The Economist: BY HOOK, CROOK, OR CHEQUEBOOK

Friday, February 06, 2015

Genuine democracy has been slow to take root

NO GOVERNMENT in Nigeria has ever come to power through credible elections. Even in colonial times stuffing ballots was the norm. Since independence few aspiring leaders have troubled much with the niceties of elections. Until 1999 military coups were more prevalent than ballots. Since then votes have been marred by violence and fraud.

The election in 2007 marked a particularly low point, when candidates reportedly garnered millions of fake votes in some 30,000 fake polling stations. A European Union observer mission noted that it “fell far short of basic international and regional standards for democratic elections”. The 2011 elections were an improvement but ballot-stuffing was still evident. One innovative wheeze was, as the EU observed rather drily, “the high number of under-age registered voters” who took part in the election.

This time the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) says it has wiped millions of duplicated voters from the electoral roll, issued voter cards and installed biometric machines to stop people casting more than one vote.

But where there’s a will—by hook, crook or chequebook—there’s a way to rig an election. Officials fret that party thugs may smash biometric machines. Using the police or army to influence the vote is also common. Last year the All Progressives Congress (APC), the main opposition, complained that the army had rounded up its officials and supporters ahead of a vote to elect the governor of Ekiti, a key southern state. Politicians from the ruling party say that it played no part in instigating the arrests and that it won the election fairly.

Even if neither party tries to rig these elections, Nigerians may not see them as having been free and fair. With ten days to go before the vote, only 44m of 68.8m voter cards have been distributed. Opposition strongholds such as Lagos are among the worst affected, activists say.

Another problem is the Islamist insurgency in Nigeria’s north-east, an APC heartland. The electoral commission has already cancelled polling in almost a quarter of the districts in the three north-eastern states most affected by Boko Haram, a jihadist group. Many of the 1.5m people displaced within Nigeria by the fighting will not be able to vote because by law they must cast their ballots in their home constituencies.

Little wonder that a recent Gallup poll found that only 13% of Nigerians trust the ballot. With such question-marks hanging over the election, losers are likely to cry foul. An outbreak of violence seems all too likely.

Source: The Economist on February 06, 2015.

The Economist [Editorial]: A FORMER DICTATOR IS A BETTER CHOICE THAN A FAILED PRESIDENT

Friday, February 06, 2015

The Editorial

Feb 7th 2015

THE LEAST AWFUL

SOMETIMES there are no good options. Nigeria goes to the polls on February 14th to elect the next president, who will face problems so large—from rampant corruption to a jihadist insurgency—that they could break the country apart, with dire consequences for Nigerians and the world.

And yet, as Africa’s biggest economy stages its most important election since the restoration of civilian rule in 1999, and perhaps since the civil war four decades ago, Nigerians must pick between the incumbent, Goodluck Jonathan, who has proved an utter failure, and the opposition leader, Muhammadu Buhari, a former military dictator with blood on his hands (see article). The candidates stand as symbols of a broken political system that makes all Nigeria’s problems even more intractable.

Start with Mr Jonathan, whose People’s Democratic Party (PDP) has run the country since 1999 and who stumbled into the presidency on the death of his predecessor in 2010. The PDP’s reign has been a sorry one. Mr Jonathan has shown little willingness to tackle endemic corruption. When the governor of the central bank reported that $20 billion had been stolen, his reward was to be sacked.

Worse, on Mr Jonathan’s watch much of the north of the country has been in flames. About 18,000 people have died in political violence in recent years, thousands of them in January in several brutal attacks by Boko Haram, a jihadist group that claims to have established its “caliphate” in territory as large as Belgium. Another 1.5m people have fled their homes. The insurgency is far from Mr Jonathan’s southern political heartland and afflicts people more likely to vote for the opposition. He has shown little enthusiasm for tackling it, and even less competence. Quick to offer condolences to France after the attack on Charlie Hedbo, Mr Jonathan waited almost two weeks before speaking up about a Boko Haram attack that killed hundreds, perhaps thousands, of his compatriots.

The single bright spot of his rule has been Nigeria’s economy, one of the world’s fastest-growing. Yet that is largely despite the government rather than because of it, and falling oil prices will temper the boom. The prosperity has not been broadly shared: under Mr Jonathan poverty has increased. Nigerians typically die eight years younger than their poorer neighbours in nearby Ghana.

Goodbye Jonathan

Voters have ample cause to send Mr Jonathan packing. In a country where power has often changed through the barrel of a gun, the opposition All Progressives Congress has a real chance of winning through the ballot box. Yet its candidate, Mr Buhari, is an ex-general who, three decades ago, came to power in a coup. His rule was nasty, brutish and mercifully short. Declaring a “war against indiscipline”, he ordered whip-wielding soldiers to ensure that Nigerians formed orderly queues. His economics, known as Buharism, was destructive. Instead of letting the currency depreciate in the face of a trade deficit, he tried to fix prices and ban “unnecessary” imports. He expelled 700,000 migrants in the delusion that this would create jobs for Nigerians. He banned political meetings and free speech. He detained thousands, used secret tribunals and executed people for crimes that were not capital offences.

Should a former dictator with such a record be offered another chance? Surprisingly, many Nigerians think he should. One reason is that, in a country where ministers routinely wear wristwatches worth many times their annual salary, Mr Buhari is a sandal-wearing ascetic with a record of fighting corruption. Few nowadays question his commitment to democracy or expect him to turn autocratic: he has repeatedly stood for election and accepted the outcome when he lost. He would probably do a better job of running the country, and in particular of tackling Boko Haram. As a northerner and Muslim, he will have greater legitimacy among villagers whose help he will need to isolate the insurgents. As a military man, he is more likely to win the respect of a demoralised army.

We are relieved not to have a vote in this election. But were we offered one we would—with a heavy heart—choose Mr Buhari. Mr Jonathan risks presiding over Nigeria’s bloody fragmentation. If Mr Buhari can save Nigeria, history might even be kind to him.

***

This article appeared as an editorial on The Economist of February 07, 2015 and was also published on their online edition from where it was retrieved Friday, February 06, 2015.

The Economist: BAD LUCK FOR NIGERIA

Friday, February 06, 2015

BAD LUCK FOR NIGERIA

A discredited ruling party faces its greatest electoral test yet

A THREE-CAR convoy is considered modest for leading Nigerian politicians, and modesty appeals to Muhammadu Buhari, the leading opposition candidate in the presidential election due to be held on February 14th. From his rented house made of simple concrete with few windows, his cars drive into a busy street and are almost immediately stuck in traffic. Without the armed outriders and flashing lights that ease the passage of officials in the ruling party he inches his way to the airport in Abuja, the capital, his aides glancing around nervously.

The aura of power catches up at the terminal building as he prepares to start the day’s campaigning. Courtiers, jobseekers and hangers-on in colourful garb and headgear rush in. Shyly he shakes hands. Mr Buhari, a 72-year-old retired general who ruled Nigeria for 20 months in the mid-1980s (and then spent 40 months in detention), may be on the verge of triggering the first democratic change of power in the country’s modern history. Polling and observers suggest the race between him and the incumbent, Goodluck Jonathan is too close to call, with each commanding about 42% of the vote.

Ever since 1999, when the army relinquished power, Nigeria has been ruled by the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), a sophisticated political machine greased by billions of dollars’ worth of oil money. Yet less cash is available these days. A sharp decline in the oil price has coincided, unluckily for Mr Jonathan, with the election. Government revenues have halved in recent months and the currency has tumbled by a quarter. Civil servants are paid late, if at all. Infrastructure projects have stalled.

But the government’s biggest liabilities are the result of its own greed. Officials have never been shy about dipping into public troughs but the present lot is, by common consent, especially avaricious. Last year the governor of the central bank said that $20 billion had gone missing. He was sacked for his trouble. A report into his allegations is now on Mr Jonathan’s desk. Rampant theft has not only harmed the economy and exacerbated poverty but it has also contributed to public insecurity.

With corruption endemic even in the army, soldiers are sent to the front line short of ammunition and rations. Demoralised and poorly led, they have failed to quell a jihadist insurgency in the north-east that has killed thousands. Almost a year ago militants from Boko Haram, a jihadist group that claims to have established a “caliphate” over a chunk of the country, kidnapped more than 250 girls from the town of Chibok. The government barely stirred until it was goaded into action by an international outcry.

With much of the north-east in flames—around 1.5m people have been forced to flee their homes—many voters believe Nigeria’s situation today is worse than at any time since the civil war in the late 1960s. To be sure, large parts of the country remain secure and the economy has boomed in recent years, but insecurity is spilling southward. Left unchecked, the insurgency could tear Nigeria apart.

At rallies, Mr Jonathan encounters unenthusiastic supporters; many are paid to turn up and so leave before his speech ends. Chairs are provided, perhaps to make the crowd seem larger. At a rally in Yola in late January they were thrown at him. Elsewhere his convoy has been stoned. Some election billboards are guarded by soldiers, giving rise to calls that the men should fight Boko Haram instead.

The candidates, and their parties, exhibit few ideological differences. The election revolves around questions of honesty and competence as well as ethnic and religious identity—unsurprisingly, given Nigeria’s diversity, with 500 languages spoken among its almost 200m people. Mr Jonathan is a Christian from the south whereas Mr Buhari is a northern Muslim.

The key to victory for either candidate may lie partly in whether people vote along religious lines. To win, Mr Buhari must convince Christian voters, predominantly in the south, that being Muslim is not synonymous with Islamism. The atmosphere at Buhari rallies—even those held away from his northern heartland—suggest that momentum is on his side. Many attendees are euphoric with optimism that he can fix the country.

They also hope that, as a former military man, he knows “how to make soldiers fight, not run away.” He has some form. Under his command in the early 1980s the Nigerian army drove out Chadian rebels from areas now held by Boko Haram (and which, ironically, are now being contested by Chadian soldiers who have been sent to assist Nigeria).

They also look at his record in fighting corruption. When he was head of state he, rather unusually for the office, kept his fingers out of the till. He locked up hundreds during an anti-corruption campaign and launched a “war against indiscipline” in which he got whip-wielding soldiers to enforce orderly queuing. Civil servants who arrived at work late were forced to perform “frog jump” squats.

Yet, during this period thousands of political opponents were detained without trial, political meetings were banned and the press was tightly controlled. Hundreds of people were tried before secret military tribunals and many were executed for crimes that were not capital offences when they were committed. Eager to play up his past the PDP has been publishing photos of him in military uniform with the headline, “Once a dictator, always a dictator”.

Activists and foreign diplomats are unworried by his past. His running mate, Yemi Osinbajo, is a lawyer and pastor with a strong record of championing human rights. Mr Buhari, for his part, told The Economist: “We have to stick to the constitution of the country. Once upon a time I was a military man. But I do not want to militarise democracy.”

If anything, Mr Buhari’s biggest flaw is the opposite of what the PDP alleges. He has never been a forceful character; he can be Reaganesque in his inclination to set the tone and direction of policy but leave the details to others. His party, the All Progressives Congress (APC), is the product of a recent merger of the four main opposition groups. Ruling-party bigwigs dismiss it as a “party of candidates” squabbling for power. Attempts to form a united opposition party at previous elections failed because the leaders could not agree on a joint candidate. This time they did, holding a credible primary before choosing Mr Buhari.

The APC has, moreover, already shown it can govern competently. It runs the two most populous urban areas, Kano and Lagos, and almost half the federal states. Supporters on both sides have threatened to protest violently against a loss. Tempers will probably also flare if there are widespread irregularities in the conduct of the vote. Some fear a Buhari victory could lead to an eruption of violence in the Niger Delta, the home region of Mr Jonathan, where the government has bought a precarious peace by paying off former militants. A victory for Mr Jonathan could, meanwhile, spark unrest in the north. The vote in 2011 was judged one of the country’s fairest, and yet almost a thousand people died in communal fighting.

This election could mark a permanent shift in Nigerian politics away from one-party rule. The powerful used to crowd around one big trough, awaiting their turn. Now they must choose between two troughs. That makes for potentially nastier politics. But if Nigeria can hold together, there is a hope of better government.

Source: The Economist (February 06, 2015).

Prof Pat Utomi: ON SOLUDO, BUHARI, JONATHAN AND THE ELECTIONS

Thursday, February 05, 2015

BlogNote:

When on January 26, 2015, Prof Soludo fired the first salvo in what was to be a debate on the performance of the Jonathan government on the economy, he did so against the backdrop of a growing realization among Nigerian voters that the leading presidential candidates were not going to debate each other, after all. When the Nigerian Finance Minister and Coordinating Minister for the Economy, Dr Okonjo-Iweala fired back with a response of her own, and former governor Fayemi added his, and Soludo followed up with another of his, things began to look interesting. Now, Prof Pat Utomi expands the coast further with this input of his, which appeared in today's edition of The Punch.

***

The firestorm generated by Prof. Chukwuma Soludo’s well-reasoned commentary on the place of issues in the 2015 electioneering has somehow become the core of the campaign. What a way to come from outside and define agenda.

Of course, I do not agree with all the points marshalled by the erstwhile Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria and Patito’s Gang member, but not to commend his citizen duty of engagement or indicate as reprehensible the resort to ad hominen bashing of the former economic adviser instead of providing facts to counter the views he had raised. That is issues-based campaign. I will myself raise logic to support and dispute some of the points in the Soludo intervention.

I do agree with Soludo that issues matter. I also think that those who turn to divisive emotion-laden typecasting of others rather than issues pertaining to the well-being of the Nigerian people do a grave disservice not only to democracy but to the long term common good of all.

The Soludo thrust of criticism sounds like an attack on the statist perspective that intervention can generate jobs and economic growth. Even as one who likes to see government out of the way, I find the approach worrying because beyond the Keynesian logic that brought the ultimate capitalist state, the United States, out of the Great Depression with initiatives like the Tennessee Valley Authority in Infrastructure, there is more recent example of post-2008 global financial crisis and the stimulus packages of the Obama administration, and now Europe turning to Quantitative Easing, not to knock the Wall Street/Main Street tag team approach to ensuring prosperity. Soludo’s solutions sometimes sound like Deepak Lal on the poverty of development economics. I think that if we see the current oil price slump as an opportunity rather than a threat, then we have to see a role for government in the way Lee Kuan Yew used state intervention when Singapore was prostrate in 1965, as Nigeria is today.

This leads to another point I am not in agreement with Soludo on. He talks about cost of programmes and the fact that low oil prices mean you cannot finance a big idea. In 1965, Singapore’s main revenues came from rent for the British Naval Base and the British had decided to shut all bases east of Eden. The decision of leaders of the United Malay National Organisation to eject Singapore from the federation that was thought to be the only hope left Singapore, out of pocket, and all dressed up with nowhere to go. Then, they rolled up their sleeves, got creative, transmitted the right values and found leadership that inspired and had integrity. Today, the small country probably has the largest concentration of billionaires per capita on earth.

Here in Nigeria, shortly after self-government, in the 1950’s, Nnamdi Azikiwe as the Premier of Eastern Region was anxious to match the free education policy of Chief Obafemi Awolowo. Palm produce did not fetch as much as cocoa in the market. The civil servants led by the new Permanent Secretary in Finance, Chief Jerome Udoji, thought it could not be done because of limitations of money. Zik insisted and accused Udoji, in Parliament, of trying to sabotage his government. After 40 per cent of the Eastern Nigeria budget of 1957 had gone to education and was still inadequate, the Udoji team suggested the introduction of fees for Primary 1 and Primary 5. But leadership kicked in. A philosophy called “Ibu anyi danda” raised a formula that created a partnership between government, the communities and missionaries that enabled the East to leapfrog the gap in education between the East and West.

In both cases the difference was leadership. At the centre in Abuja, for some reasons that may be from exposure, or whatever, leadership does not inspire as Lee Kuan Yew, Nnamdi Azikiwe and Michael Okpara did. Money is not everything in making dreams come through.

Among the many lessons we will learn, if we begin to operationalise the cash transfers initiative of the All Progressives Congress, a concept that helped Inatio Da Silva pull Brazil out of “potential” into a global economic powerhouse, is that we may not need as much cash as Soludo projects and that corruption and goal displacement are so high in a bloated public service that the savings will more than be adequate. Besides, from Kayode Fayemi and Rauf Aregbesola, we learn that with such programmes in Ekiti and Osun states, the numbers projected are often exaggerated. Given our abuse of census, we are likely to find much fewer people in those brackets. Check with the Bill Gates Foundation on satellite imagery studies of target population groups.

Having stated my major point of disagreement, it is useful to reflect on some other points raised by Soludo.

His broadside on austerity measures pronouncement and the road to austerity is a true, fair and proper read. No question that we walked with our eyes open into a repeat of 1982. In many of my speeches and my 2006 book, WHY NATIONS ARE POOR, I recall how the Iranian revolution pushed oil prices into the stratosphere of $40 a barrel. We went reckless with champagne and even importing sand and “big men” bought Rolls Royces. We managed to borrow ourselves into a debt trap. On this round we moved up private jets and buying up Dubai.

When this current boom started with India rising and China producing, I recall on several occasions calling for fiscal responsibility compact in which flows into the distributable pool, the Federation Account, not go above $40 a barrel, with additional revenues up to $70 a barrel price going to a stabilisation fund. This fund would be available were prices to drop below $40 to be used to ensure a constant budget funding up $40 in lean times. Beyond $70, it should flow into a future fund. I have been singing this song for several years but the technocrats say the politicians insist on sharing the whole money and say of talk about saving for a rainy day that it is pointless planning for the rain when it was already pouring torrents. My retort was what is so wrong in resigning to make a point and force public conversation to educate the people because these politicians may be greedy but they surely do not hate their children. They have only acted in ignorance. I pointed them to young Mahathir Mohammed in Malaysia who disagreed with the position of the then Prime Minister and spoke up. He was dropped from the government where he was a junior minister, and expelled from The United Malay National Organisation, the dominant party at that time. Out of government, he wrote a book: The Malay Dilemma. That triggered soul-searching that finished with the resignation of the Prime Minister. He was brought back into the party. Not long after Dr Mahathir Ibn Mohammed became Prime Minister and the history of Malaysia changed for good.

What does it take to lead such a change – Genius? No. I draw from the Ronald Reagan experience in the US. President Reagan was not a genius. Some think he probably already had Alzheimer’s disease when he entered the White House. But his values were clear as was his vision. He found the right people and an America, in retreat, was revitalised, opening the way for ten and twenty American youngsters to create a new industry with the .com revolution. Ironically, I have said elsewhere that the Buhari movement somehow reminds me of the coming of Ronald Reagan.

Let me close with a caveat. My response is a citizen response. My prism on this is not partisan. But I am a card-carrying member of the APC. The emergence of the APC is a culmination of my life’s quest as an institutionalist to see the dynamic of two balanced political parties. I was sure that without competition between parties that are equals progress would continue to elude Nigeria. So I longed for and worked for the scenario we have today. But I see in the torrent of abuse on Soludo for speaking truth to power and worry that this thing we have worked hard for, not in any pursuit of any self-interest, but for the advance of the common good, could be threatened by those who fail to understand the very idea of the public squares and the triumph of the ideas rather than emotional outbursts that result in tension and violence. I have read unprintable things online and in so many e-groups, some more offensive than Charlie Hebdo cartoons from both sides. This is poison we must curb. It is a double blow when those who follow this track are well-educated. So let us leave this business of certificates and uncompleted PhDs and hateful portrayals of opponents in caricature from the cross to throw backs of earlier life of candidates that seem like Hitler’s Goebbels at work. Let’s examine vision of society of challenges and the record of incumbents. Let’s ask people, regarding incumbents, is your life better today than it was four years ago and to the challengers, how can you make these same lives much better four years from now?

***

Utomi is a professor of political economy and founder, Centre for Values in Leadership.



[BlogEndNote]
Having read and listened to Pat Utomi in the past, I can safely assume that the occasional horrible sentence constructions in this text cannot have come "as is" from Pat Utomi's hand. I can only assume then that the editorial team at The Punch has, as usual, been less than thorough in their work. In order not to presume to know the author's mind more than himself however, I have reproduced the article as I saw it, except for some places where the errors were unbearable. Places such as "...oil price slum..." in Paragraph 4, which I have presumed to change to "...oil price slump...". Such presumptuousness has however been kept to the barest minimum. And where I find a version of this article that is less inundated with errors, I will promptly replace this with that.

Fools, All Of Us: A Tale of Two Companies - Moore Numental on Facebook

Thursday, February 05, 2015.

I'm seeing things that are nauseating everywhere. A little analogy mayn't suffice but it bears evidence of the fact that to inform the less inquisitive, stories are a quick resource.

Here's a story, then.

Two companies - A and B - are allowed almost equal resources for their growth and development. While one company invests said resources appropriately and reaps bountifully to the benefit of not just members of staff but visiting guests and neighbouring companies, the other contents itself with an endowment process that is adeptly engineered to profit the 1% that control the agents of government running the company.

Company A (the wise investing one) becomes a tourist destination, even drawing envious visitors from the not-so-profitable company (B). In fact, it (company A) begins to concern itself with raking in more profit, not just from the almost similar resources it has with company B, but also from earning extra rewards from tourism giving it a cash haul that it quickly reinvests in estate development and sundry other money doubling endeavours. 

All these were so financially rewarding as to attract more attention from management and staff of company B, most of the "elite" 1% of whom began to engage themselves in spending corporate funds in investment interests in company A, monies that if put to good use within company B might have made doing business there slightly bearable.

The problem with company B was complex, simply because the 1% of the company strength who ran its affairs were disingenuous with the structure of the company. They put in place a system that encouraged a dubious business culture and thus rendered it almost pointless to encourage best practices that could've made them as successful as company A. They made mockery of trust, punished whistleblowers, compromised confidence in word of honour, promoted mediocrity, dragged down motivation, awarded notoriety in brigandage and gave applause to theft of the common good. It took the company to the Hobbesian peak where you took the liberty of survival at all costs or you died.

All the while, the 1% insulated themselves and their progeny from the malfeasance that was their creation. They catered company money away for themselves and their wards, allocated prime and juicy contracts to themselves, took hefty cuts from budgets, sold to and bought from the company at exorbitant and giveaway prices (respectively) not possible elsewhere and in so doing, kept the 99% in a transition state of never-ending immiseration, a state where it appears as if should they apply a little extra effort, they'd break away from their dreary conditions, but in reality never get to reach it, no matter the amount of efforts deployed (any memories of Boxer in Animal Farm by George Orwell?).

Knowing the difference that knowledge can make in either causing change or maintaining the status quo, company B's management gradually crippled the learning structures that were part of the company's historical wealth. Though "education" continued, what it offered was a putrefying morass which products weren't even good enough to be employed by the company, many of whom kept searching for any opportunity to jump ship from company B to company A (or any other company for that matter) to be used as auxiliary staff for the meanest menial jobs that will never be done by staff of company A.

With education bastardised, morale low, misery high, job losses piling, poor class bulging, rich class thinning, scarce resources scarcer, anger brimming over, members of staff begin to disunite. No longer patient enough to see what their similarities are, they become pawns in the control of the 1% who induce them to focus on issues that divide them. This fomentation of disunity is genius because if it isn't evoked, it'll be a matter of time before a violent revolution usurps the power management currently enjoys. So, it serves the 1%ters well to cause disaffection amongst the majority. But it cannot be done openly because it will be noticed. Which will be just as bad.

Therefore surreptitiously, they give undue advantage to one sector of the staff knowing that another sector will raise their eyebrows and ask questions. They relay half truths and blatant lies, knowing that another tataafo sector will do their bidding and spread their lies abroad thereby running foul of those involved in that sector who know the truth. They hire the most jobless among the workforce as personal staff and pay them outrageously, make them display new-found wealth ostentatiously, and so cause bad blood amongst those slaving daily for the paltry money made.

Then, out of the blues, chaos erupts.

The 1% quickly use their influence to stow away raw cash they have amassed in the stocks of company A so that they're not caught unawares and that they have something to fall back on while the damage goes on in company B. As conflicts intensify, they make public appearances and statements to the press on how it is the enemies of the company that have caused the crises. They point fingers and name names, some within and some outside the company. But the situation doesn't get better. As it goes on for months, they continue receiving salaries but confidently explain to staff that if the crises isn't put under control, there's no way staff salaries can be computed. Being already a divided entity, staff swallow their saliva and place their conditions in the hands of God; this they do in churches whose pastors still demand that unpaid staff pay their tithes.

Matters get to a head when staff, a few, combine to call for a change of personnel at the helm of the company because of many things but mostly due to suffering, hunger, starvation and death. They claim that the management has not done enough to prevent their plight. Seeing these little beginnings of unity is disturbing to the 1%. They hatch a plot to further divide an already fractious motley of staff.

The 1% display an array of "ongoing" and "completed" projects that were done, as they claim, using monies that the protesters are asking for and noting that these projects were undertaken to make life easier for them and therefore it was selfless, because the 1% don't really need these projects, their needs are all paid for by the company. It's the staff under who need them and the 1% are bending over backwards to help them but all they get in return is ingratitude and protests and boos.

A few of the protesters possess gargantuan ignorance. So, they are swayed by the array. They can't tell what being daft is even when they are prime examples themselves. So, they tear down the minuscule unity that the protesters were able to forge for this brief while. In fact, not content with that, they turn on their own colleagues who are suffering similar ills as themselves and berate them for protesting to the wolfish admiration of the sly 1%. 

When those not easily hoodwinked ask these numbskulls why the volte-face, the latter reply telling them to look around and see what the management is doing for their benefits. The former try to make them understand that all these are in no way commensurate with what should be in place if things were done as they should but it all falls on deaf ears.

A few wise ones among them challenge the daft to a trip to company A with similar startup earning potential as company B to give them a taste of what could've been but only a few agree to the challenge. Those who visit company A indeed verify the fact that, give and take a few marginal differences, company B is indeed punching way lower than its weight, and therefore come to understand the essence of protesting the crass backwardness of company B. Some even identified segments of company A owned by some of the 1% in company B.

The protest continues with a simple message. We are not deceived. Wide scale theft of company's natural resources, more than enough money going to the 1% than anything else, unremitted allocations, missing funds, engagement of characters with dubious background on company salaries, outsourcing of materials that have local alternatives in-house, liaising with notable criminals and putting them on company payrolls, inadequate concern for wanton murder of company staff resident in an area, fraudulent purchase of company property by allies of company management, spurious recalculation of company profile, "cooking" company books were all a part of a wider problem that called for change. For them, had these issues been addressed by a stronger, adept management, company B might have begun to close the wide gap between itself and other companies like company A which also began with the type of resource-based mono-economic reality that defined company B. Company B should have been a lot further along the path to growth and development and become a renowned tourist destination like company A.

The morale of the story? It's not just about refurbished airports, access to fertilisers, locomotive trains, improvement of manual farming, access to medications for catarrh, or about grants for business startups anymore in the 21st century. As hip as these may sound to those who see them as articles to boast about, the times have moved past that stage especially for countries in the same oil-producing cartel as us. 

We are not supposed to be but we are an embarrassment to oil producing states. With not a single refinery working? What disgrace. If there should be any boast it should be about what we accomplished with our oil wealth based on how using it has diversified our money earning potential as a Dubai will boast for instance. 

That entity is a good example for company A and we, the worst of company B. Lemme not even go into the crises in the north. Where is the electricity for these airports? Or for small businesses who must think of how to add generating sets and petrol to their operating costs (of doing business) or fold up within the next few months? Where are the subsidies to encourage mechanised farming? Where, the safety nets for parents who lose their jobs and suddenly have a sick infant to care for? And we are seeing things, abi? 

Fools, all of us.

***

The original version of this article was posted by Moore Numental in two parts as two consecutive comments on a post on Facebook on February 05, 2015, and has been reproduced here, with minor edits.