija’ by our youths as an alternative to the name Nigeria was an exercise in futility because the nomenclature—‘Naija’—is apparently here to stay, as evidenced by its continued use against the dictate of the then-minister’s fiat or diktat.

    One cannot help but recognize the resilience of Nigerians and their ability to navigate tough times, as evidenced by the numerous video skits and comedies dominating TikTok and other social media platforms.

    The referenced comics that are making light of the otherwise very rough times that a critical mass of Nigerians are going through are, believe it or not, helping to diffuse the palpable tension in the polity. The rib-cracking jokes and comedies are too numerous to catalog in this piece. But one can bet that hardly anyone engaging with social media has not come across content parodying the dire straits in which Nigerians find themselves as they navigate the new environment created by the reform measures of President Tinubu’s administration, which are expected to ultimately help reset Nigeria.

    Although the reforms are taking their toll on Nigerians today, Tinubu’s Renewed Hope agenda’s goal is clearly to be the harbinger of prosperity for our compatriots and posterity. As optimists, we pray that this mission is realized sooner rather than later. Already, inflation is ebbing, and our national debts are being paid off. Hopefully, bank interest rates will drop when the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) decides to ease the tight monetary control measures it introduced to rein in inflation following the convergence of the two foreign exchange windows inherited from its predecessor resulting a massive devaluation which has made the economy flush with naira.

    Sometimes, the bad things that happen in our lives put us directly on the path to the best things that will ever happen to us. Social scientists refer to this as Post-Traumatic Growth (PTG), which is a positive transformation that can occur after experiencing adversity, trauma, or challenges. This manifests in the form of increased resilience, coping skills, and purpose, such that losing a job sparks entrepreneurship and success by adopting an attitude of resilience, as enunciated by Friedrich Nietzsche: “What doesn’t kill me makes me stronger,” and “Fall seven times and stand up eight,” which is a Japanese proverb.

    The quotes above underscore and illustrate that adversity is not a dead end but a detour, because challenges can foster growth, wisdom, and strength—every experience, good or bad, shapes us. As we all get tossed up and down by the turbulent waves of hardship that have been occasioned by the incumbent administration’s socio-economic reform measures, we must develop coping mechanisms that will enable us to thrive in the face of adversity. It is worth remembering that, as human beings who must learn to respond to change, whether good or bad, our primary focus should not be on the hardship we are currently experiencing, but on how we respond to it and grow from it.

    Of course, no person is without flaws, and President Tinubu, like all humans—especially those in politics—has his imperfections. However, his commitment to steering Nigeria out of its current economic struggles is evident. His success, however, depends on the support of the citizens, who must stand by him as patriots.

    Therefore, I urge everyone to exercise greater patience, as the president is indeed responding to the concerns and struggles of the people. He has been making adjustments, such as replacing underperforming ministers, setting clear performance benchmarks, and reducing government expenses by limiting official cars and security details—steps that many of us have long advocated for, even if like the proverbial Oliver twist some Nigerians are still asking for more from President Tinubu who have allways averred that he is not soliciting the sympathy of Nigerians because he asked for the job, but appealing for the patience and support of the critical mass of down cast Nigerians to deliver on his mandate, which is a fair requirement and l urge us all to oblige him”

    My prediction of a respite for the long suffering critical mass of Nigerians in a series of articles including another one titled: “Governing Nigeria ls Tough, But Tinubu ls Achieving Remarkable Progress”in my weekly column of  at least three (3) months ago is now manifesting.

    If president Tinubu remains steadfast in his reforms , especially when the four(4) tax reform bills receiving attention at the National Assembly , NASS finally get passed into law, Nigeria will truly be on the path to a reset. My optimism is underscored by the fact that a replacement of the colonial tax laws with new and operationally effective and productive ones  as opposed to maintaining the old consumption ones will definetely unleash the hidden potentials of our great country.

    Arising from the above, l would like to wager a bet that the best is ahead of Nigeria.

    Magnus Onyibe, an entrepreneur, public policy analyst, author, democracy advocate, development strategist, alumnus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Massachusetts, USA, and a former commissioner in the Delta State government, sent this piece from Lagos, Nigeria.

    To continue with this conversation and more, please visit www.magnum.ng.

  • What if US President Trump shifts from aid to trade? – By Magnus Onyibe

    What if US President Trump shifts from aid to trade? – By Magnus Onyibe

    President Donald J. Trump’s executive order eliminating USAID has sent shockwaves across the globe, particularly in aid-dependent nations, most of which are in Africa. In line with the saying that “when America sneezes, the world catches a cold,” many countries are now facing severe consequences due to the proposed end of US aid.

    CNN’s Larry Madowo highlighted the crisis unfolding in Africa with a report on a Ugandan HIV/AIDS patient who lost access to life-saving medication following the withdrawal of USAID funding. This situation in Uganda mirrors what could happen across Africa, where the impact is expected to be devastating.

    However, Nigeria appears to be an exception to this looming crisis. The country has taken a proactive approach by allocating N700 billion in its 2025 budget to support healthcare services and mitigate the effects of the anticipated aid withdrawal. Not since the tenure of Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala as Finance Minister and Coordinating Minister of the Economy has Nigeria been this well-prepared for an impending crisis. Her policies during the 2008 global financial meltdown—triggered by the subprime mortgage crisis in the US—helped shield Nigeria from the worst effects of the recession.

    Similarly, Nigeria’s current strategy, led by Health Minister Prof. Ali Pate, Finance Minister Wale Edun, and their colleagues in the Budget and Planning Ministry, aims to cushion the blow of the USAID funding cut. As a result, Nigeria may avoid the severe consequences that other aid-dependent countries could face.

    Given this development, my advice to other vulnerable African nations is to follow Nigeria’s example by making proactive budgetary provisions to address the new reality. Some leaders may argue that they lack the resources to provide free or affordable healthcare services, such as HIV/AIDS treatment, to their indigent populations. However, the counterargument is that they must prioritize the well-being of their citizens over personal luxuries, which they often display both at home and during international events.

    Ironically, many of the leaders whose nations rely on US aid are known for extravagant lifestyles. Instead of depending on foreign assistance, they should focus on efficiently managing their scarce resources to support their people.

    This was evident during the African Union meeting in Addis Ababa, where several aircraft bearing the logos and names of impoverished nations were seen on the tarmac, having transported their leaders to the summit. Ironically, many of these countries are among the largest beneficiaries of USAID assistance, which is intended to support vulnerable populations, yet their leaders continue to enjoy lavish lifestyles.

    Rather than prioritizing luxury travel, these leaders should focus on the well-being of their citizens by allocating resources to essential healthcare services, such as HIV/AIDS treatment. CNN’s Larry Madowo has already warned that the withdrawal of USAID funding could have devastating consequences for those who depend on it.

    On the other side of the debate are those who see USAID as more than just a humanitarian organization, arguing that it has functioned as a tool of U.S. geopolitical influence under the guise of goodwill. Now that its role as an instrument of American soft power has come to light, many—both within the U.S. (especially those opposed to foreign interventions) and globally—have rallied behind President Trump and his government efficiency czar, Elon Musk.

    For these critics, the revelation that USAID not only engages in foreign interference but also serves as a platform for promoting American goods and services worldwide is a welcome development. U.S. Congressman Scott Perry, in a congressional briefing, exposed USAID’s operations, suggesting that its activities may rival or even surpass those of the CIA during the Cold War, when global influence was contested between the U.S. and the now-defunct Soviet Union. Perry’s statements align with Trump’s claim that USAID had “strayed from its original mission of responsibly advancing interests abroad.”

    Had Trump not taken the drastic step of ordering Musk to review USAID’s activities, many of its controversial operations might have remained hidden. In response, the U.S. Congress has launched an investigation into what has been described as a shocking revelation. Similarly, in Nigeria, Senator Ali Ndume of Borno State—the region hardest hit by Boko Haram insurgency—has called for further scrutiny, following claims that USAID funds may have indirectly benefited terrorist groups.

    The argument that foreign aid rarely helps its intended recipients is not new. Economist Dr. Dambisa Moyo, a Harvard alumna, made a similar case in her book Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is a Better Way for Africa. Against this backdrop, Trump’s push to transition from aid to trade could mark a significant shift, especially if it leads to Africa moving beyond its historical role as a supplier of raw materials.

    As Trump works to rebalance global trade by imposing high tariffs to reduce deficits with key partners—Mexico ($172 billion), Canada ($63.3 billion), China ($295 billion), and major European and Indian economies—he may come to realize that U.S.-Africa trade is relatively small but heavily skewed in America’s favor. Africa is one of the few regions where the U.S. enjoys a trade surplus while simultaneously extending substantial aid.

    The lack of significant African participation in global trade (less than 3%) has been cited as a key factor in the continent’s persistent poverty and disease burdens.

    As Trump’s return to the White House reshapes global dynamics, two opposing forces have emerged. On one side are Washington’s political establishment figures, who opposed his reelection on November 5 and continue to resist his policies, as evidenced by the numerous legal challenges against him. Their opposition is unlikely to wane as they seek to maintain the old global order.

    On the other side is Trump’s vast base of support—over 77 million Americans—who propelled him to victory in all seven swing states, securing his position as the 47th president. This unprecedented political shift is now influencing U.S. foreign policy and Africa’s economic future.

    In the past two decades, no U.S. president who lost a re-election bid has returned in the next election cycle to defeat the incumbent and reclaim the White House. Given this precedent, Trump’s victory should be respected, especially since his party controls the Senate, the House of Representatives, and, to some extent, the Supreme Court.

    However, as is typical in politics, the minority of voters who opposed him have been vocal in their discontent. Many of these individuals are part of the Washington establishment, which is resistant to change and closely tied to USAID. Additionally, numerous Americans benefit directly from USAID contracts, supplying goods and services that the agency is meant to provide to vulnerable populations worldwide. With Trump’s decision to scale back or eliminate USAID, their financial interests have been disrupted, fueling their opposition to his administration’s reforms.

    Critics argue that dismantling USAID diminishes America’s global influence by weakening its use of soft power, which the agency represents as a humanitarian arm of U.S. foreign policy. However, their objections may be more self-serving than altruistic. After all, if their primary concern were genuine humanitarian aid, a public audit of USAID should not provoke such intense opposition—unless those protesting have hidden agendas.

    A key question arises: Why do establishment figures in the U.S. and abroad believe that American influence can only be exerted through USAID? Why not prioritize trade over aid? Since Trump’s return to the White House on January 20, his administration has shifted U.S. foreign policy toward emphasizing high trade tariffs and reducing aid.

    Reflecting on historical patterns, my master’s thesis at Tufts University’s Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy—Darfur: Why the West Failed to Help—analyzed global conflicts over the past century. I traced how competition for natural resources, dating back to the Rockefeller and Rothschild families’ dominance in the oil industry, fueled international crises. One of the most devastating consequences was the 1915 Armenian genocide, reportedly carried out under the influence of these powerful industrialists.

    In this nearly 20-year-old thesis, which I am now developing into a book titled Darfur-Sudan: Why the Superpowers Failed to Help – Global Power Dynamics and Humanitarian Crises, I argue that conflicts over resource control often stem from unfair trade practices. The failure to establish equitable trade relations has led to deep resentment, culminating in acts of terrorism, such as the September 11, 2001 attacks, where extremists from regions long exploited by global powers targeted the U.S. in what they perceived as a response to economic and political oppression.

    Unfortunately, little has changed. The same economic disparities that have plagued Africa for decades remain unresolved. Trump’s “America First” agenda, which seeks to balance U.S. trade by imposing tariffs on countries like Mexico ($172 billion deficit), Canada ($63.3 billion deficit), and China ($295 billion deficit), is disrupting both domestic and global economic systems.

    As I have previously argued, Africa should not be treated as a charity case but as a legitimate trade partner. The continent is home to approximately 30% of the world’s mineral resources, including:
    •78% of global diamond reserves
    •89% of platinum
    •81% of chrome
    •80% of coltan
    •70% of tantalum
    •40% of gold, copper, and platinum
    •60% of cobalt
    •20% of uranium and lithium
    •10% of the world’s oil reserves

    These minerals are crucial for both traditional industries and emerging green technologies. Yet Africa continues to be viewed primarily as a source of raw materials rather than a participant in value-added production and global trade.

    A recent report by the African Policy Research Institute (APRI), Mapping Africa’s Green Mineral Partnerships, highlights existing agreements that allow industrialized nations—including the U.S., China, the UK, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Russia, India, South Korea, and Japan—to extract Africa’s resources. However, these relationships often resemble exploitative colonial-era practices rather than equitable trade partnerships.

    This situation echoes the 1884–85 Berlin Conference, where European powers divided Africa for resource extraction with little regard for the continent’s long-term development. Such an approach must end. As Nigeria’s former Head of State, General Murtala Muhammed, stated in his landmark 1976 speech at the Organization of African Unity (OAU) Summit in Addis Ababa, Africa deserves fair trade, not continued exploitation. Nearly 50 years later, his words remain relevant.

    Trump’s new world order—ending USAID’s unchecked influence and promoting self-reliance among nations—aligns with this perspective. His stance that “every nation should fend for itself” may seem harsh, but it is ultimately a fair proposition. However, African nations cannot achieve true self-sufficiency if they remain trapped in a cycle of raw material exports without the ability to develop industries that process these resources into finished goods.

    This dependency on aid rather than trade has kept Africa in a state of economic stagnation, plagued by poverty and disease. In contrast, after World War II, the U.S. helped Europe rebuild through the Marshall Plan, proving that strategic investment—not just aid—can create lasting economic stability. Africa deserves a similar approach, where trade and industrialization replace reliance on foreign assistance.

    Africa deserves support from the West, considering that both Europe and the U.S. built their wealth by exploiting the continent during the transatlantic slave trade. Natural resources—including crops, gold, and other valuable minerals—were extracted, and millions of Africans were forcibly taken to provide labor that contributed to the economic rise of the Western world.

    Despite ongoing calls for reparations, Africa has yet to receive meaningful compensation. This is in stark contrast to Germany, which provided reparations to Israel for the Holocaust, and the U.S., which implemented the Marshall Plan to help rebuild Europe after World War II, even though it was not directly responsible for the devastation. Given that America benefited significantly from African slaves who played a key role in its development, it would not be unreasonable to expect Trump to address this historical injustice. One way to do so would be through strategic investment in infrastructure projects that could help lift Africa out of its current economic challenges.

    At a recent reception held at the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs (NIIA) to honor Professor Bolaji Akinyemi’s return as chairman of the council, he playfully questioned my strong support for Trump. The distinguished diplomat—renowned for his signature bow tie, which he still wears well into his eighties—seemed curious about my stance.

    In response, I explained that, given the difficult path Trump took to reclaim the White House, he appears to be a leader determined to challenge the status quo and, in many ways, “save the world from itself.” I ended on a lighthearted note, telling him not to be surprised if a Trump Tower soon becomes part of the skylines of Lagos or Abuja.

    The remark briefly stunned Professor Akinyemi, a statesman known for his contributions to Nigeria’s global diplomatic influence. As the architect of the Concert of Medium Powers, the Technical Aids Corps (Nigeria’s version of USAID), and the mind behind the controversial Black Bomb project, he was once at the center of Nigeria’s foreign policy strategy. Yet, while the idea of Trump making a direct mark on Africa may seem far-fetched, it is not entirely impossible.

    Some may allege that Trump does not like Africans and cite a fake news that he reffered to Africa as ‘Shit hole country’ which is a phantom because it remains unproven with irrefutable evidence. The truth is that Trump  does not dislike  Africa or its people . That is evidenced by the fact that when the legendary and iconic Nelson Mandela of  South Africa visited the US when he was released from South African jail, it was Trump’s private jet that was made available to him to travel around the US. So, Trump has a heritage of doing good to Africans and the continent to which he has currently established fillial relationship.

    Magnus Onyibe, a public policy analyst, author, democracy advocate, development strategist, alumnus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Massachusetts, USA, and a former commissioner in the Delta State government, (2003-2007).

  • Trump and Tinubu: Are their disruptive leadership strategies beneficial? – By Magnus Onyibe

    Trump and Tinubu: Are their disruptive leadership strategies beneficial? – By Magnus Onyibe

    What is life if not a series of experiments that drive innovation—the key to human progress?

    For centuries, most of the world’s estimated 8.1 billion people across 195 nations (including the Holy See-Vatican and Palestine) have operated under democratic governance, a system established by Cleisthenes in Athens around 508-507 BC. Despite widespread adoption, democracy has not significantly improved wealth distribution—while the poor remain disadvantaged, the rich continue to amass more wealth.

    A 2022 Oxfam report highlighted that, following the COVID-19 pandemic, “the world’s ten richest men more than doubled their fortunes from $700 billion to $1.5 trillion.” Within the same period, the report also indicated that “During the first two years of a pandemic that has seen the incomes of 99 percent of humanity fall and over160 million more people forced into poverty ” the masses have been victims.

    Given these disparities, perhaps it’s time to explore alternative governance models that make the masses less poor—ones that might have been dismissed based on theory rather than real-world application.

    For instance, monarchies in the Arabian Gulf (GCC countries) and China’s hybrid of communism in governance and capitalism in business have both fostered economic prosperity. This raises the question: should we experiment with a new system—Boligarchy—to determine whether it can improve the lives of the poor across the U.S., Europe, Asia, Africa, and other nations following the U.S. presidential system?

    Rethinking Governance: Lessons from the U.S. Constitution

    It is worth noting that the U.S. Constitution was not crafted by the entire citizenry but by a select group of 74 individuals, known as the Founding Fathers. Ultimately, it was ratified through elected representatives, solidifying its role as the foundation of American democracy.

    During the 1776 Constitutional Convention, some Founding Fathers doubted the public’s ability to design an effective and enduring constitution. Influenced by Enlightenment thinkers—notably John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Montesquieu—figures like Alexander Hamilton and James Madison argued that governance should be led by a small, educated elite.

    Hamilton, in particular, was skeptical of mass governance, believing that “the people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right.” He advocated for a strong central government run by experienced leaders to maintain stability and shield the nation from the unpredictability of popular sentiment.

    Madison, while sharing concerns about mob rule, took a more balanced approach. He believed a well-structured constitution should protect the rights of all citizens, including the general public.

    Final Thoughts

    Given these historical insights, should the world reconsider how it governs itself? If democracy has not substantially improved wealth distribution, could alternative models like Boligarchy offer a better path forward? The question remains whether disruptive leaders like Donald Trump and Bola Tinubu represent a necessary shift—or merely chaos within existing systems.

    Madison’s Perspective and the Rise of ‘Boligarchy’

    James Madison once wrote, “The people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived.”

    Despite concerns about the capability of the common people, the Founding Fathers ultimately established a representative democracy rather than a direct one. This system ensured that citizens would elect representatives to make decisions on their behalf, rather than governing directly. Although some Founding Fathers harbored doubts about the masses’ ability to govern, the U.S. Constitution was designed to uphold democratic values and the fundamental principle that government power originates from the people’s consent.

    Trump’s Election and the ‘Boligarchy’ Debate

    Following this logic, Donald J. Trump was elected by over 77 million Americans in the November 5, 2024, presidential election, defeating his opponent, former Vice President Kamala Harris. Given this, labeling Trump’s administration as a ‘Boligarchy’ may not be entirely justified.

    After all, some Founding Fathers favored oligarchy to an extent, and many were themselves wealthy elites, similar to Trump and his circle of billionaire allies. This raises the question: Is the U.S. returning to its historical roots? If the nation’s early leaders were billionaires, why should there be resistance to having wealthy figures in power today?

    For nearly 249 years, America has practiced democracy in its purest form, yet poverty remains unresolved. If leaders from non-elite backgrounds have failed to close this gap, does it not make sense to explore alternative approaches?

    Parallel Disruptions: The U.S. and Nigeria

    While the U.S. remains the world’s wealthiest and most powerful nation, Nigeria stands as Africa’s most populous country. Nigeria’s 1979 switch from the British parliamentary system to the U.S. presidential system further reinforces the historical influence of American governance.

    At this moment, both countries are led by disruptors—President Donald Trump in the U.S. and President Bola Tinubu in Nigeria. Although both leaders face significant opposition, they can be described as positive disruptors rather than destructive narcissists like Adolf Hitler. Their leadership styles challenge traditional norms in an effort to provide citizens with a new approach to governance.

    From Admiration to Controversy

    Interestingly, both Trump and Tinubu have experienced a shift from national admiration to intense criticism.

    • Trump, once widely beloved as the host of The Apprentice, became a divisive figure when he entered politics. The political establishment sought to prevent his rise but failed. Even after winning elections, he remains under constant attack from opposition supporters.

    • Tinubu, similarly, was once revered for his role as the face of NADECO, a pro-democracy movement against Nigeria’s military dictatorship. However, his political career has since drawn strong resistance from critics.

    Despite the backlash, both leaders remain committed to disrupting conventional governance and implementing alternative leadership models that challenge entrenched systems.

    The Shift from Admiration to Criticism

    During his tenure as Governor of Lagos State (1999-2007), Bola Tinubu was widely respected. However, once he declared his presidential ambitions, a segment of the electorate turned against him, leading to a wave of criticism and resentment.

    Today, both Donald Trump and Bola Tinubu have become two of the most vilified leaders in the United States and Nigeria. The intense backlash they receive stems from their bold, unconventional, and often radical governance strategies. Their efforts to reshape existing systems into new political and economic models have earned them nicknames and criticism from opponents who view their leadership as disruptive.

    Nicknames Reflecting Their Governance Styles

    • Trump has been labeled a threat to democracy and the head of a ‘Boligarchy’—a government run by billionaires for billionaires. This perception was reinforced when Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, was appointed to lead the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a role that involves cutting federal jobs through buyouts.

    • Tinubu, on the other hand, has been dubbed ‘T-Pain’ (Tinubu Pain) due to the economic hardships resulting from his policy reversals. These policies, aimed at dismantling past economic structures, have caused short-term suffering for Nigerians, further fueling public frustration.

    Even before his January 20 inauguration, Joe Biden had already labeled Trump’s administration a Boligarchy, arguing that Trump’s billionaire-filled cabinet would govern in an oligarchic manner—contrary to democracy’s core principles of governance by and for the people. With Elon Musk and other tech billionaires holding significant influence in Trump’s administration, the Boligarchy theory seems to have materialized.

    Historical Parallels: Disrupting Established Systems

    Throughout history, seemingly stable systems and institutions have been challenged and restructured when they outlive their effectiveness.

    • The United Nations (UN) was formed in 1945, following the end of  World War II, to foster global cooperation. However, the rise of BRICS—a coalition led by Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—suggests that nations from the Global South are seeking alternative global leadership structures to counterbalance the UN’s Western-dominated influence.

    • Before BRICS, there was the Concept of Medium Powers, a movement championed by Prof. Bolaji Akinyemi in the 1980s. As a former Director-General of the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs (NIIA) and later a Foreign Minister, Akinyemi proposed a coalition of mid-sized nations to challenge global superpowers. Though this initiative did not replace the UN, it demonstrated an ongoing push for reform in international governance.

    Resistance to Change and the Future of Governance

    While BRICS and the Concept of Medium Powers have yet to disrupt the UN’s global influence, their emergence signals growing dissatisfaction with the status quo. Change in the global order is long overdue, yet it continues to be resisted by those benefiting from the existing system.

    Similarly, the backlash against Trump and Tinubu reflects a broader resistance to shifts in political and economic power structures. Critics fear that modifying democracy could weaken its foundations, much like the concerns raised in Why Nations Fail, co-authored by Daron Acemoglu (2024 Nobel Laureate in Economics) and James Robinson. However, history suggests that evolution in governance is inevitable, even if it is met with initial resistance.

    Trump, Musk, and the Transformation of Governance

    Following Donald Trump’s victory in the November 2024 election, Prof. Daron Acemoglu, an MIT economist, reflected on the state of American democracy in an article titled “The Fall and Rise of American Democracy.” In December 2024, he argued that democracy in the U.S. has increasingly failed to deliver on its core promises, in part because the Democratic Party had shifted its focus toward elite interests rather than working-class concerns. To regain its footing, he suggested, the party must reconnect with its working-class roots.

    Elon Musk and the Technological Reinvention of Democracy

    Trump’s policy direction appears to harken back to the founding principles of American democracy in 1776. However, unlike in the past, technology now plays a key role in reshaping governance.

    One of the most striking developments is the involvement of Elon Musk, widely regarded as the leading tech innovator of our time, in U.S. politics. Musk, who revolutionized the automobile industry with electric vehicles (EVs) and disrupted space exploration through SpaceX, has now turned his attention to reforming democracy—an institution that, remarkably, has remained largely unchanged since its origins in ancient Athens (508-507 BC).

    Musk’s entry into the public sector echoes the strategies used by leaders like Lee Kuan Yew, who transformed Singapore from a developing nation into a global economic powerhouse by integrating top private-sector talent into governance. Trump’s business background likely played a role in attracting Musk, in contrast to Bill Gates, another former world’s richest man, who has focused on philanthropy rather than direct political involvement.

    Musk’s Expanding Political Influence

    Musk’s political involvement has extended beyond the U.S., sparking controversy across Europe and South Africa:

    • In the UK, Prime Minister Keir Starmer has criticized Musk for interfering in British politics.

    • In France and Germany, right-wing politicians have embraced him, seeing his influence as an asset.

    • In South Africa, Musk’s influence has reportedly triggered tensions between Trump and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa. Even Julius Malema, a fiery South African politician, has entered the debate by reviving controversial historical grievances related to apartheid-era policies that Musk allegedly finds troubling.

    It is unsurprising that Musk’s integration into Trump’s “America First” agenda has caused significant pushback from Democrats, who have organized rallies against his political involvement, arguing that he was never elected. The backlash has also extended to European leaders, who see his influence as a threat to traditional political structures.

    The Rise of Nationalism and the Decline of Globalization

    Trump’s strict immigration policies—including tightening border security, ending birthright citizenship (Birthism), and cutting foreign aid (USAID)—reflect a global shift toward nationalism, mirroring trends in the UK, France, Germany, and other parts of Europe. This shift marks a departure from the era of globalization, which began in the 1820s, accelerated in 1914, and was formally named in 1983 by economist Theodore Levitt.

    The current political climate bears similarities to historical periods of nationalistic realignment, such as the events described in 1 Kings 12:16 in the King James Bible, where people rejected central authority and sought self-determination.

    Trump and Tinubu: Parallel Reforms in the U.S. and Nigeria

    Trump’s efforts to restructure the U.S. government bear a striking resemblance to Bola Tinubu’s economic and political reforms in Nigeria.

    • Tinubu has pursued bold economic measures, including:

    • Ending fuel subsidies (a long-standing drain on government resources).

    • Floating the naira (allowing market forces to determine its value).

    • Raising electricity tariffs to reflect actual costs.

    • Proposing tax reforms through four bills currently stalled in the legislature.

    While Trump has relied heavily on executive orders to push through his agenda, Tinubu has largely worked through the legal and legislative process, making his reforms slower and more contentious. The only major policy Tinubu has enacted by executive fiat so far is the removal of fuel subsidies—a move that has faced strong opposition but aligns with his broader “Renewed Hope” agenda.

    Conclusion

    Both Trump and Tinubu represent a new wave of political disruptors who are challenging established systems in their respective countries. Their governance styles have polarized public opinion, yet they remain committed to overhauling outdated structures. Whether their bold reforms will ultimately succeed or face insurmountable resistance remains to be seen. However, one thing is clear: the world is witnessing a significant shift in governance, where technology, nationalism, and economic pragmatism are increasingly shaping political decisions.

    Executive Orders, Bureaucratic Resistance, and Historical Parallels

    Donald Trump’s extensive use of executive orders has enabled him to bypass the traditional legislative process, which is typically responsible for making laws. However, in a democracy governed by checks and balances, the judiciary remains the only institution capable of restraining the executive branch by issuing court orders to suspend the implementation of presidential directives.

    This dynamic is evident in the recent judicial blocks on three of Trump’s executive orders:

    1. Ending birthright citizenship (Birthism).

    2. Halting U.S. foreign aid (USAID).

    3. Offering early retirement buyouts to federal civil servants as part of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) initiative aimed at reducing government size.

    Elon Musk’s Role in Bureaucratic Overhaul

    Despite these legal setbacks, Elon Musk, the tech billionaire behind Tesla, SpaceX, The Boring Company, and Neuralink, remains committed to transforming Washington’s bureaucracy. Now deeply involved in government through his role in DOGE, Musk aims to eliminate inefficiencies—a mission consistent with his Silicon Valley mindset of disrupting outdated systems.

    Both established politicians and new reformers acknowledge that bureaucratic inefficiencies contribute to America’s massive $36.22 trillion national debt. However, like the proverbial saying “everyone wants an omelet, but no one wants to break an egg,” career politicians are resisting Trump’s efforts to restructure government, despite agreeing on the need for change.

    Modern day Political Thinker Francis Fukuyama, known for his works on democracy and governance (e.g., State-Building: Governance and World Order in the 21st Century), likely did not anticipate a transformation of this magnitude under Trump’s leadership.

    Parallels Between the U.S. and Nigeria: Trump’s DOGE vs. Tinubu’s Oronsaye Report

    Trump’s DOGE initiative to streamline government mirrors Nigeria’s Oronsaye Report, a comprehensive review of governance costs led by Steve Oronsaye, a former Head of Service of the Nigerian government. The report, commissioned during Goodluck Jonathan’s administration (2011-2012), aimed to reduce Nigeria’s bloated recurrent expenditure, which has consistently overshadowed capital investment, leading to a national debt of about N140 trillion.

    The 2025 Nigerian budget, currently under legislative review, proposes N54 trillion in expenditures, with over N16 trillion earmarked for debt servicing. While President Bola Tinubu has officially approved the Oronsaye Report, its implementation has been delayed, likely due to:

    1. Strategic timing—Avoiding multiple simultaneous economic shocks after policies like:

    • Fuel subsidy removal

    • Naira flotation (leading to massive currency devaluation)

    • Electricity tariff hikes

    2. Public resistance—Widespread economic hardship makes mass civil service layoffs politically risky.

    Global Bureaucratic Reforms: A Recurring Challenge

    Interestingly, the struggle to reform government inefficiencies is not unique to Nigeria or the U.S. Similar efforts have been attempted—and often resisted—throughout history:

    • Reagan’s Grace Commission (1982):

    • Commissioned to eliminate waste in government.

    • Reagan famously instructed the team to “drain the swamp” and “leave no stone unturned.”

    • Led by businessman J. Peter Grace, it sought to cut inefficiencies in federal spending.lncidentally like Mr.Grace was a businessman like Musk, not a bureaucrat.

    • Clinton’s Government Reinvention (1993):

    • Aimed to make government cheaper and more efficient.

    • 277,000 federal workers were laid off.

    • A $25,000 buyout was offered—similar to Trump’s current proposal.

    • Ultimately, bureaucratic pushback prevented long-term success.

    Conclusion

    Whether in the U.S. under Trump or Nigeria under Tinubu, efforts to streamline government and reduce inefficiency continue to face institutional resistance. However, Trump’s aggressive approach, backed by Musk, stands in contrast to Tinubu’s more measured strategy, likely influenced by Nigeria’s economic realities.

    Ultimately, while bureaucratic reform is a global challenge, history suggests that without sustained political will, such initiatives often get shelved—just like Nigeria’s Oronsaye Report and Reagan’s Grace Commission.

    Trump and Tinubu: Disruptive Leadership and Resistance to Change

    Perhaps in the future, once Nigeria’s economy stabilizes, President Bola Tinubu may fully implement the Steve Oronsaye Report to streamline ministries, departments, and agencies (MDAs), reducing the cost of governance, much like Donald Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) initiative in the U.S.

    One key similarity between Trump and Tinubu is their speed, depth, and urgency in introducing and implementing policies. Just as Tinubu’s sudden removal of the fuel subsidy during his inaugural speech shocked Nigerians, Trump’s declaration in his own inauguration speech—affirming that the U.S. Constitution recognizes only male and female genders—came as a blow to the LGBTQ+ community. Trump has since followed up with an executive order banning biological males from competing in female sports, a move that has intensified debates on gender identity in America.

    Understanding Trump’s Leadership Approach Beyond Political Narratives

    Despite the widespread perception of Trump as a controversial and polarizing figure, many fail to objectively analyze his leadership style. Instead, much of the discourse around Trump and Tinubu are shaped by the narratives of their political opponents, which have successfully influenced mainstream opinion. However, a closer examination reveals that Trump’s and Tinubu’s policies often follow the principles of common sense—especially when addressing issues like budget deficits and government inefficiencies.

    Governments facing ballooning fiscal deficits naturally look for ways to cut excess spending, and downsizing the public sector, as envisioned by DOGE and Oronsaye Report, are common private-sector strategy that have rarely been tested in government. Trump, now in his second and final term, has only four years to implement his paradigm shift, making it reasonable to allow him to experiment with his policies and assess their impact.

    Tinubu too is in the mid-term of his first term and has all the time to change tack in the unlikely event that his current approach,if diligently pursued fails.

    The Resistance to Change in Democratic Systems

    It is worth questioning why Western democracies, particularly in Washington and Europe, insist on practicing democracy in its traditional Greek form, with minimal modifications beyond the refinements introduced by Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Montesquieu. Historically, establishment elites have resisted change—just as they are now pushing back against the pair of Trump’s and Tinubu’s governance approach.

    The struggle to redefine democracy is not unique to developing nations like those in Africa, which only began embracing democracy in the 1950s. Even in established Western democracies, there is increasing tension between traditional governance models and modern political realities. Factors contributing to the perceived weakening of democracy include:

    1. The rise of populism, which challenges elite control.

    2. The rapid spread of information through social media, accelerating political awareness and mobilization.

    Some scholars argue that democracy is experiencing “disconsolidation” and “erosion,” leading to confusion and resistance among traditionalists, who struggle to adapt to the evolving political landscape.

    Policy Wins and Setbacks: Trump vs. Tinubu

    In Nigeria, some of Tinubu’s reforms have been well received, particularly:

    • The National Education Loan Fund (NELFUND): Offers interest-free loans for university students, expanding access to higher education.

    • Local Government Financial Autonomy: A Supreme Court ruling now mandates that federal allocations go directly to local governments, bypassing state governments. This ensures funds reach the grassroots level rather than being controlled by state executives.

    Similarly, Trump’s notable policy wins include:

    • Clarifying that the U.S. Constitution recognizes only two genders (male and female).

    • Delaying the TikTok ban, which had been imposed by the Supreme Court under Biden’s administration in its final days.

    However, both leaders have faced significant policy roadblocks:

    • Three of Trump’s executive orders—abolishing birthright citizenship, offering early retirement buyouts, and cutting U.S. foreign aid (USAID)—have been struck down by the courts.

    • Tinubu’s proposed tax reforms, aimed at creating a comprehensive framework for economic restructuring, have stalled in parliament, where lawmakers struggle to find a middle ground amid divisive debates.

    The Challenge of Disruptive Leadership

    The struggles of Trump and Tinubu highlight a fundamental truth: disrupting entrenched systems is always met with fierce resistance. Leaders who attempt to overhaul traditional governance structures are often criticized, demonized, and dismissed as reckless or radical. This pattern is consistent throughout history—visionary disruptors are rarely appreciated in their time.

    However, if Trump’s and Tinubu’s governance experiments ultimately prove beneficial to a majority of citizens, they will likely be celebrated in retrospect. For now, both leaders remain at the center of intense political storms.

    My instinct suggests that history may eventually vindicate both Trump and Tinubu.

    Magnus Onyibe, a public policy analyst, author, democracy advocate, development strategist, alumnus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Massachusetts, USA, and a former commissioner in the Delta State government, (2003-2007)  sent this piece from Lagos, Nigeria.

    To continue with this conversation and more, please visit www.magnum.ng.

  • President Trump’s transformation of the democratic system – By Magnus Onyibe

    President Trump’s transformation of the democratic system – By Magnus Onyibe

    President Donald J. Trump is actively reshaping the global political landscape, navigating the tension between globalization and fragmentation to establish a new order in the United States and, by extension, the world.

    Before delving further into this discussion, I must disclose that I am an unapologetic supporter of the 47th President of the United States, Donald J. Trump. My support stems from my belief that he is undeniably a catalyst for change.

    Many, including Democratic presidential candidates in the 2024 elections,ex president Joe Biden and former Vice President Kamala Harris, have accused Trump of seeking to dismantle democracy. However, a more accurate assessment is that he is challenging the status quo in Washington through radical policy shifts. While Democrats frame his actions as a threat to democracy, I see this as a misleading narrative,because changing the dynamics of democracy does not equate killing it.

    Despite the alarm raised by his opponents, American voters prioritized economic concerns—rising inflation, the high cost of living, soaring housing prices, and the influx of undocumented immigrants—over the warnings about imminent death of democracy. It was these pressing issues that motivated voters to support Trump’s return to the White House.

    The more than 77 million Americans who voted for him did so because they believe he was on a mission to address what they see as a “woke” and financially struggling America. According to the Oxford Dictionary, “woke” refers to those who are socially aware but is often used pejoratively to describe individuals perceived as self-righteous or overly dogmatic in their advocacy.

    True to his promises, Trump wasted no time in implementing his agenda. During his inauguration, he took a strong stance against “woke” ideology by affirming that the U.S. Constitution recognizes only two genders—male and female—a direct challenge to the LGBTQ+ community. He has since followed through on his pledges by signing a series of executive orders aimed at radically reshaping America.

    So, from my perspective, Trump is simply fulfilling the commitments he made during his campaign. The backlash from those negatively affected by his policies is therefore unsurprising, yet it should not overshadow the fact that he is delivering the change that millions of Americans willingly voted for, believing it will restore the country’s greatness.

    As someone who embraces change, I am excited to see a leader who challenges the status quo in public leadership finally take charge. That leader is Donald J. Trump, who has now assumed office in the White House, the seat of U.S. political power.

    Given President Tinubu’s huge appettite for change which has wrought on Nigeria in the past 2O months,he may be said to be cut from the same cloth with Trump, literally speaking.

    Mr. Trump as the leader of the free world- U.S, exerts enormous influence on global affairs, reinforcing the popular saying: when America sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold. This is evident in Trump’s decision to impose tariffs on key trading partners—25% on Mexico, 25% on general goods plus  10% on Canadian oil, and 10% on China—primarily to curb illegal immigration and combat the flow of fentanyl, a deadly drug ravaging American communities.

    Before Trump even took office, his threats of tariff hikes caused global concern. However, World Trade Organization (WTO) Director-General Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, speaking at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, urged caution: “I am concerned, but my approach is to stay calm. Let’s wait to see what policies are actually enacted before overreacting.”

    Despite this advice, some countries affected by the new tariffs —especially Mexico and Canada—have already announced retaliatory tariffs, raising fears of an all-out trade war. Meanwhile, China has opted for a legal approach, filing complaints against the U.S. through the WTO.

    As the head of the WTO, Dr. Okonjo-Iweala will play a crucial role in resolving this looming global trade conflict. Given her extensive experience—including her tenure at the World Bank and her ongoing second term as WTO chief—there is hope that she can help de-escalate tensions.

    Anticipating the economic impact of the trade war, President Trump has urged Americans to brace for temporary hardships, acknowledging that tariffs might contribute to inflation. However, he remains confident that the outcome will ultimately benefit the country, declaring: “This will be the golden age of America. Will there be some pain? Yes. But we will make America great again, and it will be worth the price.”

    This sentiment is reminiscent of Nigerian President Bola Tinubu’s remarks when he removed the long-standing fuel subsidy and floated the naira, leading to economic hardship for Nigerians. He reassured the nation, saying: “I understand that our people are suffering, but there can be no childbirth without pain. The joy of childbirth is the baby. Relief comes after the pain. Nigeria is being reborn.”

    Remarkably,Trump’s policies signal a fundamental shift away from globalization—a concept introduced between 1870 and 1914 and later popularized in 1983 by economist Theodore Levitt in his essay titled “The Globalization of Markets.” The current global order, shaped by decades of economic integration, now faces disruption under Trump’s America First doctrine, which prioritizes national interests over international cooperation.

    Interestingly, Trump’s long-held stance on tariffs is not new. In a resurfaced 1978 interview with Oprah Winfrey, he expressed similar views, making it clear that his current trade policies have been decades in the making.

    While trade wars typically harm weaker economies (when elephants fight, the grass suffers), Africa might stand to benefit from this geopolitical shift. As tensions escalate among major trading partners—U.S., Canada, Mexico, and China—Africa, historically seen as merely a source of raw materials, could emerge as an alternative manufacturing hub.

    For instance, Nigeria’s oil exports to the U.S. declined significantly under President Barack Obama, with Canada and Mexico becoming America’s top crude suppliers. However, if the trade war leads to disruptions in North American oil exports, Trump may turn back to Nigeria, currently the 8th largest supplier, to fill the gap.

    So, rather than viewing Trump’s policies as purely negative, it may be worth considering the potential opportunities they create for Africa. As a matter of fact , instead  of getting caught up in narratives of doom and gloom, could this be a moment for the continent to reposition itself as a key player in the evolving global trade landscape?

    I would argue that it is time for the world to recognize that Africa is not a problem to be solved but a vital part of the global solution. Thats owed to the fact that the  continent holds vast reserves of critical minerals essential for the energy transition that the world desperately seeks. Rather than being viewed merely as a supplier of raw materials, Africa should be seen as a prime destination for investment and industrial partnerships.

    There is a well-known economic principle that a rising tide lifts all boats and yachts. In that spirit, industrialized nations like the U.S. and China must acknowledge that Africa—home to 54 countries and a population of approximately 1.5 billion, larger than China’s 1.3 billion and rivaling India’s 1.4 billion—is not a charity case but an investment opportunity.

    As a long-time advocate for Africa’s economic resurgence, I have consistently argued that the continent needs trade, not aid. So, it is imperative that major global economies shift their perception of Africa from a passive recipient of aid to an active economic partner. Historically, Africa has been exploited—most notably through the partitioning of the continent at the 1884–1885 Berlin Conference, where European powers divided African territories for their own benefit. As a result, Africa has remained marginalized in global trade, accounting for less than 3% of total global trade, despite having 18% of the world’s population.

    To secure a greater share of global trade, Africa must be integrated into the evolving international economic order. Without disruptions to the existing system—such as those triggered by President Trump’s policies—meaningful change is unlikely. Given the resistance Africa has faced in its bid to gain a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, a fundamental shift in global power structures, like the one Trump is advocating, may be necessary for Africa to be taken seriously as a key player in international trade.

    At this moment in history, the world may actually benefit from the tensions between defenders of the entrenched old order and leaders like Trump, who are determined to shake up the system. Since assuming office on January 20, 2025, Trump has been implementing the bold changes he promised during his campaign. In my assessment, the mandate given to him by American voters provides a unique opportunity to push for a rebalancing of global trade and governance.

    Throughout history, transformative change has always required bold action. If astronauts had not pushed boundaries, Neil Armstrong would never have walked on the moon in 1969, a breakthrough that reshaped human understanding of the universe. Similarly, astronomer Galileo’s discoveries challenged the belief that the Earth was flat, while it is actually cylindrical paving the way for modern scientific thought. It is this same drive for progress that appears to be fueling Trump’s disruptive approach to governance.

    Keyu Jin, a professor of economics and author of The New China Playbook, recently highlighted a growing shift in global trade patterns, noting that China and other nations have been diversifying their markets away from the U.S. even before the current tariff wars. Therefore,Trump’s policies are merely accelerating this trend. In Europe, for instance, we are seeing a rise in nationalist-leaning leaders, particularly in France and Germany, who are also prioritizing domestic interests over globalism.

    This geopolitical realignment is further evident in the expansion of BRICS—a coalition of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—which has recently welcomed new members like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Egypt. As more countries join BRICS in an effort to counterbalance U.S. influence, and attempts to reduce dependence on the U.S. dollar in global trade may intensify. The general belief is that if America continues using tariffs as a tool to pressure its trading partners, it risks pushing them further toward alternative alliances, potentially diminishing its own economic influence. But would that really be the case?

    For Africa, this shifting landscape presents an opportunity. If trade flows are redirected away from the U.S., Africa could gain a larger share of global commerce—but only if the continent positions itself strategically. With the establishment of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), headquartered in Ghana, Africa is already laying the groundwork to take advantage of this new world order.

    While Trump’s critics have valid concerns about the potential risks of his sweeping policy changes—particularly the hardship caused by the deportation of undocumented immigrants and disruptions in U.S. aid to Africa( which was later restored) it is also worth considering the potential long-term benefits of a restructured global economy.

    The changes unfolding in global trade could open up unprecedented opportunities for Africa. If the continent plays its cards right, it could emerge as a major beneficiary of the ongoing shake-up. So, instead of viewing Trump’s policies solely through the lens of crisis, perhaps it is time to explore how Africa can leverage this moment to secure a more equitable role in the global economy.

    A US based Nigerian Professor Ndubuisi Ekekwe describes Trump’s leadership as a “tsunami-earthquake-storm” approach, highlighting the unprecedented nature of shutting down USAID. According to him, this move signals a clear message to the world—that America has no obligation to fund or influence other nations through soft power. However, he suggests that this could actually be a positive development if African leaders step up and take responsibility.

    He further explains how foreign aid often distorts markets and hinders sustainable development. For instance, an entrepreneur might develop a viable product in healthcare, education, or agriculture, only for an aid agency to introduce a similar product for free. This forces local businesses to shut down, and once the aid funds disappear after a few years, communities are left worse off, having lost both the external support and the local solutions that were once in place.

    Rather than panicking over these funding cuts, Professor Ekekwe urges African governments to seize the opportunity by creating systems to identify and assist citizens in need. He argues that without external interference, local businesses can step in to fill market gaps, and governments can provide targeted support to those who truly require it. He points out that Africa has a long history of self-reliance and should return to indigenous solutions rather than depending on unpredictable foreign aid.

    This perspective aligns with the arguments earlier made by economist Dr. Dambisa Moyo in her ground breaking book “Dead Aid”, where she contends that Western aid has done more harm than good in Africa.

    Considering Trump’s repeated assertion that his second term marks a “golden age” for America, it is possibly a golden age for Africa too as the continent could benefit—if it strategically positions itself to take advantage of the shifting global order being shaped by Trump’s policies.

     

    Magnus Onyibe, a public policy analyst, author, democracy advocate, development strategist, alumnus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Massachusetts, USA, and a former commissioner in the Delta State government, (2003-2007)  sent this piece from Lagos, Nigeria.

    To continue with this conversation and more, please visit www.magnum.ng.

  • Hold your breath, the Trump revolution has commenced – By Magnus Onyibe

    Hold your breath, the Trump revolution has commenced – By Magnus Onyibe

    Politics will not be the same again in the United States of America, particularly in Washington, DC, where old-school politicians are keenly watching with trepidation as President Donald J. Trump, on January 20, transitioned from the 45th to the 47th president.

    The palpable fear is driven by the impending rollout of his revolutionary policies, intentionally designed to change the old world order to a new one, in line with his Make America Great Again (MAGA) mantra.

    As President Trump was inaugurated into office under very chilly weather, a majority of the inhabitants of the U.S. capital, Washington, DC—who form the bulwark of the bureaucracy, infamously referred to as the political ‘swamp’—were particularly hit by the cold, beyond their skin, perhaps to their bones. That is because they represent the swamp in Washington that President Trump has vowed to drain.

    As the conventional wisdom goes: the greatest threat to man is change. And President Trump has been quite upfront and unabashed about his change agenda.

    So, the draining of the swamp, which is a euphemism for removing the bureaucratic bottlenecks that have been clogging the wheel of government in the earth’s most powerful and richest nation, has been assigned to the world’s richest man, Mr. Elon Musk, and former G.O.P. presidential contender in 2024, Mr. Vivek Ramaswamy.

    Apart from Ramaswamy being a politician and billionaire, like Musk, he is also a tech entrepreneur, and both have been tapped by President Trump to lead the new department that will drive efficiency in government, known as the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

    It is not surprising, therefore, that President Joe Biden, who just yielded the mantle of leadership of the U.S.—the nation that prides itself as the greatest on earth—to President Donald J. Trump, derogatorily referred to America’s legendary presidential system of government under Trump as likely being a Boligarchy, a parody of Oligarchy, which is broadly defined as a small group of people (in this case, mainly billionaires) having control of a country or an organization.

    This contrasts with or is antithetical to a democratic governance system, which is “Government of the people, for the people, and by the people,” a principle that has been in practice in the U.S. since its founding in 1776.

    Was the immediate past president Biden altruistic in indirectly painting the just-evolving Trump administration with a black brush when he gave his farewell speech to the nation last Wednesday (January 15) in the following words?

    “Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power, and influence that threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms, and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead.” Drawing attention to what he sees as danger, Biden stated, “A dangerous concentration of power in the hands of a few ultra-wealthy people and the dangerous consequences if their abuse of power is left unchecked.”

    He is clearly alluding to Trump’s association with billionaires such as Elon Musk, founder of Tesla and SpaceX, and Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook (now Meta).

    But being an irrepressible politician, the 47th president, Donald Trump, responded in kind to the 46th, Joe Biden, in his ‘victory rally’ held on Sunday (January 19, 2025) in the Capitol, a day before his inauguration on January 20, 2025.

    President Trump did so by criticizing Biden’s term as a “failed administration” and promised to “end the reign of a failed and corrupt political establishment.”

    Continuing, Trump reminded his enthusiastic audience:

    “Tomorrow, at noon, the curtain closes on four long years of American decline, and we begin a brand-new day of American strength and prosperity, dignity, and pride.”

    The trading of barbs between the outgoing and incoming presidents of the U.S.—touted as the greatest democracy on earth—exposes the nature of politics worldwide and the reason it is generally believed that all politicians are cut from the same cloth, irrespective of race, nationality, or creed. They never fail to seize opportunities to take jabs at each other in their quest to get ahead.

    Ordinarily, one would have thought that, with the Democratic Party having overwhelmingly lost the November 2024 presidential election to the Republican Party, outgoing President Biden would admit wholeheartedly that Americans have rejected his brand of politics and leadership style, and embraced the proposition made by Trump, which he has just begun to unfurl.

    But Biden did not swallow the humble pie, as it were. Instead, he opted to sermonize and demonize Trump by alleging that the new president, who is making a comeback after having served from 2016-2020, is a threat to democracy.

    Incidentally, that was the central campaign message of the Democratic Party, which obviously failed to resonate with American voters, as their presidential candidate, Kamala Harris, was roundly defeated by Trump.

    Following the overwhelming votes cast by Americans—49.8% or 77,303,568 votes for President Trump—this has enabled the Republican National Convention (RNC) to take control of all branches of government: the presidency (executive branch), the Senate, the House of Representatives, and a friendly Supreme Court. Trump’s party, also known as the Grand Old Party (GOP), has now commenced calling the shots, with Trump at the helm of affairs in the White House starting January 20.

    With the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, in President Donald Trump’s camp—actually, as his government efficiency czar—having appointed Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy as co-heads of the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), what is evolving as the Trump Effect will not only grip the U.S., where the legendary Washington swamp is expected to be drained, but it is on track to spread beyond the shores of the U.S. to Canada, Mexico, Panama, Greenland, and Europe, particularly the United Kingdom, Germany, and France, where Musk is stirring up the hornet’s nest by aligning with Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party, a right-wing populist party in the U.K.

    Already, the Trump storm has swept through Canada, with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau becoming the first casualty. He has announced his resignation from office rather than waiting to be voted out, owing to his worsening unpopularity.

    The likelihood of Trudeau being re-elected worsened due to his sour relationship with U.S. President Trump during his first tenure from 2016-2020.

    After his 2023 electoral victory and return to the White House as the 47th president on Monday, January 20, Trump’s threat to slam Canada with a 25% tariff and his contemplation of making Canada the 51st state of the U.S. likely informed a visit by Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau to Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s personal residence, to seek a détente. But it appears as though Trump did not accept a reconciliation. Hence, Trudeau opted to step down from leadership of the U.S.’s neighboring country with the longest shared border, rather than waiting to be pushed out by his opponents in a re-election bid.

    Just as Canada has already lost its PM Trudeau to the Trump Effect, leadership in the United Kingdom is also being rattled. Trump and his ally Musk have been backing Nigel Farage, leader of the Reform UK party, which made significant gains in the last elections, leading to the Tory party’s Keir Starmer becoming Prime Minister and occupying the number one seat at 10 Downing Street, the seat of power in the U.K.

    It is not only Canada and the U.K. that are feeling the impact of Trump’s return to the White House. The rest of Europe, stretching from France to Germany, is also quaking under Trump’s influence. The Middle East is not exempt.

    Practically on the eve of his ascension to the presidency, over 400 days (since October 7, 2023, more than 15 months) of war between Israel and Hamas in the Middle East was suspended following a ceasefire deal reached on Sunday, January 19.

    President Trump is, in my view, justifiably taking credit for the ceasefire because the deal proposed under Biden’s administration had consistently failed to materialize, even after the administration’s and international negotiating team’s best efforts.

    Given that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had defied then-President Biden’s threats to withdraw aid to Israel if he failed to accept the ceasefire terms put forward by the U.S., and Hamas also defied the U.S. by refusing to release hostages, including Americans, Trump’s threat to both parties—that there would be “fire and fury” if they failed to reach a mutual agreement to end the bloodshed—appears to me to be the deal clincher.

    Although Trump’s critics would not concede to him the successful execution of the ongoing Israel-Hamas ceasefire, it is no coincidence that both Israel and Hamas accepted the arrangement they had previously rejected on multiple occasions.

    China is also under threat of being slammed with a 60% tariff, and the second-largest economy in the world has also sent Vice President Han Zheng as a special representative to President Trump’s inauguration.

    The only continent that has yet to receive President Trump’s attention, except for the clear and imminent danger that Africans will be negatively impacted by the new president’s plans to deport undocumented immigrants from day one of his presidency, is Africa.

    It is unlikely, in my view, that President Trump will be hostile to Africa. One is convinced that the 47th president of the U.S. now understands Africa better than he did during his first tenure from 2016-2020.

    If nothing else, the marriage of Trump’s daughter Tiffany to Michael Buolos, the son of Dr. and Mrs. Sarah and Massad Buolos, who are Lebanese, French, Nigerian and American citizens, has provided the opportunity for Trump to know Nigeria, and by extension Africa, better.

    That was emphasized in numerous interventions in my mass media column two of which are  titled “ The Donald Trump Africans Do Not Know” and a follow-up piece titled “The Donald Trump Magnus Onyibe Does Not Know”—prompted by pushback from some readers.

    Those referenced pieces were written and published in 2022 after personally meeting then-former President Trump and his family.

    In my view, it is unlikely that Trump would cancel the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), a policy aimed at giving African countries the opportunity to export products to the U.S. tariff-free, introduced during President Bill Clinton’s administration. Rather President Trump is likely to do more since he now knows Africa better as the new frontier .By and large, the sweeping changes that the emergence of Trump as the 47th president of the U.S.—even before officially being inaugurated—appears to be having on the global political landscape seem to suggest that the world is beginning to witness the birth of a new world order, as predicted by political scientist Francis Fukuyama, a senior fellow at Stanford University, one of the U.S. Ivy League universities, in his seminal books The End of History and the Last Man, The Origins of Political Order: From Prehuman Times to the French Revolution, and Political Order and Political Decay, where he predicted some of the changes the world is about to experience from Trump’s ascendancy to the presidency of the U.S.

    Notably, Fukuyama’s seminal work The End of History and the Last Man (1992) posited that the worldwide spread of liberal democracy and free-market capitalism marked the endpoint of humanity’s sociocultural evolution.

    He argued that this represented a new world order, characterized by:

    1. Globalization

    2. Liberal democracy

    3. Free-market capitalism

    4. International cooperation and institutions

    Reading through Fukuyama’s books, it appears to me that his vision was one of increasing global convergence, where countries would adopt similar political and economic systems. That is where Fukuyama’s points diverge from Trump’s “America First” mantra.

    While Trump’s policies do reflect some aspects of Fukuyama’s predicted new world order, such as:

    1. Emphasis on free-market capitalism

    2. Skepticism towards international institutions,

    it is safe to conclude that the new order being driven by Trump embodies significant elements of Fukuyama’s predictions.

    Trump’s approach is more characterized by nationalism and less emphasis on international institutions, which challenges Fukuyama’s vision of liberal, globalized, and cooperative world order.

    And the slew of evidence, including plans to rename the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America, make Canada the 51st U.S. state, and take over Iceland from the Scandinavians and Panama as well—voluntarily or by force, as previously referenced—clearly suggests that the return of Donald Trump to the White House as U.S. president is the trigger.

    With the influence of his friends and fellow billionaires, Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, who are business titans with global influence, it is not only the political landscape of the U.S. that will change, but also the entire world’s political landscape, as well as the global business ecosystem, which are all long due and are susceptible to change.

    That is because the global business environment, where both Musk and Zuckerberg wield significant influence, will not be shielded from the wind of change.

    In my assessment, it is about time the change, which has impacted all spheres of life, spreads to the system of governance, which has seen democracy remaining as it was founded in Athens, Greece—almost in its original form without significant change.

    For too long, the world has been fixated on the orthodoxy of the old world; perhaps it’s about time the world responds to another stimulus that is evolving.

    As the conventional wisdom goes: the greatest threat to change is change itself. That is perhaps why orthodox politicians are resisting Trump’s proposed changes.

    Pundits argue that the trepidation exhibited by traditional politicians stems from various factors, including ideological differences, concerns about the impact on their constituents, and fears about the erosion of democratic norms.

    It is indeed puzzling that while technology and economic systems have undergone significant transformations, democratic institutions have evolved relatively slowly.

    One of the reasons for this state of affairs might be that democracy is deeply rooted in tradition and cultural norms, making it harder to reform or revolutionize it, unlike telecommunications, which have transformed from the traditional landline telephone and telegram system under Alexander Graham Bell (the founder of telecommunications) to cell phones and email as well as internet, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter amongst others.

    Also, consider the case of the concept of money, which has been revolutionized from cowry shells to coins, paper currency, and now crypto money.

    Another factor could be the inherent conservatism of democratic systems, which often prioritize stability and continuity over radical change.

    This can make it difficult for new ideas or unconventional leaders like Trump to gain traction, especially among those who value tradition and predictability.

    Ultimately, the tension between preserving democratic traditions and embracing change is a complex issue that depends on various factors, including cultural context, historical experience, and the will of the people.

    Tellingly, the will of the people is a strong factor for the imminent change in the political order in the U.S., and by extension, the world. That is because President Trump has, from the get-go, been upfront about his intentions to, if elected president, embark on sweeping changes that will have a profound effect on the affairs of the world in tandem with the belief that when America sneezes, the world catches a cold. So, the world must be prepared to face the complexity of Trump driven new world order.

    In conclusion—whether the world likes it or not—Donald J. Trump has returned as the leader of the free world, and humanity must brace up for the change that he has been mandated by American voters to foist on the U.S. and the world.

     

    Magnus Onyibe, an entrepreneur, public policy analyst, author, democracy advocate, development strategist, alumnus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Massachusetts, USA, and a former commissioner in the Delta State government, sent this piece from Lagos, Nigeria.

    To continue with this conversation and more, please visit www.magnum.ng.