Interesting take on perception, in Nigerian politics.
Culled from Businessday. Enjoy

Longing for a ‘strongman’ in Nigeria?

Author: Christopher Akor

Until the recent declaration of a state of emergency in some of the north-eastern states in which Boko Haram held sway, Nigeria’s president, Goodluck Jonathan, faced intense criticism over his handling of issues of national security. Often described by the opposition and, sometimes, by those sympathetic to his regime as clueless’, soft’, weak’, and a coward’ with weak biceps’, he was presented as being incapable of tackling the wide range of challenges faced by the country.

He was unfavourably compared with former President Obasanjo, who, during his rule, sent troops to kill and destroy entire communities in Odi (Rivers State) and Zaki-Biam, Benue State) after some security operatives were abducted and killed there. Although the killings were condemned by the international community as clear cases of extra-judicial executions by the Nigerian military which contravened the country’s obligations under international law,Obasanjo had defended the killings as ‘legitimate’ actions of self defence’ and was alleged to have presented this incident to Jonathan as an example of how to deal with insurgencies at their roots before they got the opportunity to blossom. Not a few Nigerians saw Obasanjo’s actions as a show of decisive leadership compared to Jonathan’s indecisiveness and conciliatory approach to the Boko Haram threat. So stringent were the attacks against Jonathan that he recently declared he was the most criticized president in the world. He also revealed that he was increasingly under pressure from many Nigerians to govern like a dictator.

Despite an apparent preference for participatory, democratic governance, such pressures reveal a deep yearning for a ‘strong-man’ ruler or what Guillermo O'Donnell refers to as delegative democracy in the country. Being a vocal and assertive lot, Nigerians will criticize the authoritarian tendencies of their leaders, but they expect leaders to act swiftly or even brutally and bypass laws, if necessary, in pursuance of the common good. The tendency is to equate ‘effective’ or ‘good’ governance with dictatorship or authoritarianism.

Historically, many of the country’s intelligentsia and thought leaders have been at the forefront of voices urging leaders towards authoritarianism. At independence, the British bequeathed to Nigeria a federal state and a Westminster parliamentary system of government in which the Prime-Minister was only ‘primus inter pares’ and not an ‘all-powerful’ President. But the military incursion into politics in 1966 changed all that. The military boys, inexperienced in the art of governance, relied heavily on civil servants, academics, lawyers and politicians for policies and advice on governance. These civilians, however, only encouraged the military’s tendency to cultivate a centralized system of government with less devolution of power.

Towards the end of the first phase of military rule in 1978, Nigerians got another opportunity to fashion a new constitution. The constitutional drafting committee nicknamed ‘49 Wise Men’, was made up of the ‘crème de la crème’ of Nigerian academics, lawyers and politicians. Crucially, the 1979 constitution jettisoned the Westminster parliamentary system for an American-style presidential system of government, and vested disproportionate powers with the federal government in a context of weak institution of restraints.

The reasons given for the shift were quite revealing of the push for democratisation and strongman politics. On the one hand, the committee highlighted the structural elegance and deeper democratic character of the presidential system. On the other, they also agreed with Leopold Senghor that sharing power between a President and a Prime Minister was not feasible in Africa. Presidentialism, the committee argued, was more compatible with African indigenous kingship/chieftaincy traditions. It also had the capacity to overcome the conflict of authority, personality and ethno-political interest between the ceremonial President and the Prime Minister, which citizens had witnessed in Nigeria’s First Republic. What was more, they reasoned that a developing country like Nigeria needed a strong president who could serve as a symbol of national unity and a custodian of the national interest.

Thirty-five years on, some of the ‘49 Wise Men’ who drafted this constitution – which became a template for subsequent constitutions – have started to express regret for their decisions, describing them as naïve and misguided. However, the predisposition towards strongman leadership is not about to abate. As the supposed ‘cluelessness’ and ‘weakness’ of Jonathan is trumpeted across the country by the opposition and those who want him to rule like a lion or tiger’, the yearning for a ‘no-nonsense’ leader who could possibly apply the ‘J.J. Rawlings medicine’ to Nigeria has intensified. Increasingly, many Nigerians seem to be turning to General Mohammadu Buhari, perhaps, the most tyrannical military ruler in the country’s history, for leadership and inspiration. His tyrannical past has not just been forgiven, it seems to have actively enhanced his suitability for leadership in the future: Voices across the country have referred to him as ‘Nigeria’s saviour’ and the only credible person to govern the country.

Buhari led the group of military officers that overthrew a legitimately elected government in 1983, and proceeded, under the guise of fighting against corruption and indiscipline, to govern in such a tyrannical manner that journalists were forbidden from reporting anything that could embarrass the regime, even if it were true. Soldiers were sent out with whips to enforce order and discipline on the streets and ensure cleanliness in people’s homes. Special secret military tribunals were set up to try politicians accused of corruption despite protests and boycotts of the tribunals by the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA). The accused were all presumed guilty until they could prove their innocence, and few managed that task. Most were given ridiculously long sentences, some running into hundreds of years. Certain crimes like drug trafficking, smuggling, and oil bunkering were made to carry the death sentence and three Nigerians were retroactively executed under this law. The most sensational example of the regime’s recklessness was the botched attempted kidnap and forced repatriation of the Nigerian Umaru Dikko, who was found drugged in a crate in a London airport that had been tagged as diplomatic baggage. This led to a break-up of diplomatic relations between Nigeria and the Britain.

Despite this track record, Buhari’s critics, with a few exceptions, are now part of the choir clamouring for his return to power. He is now expected to be on the presidential ticket of the All Progressive Congress (APC) – a merger of the main opposition parties in Nigeria – for the 2015 election. True, Buhari has contested and lost all presidential elections since 2003, but the reasons for his loses are not connected to his tyrannical past. Instead, they are explained by the fact that he has been labelled - correctly or incorrectly – as a religious fanatic and ethnic champion. The mantle of great’, popular’ and ‘visionary’ leader, it seems, is still open to authoritarian rulers in Nigeria.

I like this

However, the writer is not taking a neutral position
He seems to be 1st on the side of Jonathan, thence he/she supports the devolution of power or the need for a weak president

No doubt, many of us seem to enjoy 'strong' presidents that we can complain about
much the same way that some women like dominating men and yet complain about them

However if we pay close attention to the narrative of 'strong' that is desired, we find that it is not a desire for the devil
Abacha can be termed strong, but I doubt many of us wish for someone like him to return

I suspect that what we term 'strong' is someone that:
-Doesnt look afraid
-Doesnt act afraid
-Takes the bull by the horn
-Attacks the mighty who we perceive to be full of guilt (not the dowtrodden)
-boosts the economy through job creation
-Changes the status quo
-can make examples out of close associates and even familly members

We feel more readilly at ease to forgive such a person if the person commits some other attrocities

If we take a look at past Nigeria presidents and weigh them against this criteria
we might find the ideal presidents that a number of Nigerians love to hate

For jonathan.
.........uhm
I think he his an alright manager, but far from being a great leader (whether for Nigeria or some other country)

Why would I prefer a Buhari to Jonathan?

Simply because, I feel so sure that Buhari wont give the same excuses that Jonathan gives about the fight against corruption
I dont expect Buhari to bite his fingers and say that individuals, EFCC and judiciary are the ones to take up the fight against corruption

I feel strongly that I will see some powerful faces in jail and being given the Tafa Balogun harrasment treatment which is easilly metted out to the common man

Do I expect spome magical economic growth from Buhari ....NO
But, the hounding of corruption should provide some entertaining distraction from the biting pangs of hunger

Why do we think that the hope of our future lies in the hands of one person?

Buhari has actually ruled Nigeria. He couldn't even keep a grip on power as a military man, so I wouldn't exactly classify him as a 'strongman'.
He's not been able to do much on the political front as well, and is now trying to profit off the hard work done by Tinubu. Second point against him. Yet he pontificates like a 'strongman'. I don't have much confidence in him, truth be told.

you tok well, well

I really no send the guy either, but lets adress 2 points u raised:

1) Why do we think that the future of Nigeria lies in one person?
I guess here you refer to 'one person' as any one ruler/leader (not neccasarily Buhari)
2) Buhari's capability as a Nigerian leader moving forward. Given his historical antecedent

One ruler/leader

Rulership/leadership of sovereigns is usually domiciled within a group of elites
The authority of the one visible leader vs his nuturing group can be represented in the form of a continuum as shown below

This thread reminds me of Beaf's comeback thread at a time there was a sickening outcry for a 'strong leader', he titled it; 'Some bunch of strong leaders for some yeye people' and the first image on the thread was a chilling picture of the bespectacled General - Abacha followed by equally numbing pictures of other military rulers. In those images, the point was made - No arguments! I've been trying to unearth that thread since last night without success.
I believe Nigerians are just flirting with destiny and I'm afraid they might get what they wish for if only so they can have a taste of the other side of good just once and hopefully they'll get to appreciate what they had when it's gone.

Like the writer of the OP's post suggests, we can safely assume that generally in Nigeria,
there is an acceptance that power flows from a central position.
An inability/perception of the central position's inability to control power could lead to the tendency of gross insurbodination
and a frenzied and uncultured rush to grab power by other principalities thus leading to mayhem

The Elite class in Nigeria are also divided along multidimensional lines without any clear and central ideologies
Even the choping of money (for those that use this as the beacon for political direction) is not clearly defined nor shrouded in any ideology.
It's all a mad rush..... for example, to the extent that the principalities in charge of air transport cannot guarantee the saftey of fellow elites, neither can the principalities in charge of security guarantee the safety of fellow elites and their families from assasins and kidnappers

The "prisoner's dilenma' theory suggests that each individual from a bunch of rogues will easily sell out his/her rogue colleagues
if given the option of redeeming him/herself to the detriment of the other members of the group
This is despite the knowledge that if all stick together with a common purpose, then they will all reap positive results

The three points I have made above immediately assures that within a crumbling mess of leadership such as ours
(i am not talking about Jonathan here)
there is an entrenched tendency to further spiral into self assured destruction by the elites,
taking the entire system with them

The solution is also self evident
-the need for one man at the very top who will not outsource his/her responsibility
this one man would need the xteristics of what we can call a strong leader
not only strong, but strong with purposefulness of what can be defined as 'good'
with an uncanny ability of mental sagacity

The nigerian system would fall in line if there is no undue interference from foreign sovereigns
who the rejected bits of elites would easily align with

Note that I have been careful with the term good
This is because our 'good' varies
For example, The talakawas of the north see Buhari as good with his pro-islamic and pro-fulani stance
While the southern and middlebelt indegenes cringe at the thought of a 'bad' Buhari restoring Usman DanFodio's conquering legacy to the remaining parts of Nigeria

There's a simple answer to all of these:

Nigerians are yearning for a strong leader, primarily because we see ourselves as weak.
This perceived weakness permeates every sphere of our existence. Even with the natural bravado and aggressive attitude of Nigerians, individuals are riddled by patent fear of simple things: poverty, death, and failure.

So it's only natural that we are looking for a Daddy to save us. And any military cowboy, political trickster, or Daddy GO who assumes that role is automatically assigned near-deity status. All our hopes and fears are now transferred to that person.

Jonathan on the other hand looks and sounds like he could do with a Daddy of his own That sort of infuriates the population

Buhari's Capability to Lead

I from my point of view do not see Buhari as having the 'good' that Nigeria deserves
but then, I am left with a dilema.....what is the dilenma?

Ok, to better present my dilenma, I'll start by first suggesting that I have had an intractable belief that Nigeria majorly has two chronic problems (perhaps, they are only symptons). The problems are:

1) corruption (defined here as the unstructed hunt for pecuniary gain without any attempt to instil its regulation, and reward or punish individuals in line with the determined structure of the accepted and codified wealth maximization regulations)
2) Mismanagement, or better still 'management incapabilty', not minding the number of academics or self-assesing super-talented races we have in the country

AjanleKoko: There's a simple answer to all of these:

Nigerians are yearning for a strong leader, primarily because we see ourselves as weak.
This perceived weakness permeates every sphere of our existence. Even with the natural bravado and aggressive attitude of Nigerians, individuals are riddled by patent fear of simple things: poverty, death, and failure.

So it's only natural that we are looking for a Daddy to save us. And any military cowboy, political trickster, or Daddy GO who assumes that role is automatically assigned near-deity status. All our hopes and fears are now transferred to that person.

Jonathan on the other hand looks and sounds like he could do with a Daddy of his own That sort of infuriates the population

LWKMD
choi!!! you have killed somebody oooooo

.....make i digress concentrate on this ya point
But him need a daddy GO too naw
and i'm sure he'd prefer if the daddy G.O tells him stuff like "God says you shld relax and hold ya peace"

AjanleKoko: There's a simple answer to all of these:

Jonathan on the other hand looks and sounds like he could do with a Daddy of his own That sort of infuriates the population

truer words were never said of the guy who is not a lion

Patience has probably contributed to this in no small amount. A man who appears to have no control over his own house is an eye sore anywhere. Eyes get red when that guy is your presido

^^^
if what u've just said is a good natured yabis,.. then no problem
but if u're serious...
what does Patience have to do with this?

I am actually sympathetic to Jonathan.

Sure, he's not the kind of leader we should be having, or even deserve. But then - who is?
People should take responsibility and make Jonathan work for them. I mean, people voted for this guy!
Like Obama said, let's forget about strong men, and focus on building strong institutions. Enough of escapism and lazy thinking.

esere826: ^^^
if what u've just said is a good natured yabis,.. then no problem
but if u're serious...
what does Patience have to do with this?

I am serious. I get the impression he is not quite able to control her, even when she is causing him obvious embarrassment. There have been situations where if she had just kept a low profile for a bit and let things blow by, would not have become so inflamed. Add then there's the continued interference with perm secs and DGs. I dont know about you, but an elected president not being able to reign in his wife rubs me the wrong way.

birdman:

I am serious. I get the impression he is not quite able to control her, even when she is causing him obvious embarrassment. There have been situations where if she had just kept a low profile for a bit and let things blow by, would not have become so inflamed. Add then there's the continued interference with perm secs and DGs. I dont know about you, but an elected president not being able to reign in his wife rubs me the wrong way.

You're also suffering from the 'strong man' syndrome

Jonathan is just a local man with a gregarious, though semi-literate, wife. Interestingly, the majority of Nigerians found him the most acceptable candidate in the last elections, despite all these 'flaws'. Now they compare him to Obama. Which is kind of laughable, I mean, how many Nigerians even come close to Obama?

As for Patience. What stops the other 'strong men' from ignoring her? I guess she has a 'strong' hold on Jonathan, and they know it

AjanleKoko:

You're also suffering from the 'strong man' syndrome

Jonathan is just a local man with a gregarious, though semi-literate, wife. Interestingly, the majority of Nigerians found him the most acceptable candidate in the last elections, despite all these 'flaws'.

Now they compare him to Obama. Which is kind of laughable, I mean, how many Nigerians even come close to Obama?

The man did everything to pass himself off as an african obama - electronic campaigning, ghostwritten book wind of hope, and fresh air (change) campaign.

oyb:

The man did everything to pass himself off as an african obama - electronic campaigning, ghostwritten book wind of hope, and fresh air (change) campaign.

Correction. He didn't do anything.
Na people wey chop im money

AjanleKoko: Why do we think that the hope of our future lies in the hands of one person?

Buhari has actually ruled Nigeria. He couldn't even keep a grip on power as a military man, so I wouldn't exactly classify him as a 'strongman'.
He's not been able to do much on the political front as well, and is now trying to profit off the hard work done by Tinubu. Second point against him. Yet he pontificates like a 'strongman'. I don't have much confidence in him, truth be told.

And anyone who's right in the head should not! Buhari kwa!!!!! God forbid!!!!

I came accross this: http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/from-awo-to-federalism/162568/

By Akin Osintokun

You will recall that we raised a question last week-‘From Awo to What?’ The above title and the following is the response to that question. Why would Chief Obafemi Awolowo, more than any political desire, want to rule Nigeria? Animated by this desire he abdicated the Premiership of the largely homogenise Western region in pursuit of the presidential seat of Nigeria. I ask this question because he was also the foremost proponent, among Nigeria’s political luminaries, of decentralised Federalism.

The logical interpretation of this twin aspiration is that he saw no contradiction between the two and reasoned that they are mutually inclusive. I reiterate this point because there is a growing assumption in Nigeria today that anybody proposing a structural review of Nigeria towards decentralisation is hostile to Nigeria and lacking in charity towards fellow citizens who believe otherwise. As President Barack Obama rightly noted, we can disagree without being disagreeable; and we can argue without calling our belief in Nigeria and goodwill for fellow citizens to question

Anybody familiar with Awolowo knows that next to his ambition to govern Nigeria was the higher aspiration to be remembered as the all-time Best Nigeria President; and would have figured that decentralisation is the optimal arrangement for the realisation of such ambition within the context of Nigeria.

In truth, the theory of Federalism today is as open ended and confused as its applicability. And this kind of theoretical confusion and exhaustion has recorded its own fair share of tragedies. The French Marxist theoretician, Louise Althusser, committed suicide, on the cusp of theorising himself into a cull de sac. Afflicted with a similar riot in the head, Doctor Amy Bishop, more recently, brought out her gun and cut short the life of fellow lecturers at the University of Pennyslvania. If you see a Nigerian academic who starts arguing with himself; looks unshaven, bedraggle and sporting an unkempt bushy overgrown hair, you may do well asking his fellow academics to find out how their colleague is faring in terms of the consistency of his theoretical propositions and postulations.

And if it is the word and not its meaning we quibble about, we may follow the example of United Kingdom and write Federation or Confederation into our Constitution and call ourselves the United Republic of Nigeria. But permit me to make a projection here-all Nigerians who presently feel that their love for status-quo Nigeria is being spurned by those advocating decentralisation would, in the short to medium term, begin to behold the beauty in decentralisation; when they feel sufficiently suffocated by the military misbegotten political misanthropy.

Incidentally this is an experience that the comprising regions of Nigeria have had. As a matter of fact it started with the Northern region in 1966 when they were going to proclaim secession after exacting maximum revenge on the return match of the counter coup. Here is what Ahmadu Kurfi had to say on the matter “The original intention of the July 29, 1966 counter coup leaders was to seize the rein of government and then announce the secession of the Northern Region from the rest of the country…. In fact, the coup leaders instructed Northern elements in Lagos to leave the metropolis for the North, giving a deadline within which to comply… A portion of the speech of the new Supreme Commander, Lt Colonel Yakubu Gowon, on August 1st, 1966 implied that the intentions to secede or to resort to confederal arrangement were not abandoned altogether.”

The consequences of the sequence of events from the July 1966 counter coup climaxed in the proclamation of the republic of Biafra by the defunct Eastern region. This marks an escalation of the disintegrative potential of Nigeria and the 30 months fratricidal bloodletting ensued in quick order. The annulment of the June 12th 1993 presidential election won by Chief Moshood Abiola precipitated a similar ethno regional casus belli (of the Yoruba) and feeds to the rather inflexible position of the Yoruba on the convocation of a national conference with full constituent powers. And don’t let us forget Adake Boro and his quixotic declaration of the Niger Delta Republic and the Ogoni nationalist irredentism of the late Ken Saro Wiwa.

Let us proceed with one proposition on which we are all agreed. Nigeria is not working. Why is it not working? Some people would contend that it is because we have not being lucky enough to have good leadership. If we don’t have good leadership then what do we do about it? Throw out the incumbent and if the successor and the successor to the successor are not good-keep throwing them out. The futility of this kind of formula and prescription is self-evident. If after 53 years of post-independent Nigeria, we are not agreed that we have had satisfactory leadership or that this is a rare exception, then on what basis rests the optimism that once we get rid of the incumbent, we will get a better replacement and continue to do so.

At the end of the day, knotty political questions especially the end stage of election, are resolved through a medium called realpolitik-the hard headed compromises,; subjective aspirations; and the appreciation of the relative positions of strength and weakness of contending players. It is the aspect of politics that otherwise morally upright politicians ordinarily deem offensive and repugnant. Given the make-up of Nigeria and the stunted growth of the political elite, it is futile to ever hope this process will routinely work to produce the elusive top class political leadership we crave.

Now I have nothing personal against Governor Rabiu Kwankwaso of Kano State and Speaker Aminu Tanbuwal but I have heard it said again and again that these are potential presidential candidates from the North. If we want to act on the submission that inability to get good leadership is the overriding political problem, then what is in the profile and bio data of these gentlemen that stands them out? Cheer leading a rapturous welcome party for Major Hamza Al Mustapha in Kano? And it is probably the same logic that would work against the proposition of idealistic candidates like Dangiwa Umar, Nuhu Ribadu and Audu Ogbe.

The lesson to learn from the return of Al Mustapha is that Nigerians are spiteful of one another and care less for each other’s sensibilities. This behaviour is by no means peculiar to the fans of Al Mustapha; it is a generalised syndrome of been alienated from a country under which we feel oppressed and persecuted. The sense of persecution has to do first and foremost with whosoever sits on the throne in Abuja. We feel persecuted because he has too much power to influence our standard of living for good or bad; we also feel persecuted because of a sense of dispossession-less the inside group in power.

It is in this regard that crude oil poses a unique danger to the corporate existence of Nigeria. It would sooner wreaked irrevocable damage to the political viability of Nigeria. It is what triggers desperate struggles to seize control of Abuja; It is at the root of the rationale for the preservation of the status quo and reduce its dysfunction to leadership problem. Yes leadership is our problem, and remains potentially the case for every society. That is why structures and institutions are formulated with the assumption that all societies are inherently prone to leadership failure and political dysfunction. Constitutions are then made with this assumption and anticipation in mind by designing built in checks and balances structurally and institutionally. No society, since the age of Hellenic antiquity, predicates good governance on the notion of an existing and available pool of philosopher kings.

Nigerians are given to exclaim that the president of Nigeria is the most powerful president in the world-but it seems we never pause to reflect on the implications of this wry observation. First it is an observation that says something has gone fundamentally wrong with our system-to have a president whose powers are coextensive with that of a middle-age sovereign. Second the capture of such a trophy becomes a do-or-die affair-as it is manifestly the case now and before. Third is the assumption and reality that the constituent units or the supposed constituent units, the states, are relegated to the status of vassal states. All the governors routinely queue to see the president almost on a weekly basis-for one patronage or another. Having the most powerful president is a self-evident reason to devolve this destructive power away from the centre to newly consolidated constituent units.

It is true that Nigeria is a product of its history but the expectation is that we learn the right lessons from that history and not mindlessly reify a self-abnegating legacy. We fought a civil war but it was not a war between good and bad and the outcome was not a victory of good over evil. In the situation in which the Eastern region found itself in the second half of 1966, can it be said that there was no justification for demanding confederation failing which secession became the alternate option? Equally, how were the officers of Northern origin expected to react to the clearly lopsided bloody coup of January 1966?

The notoriety of the first military coup was to upset the political equilibrium of Nigeria and unleash a momentum that acquired the logic of its own. It provoked and legitimised a zero sum; winner-takes-all attitude to the politics of Nigeria which eventually resolved in the culture of the military tail wagging the Nigeria dog; of military might is right. Thus was born the interminable era of military-led regional hegemony. Talks of Federalism or not then became secondary to the sustenance of this new power construct. In my thinking federalism was systematically subverted by the long tenure of military intervention and it took the return to civil democratic rule to expose just how extensive the foundational Nigeria federalism had been compromised.

A perennial feature of Nigeria’s politics is the trans-regional nature of alliances that are constructed to contest presidential elections. The calculation of the All Progressive Congress (APC) for winning the presidential election is, for instance, predicated on General Mohammadu Buhari and Senator Ahmed Bola Tinubu winning the far North and the South-west respectively. Is this not a manifestation of decentralised federalism in practice?- where supposedly national election battles are waged on regional basis.
In the final analysis, we should all realise that the clock is ticking and we can make the choice that stares us in the face or bury our heads in the sand-in imitation of the ostriches in the farm of my big brother, Dangiwa Umar.

^^

Very interesting thesis by Osuntokun.

Which of course no current political heavyweight in Nigeria would be interested in listening to. After all, the end game of all political constructs in Nigeria, is 'resource control', and nothing more.
They're all trying to get paid, and have no bigger picture in mind.

AjanleKoko:

You're also suffering from the 'strong man' syndrome

Jonathan is just a local man with a gregarious, though semi-literate, wife. Interestingly, the majority of Nigerians found him the most acceptable candidate in the last elections, despite all these 'flaws'. Now they compare him to Obama. Which is kind of laughable, I mean, how many Nigerians even come close to Obama?

As for Patience. What stops the other 'strong men' from ignoring her? I guess she has a 'strong' hold on Jonathan, and they know it

Jonathan cannot be compared to even a good number of bloggers on this site,Not to talk of Obama. The Jonathan fellow is a poor specimen for any sort of leadership construct. He fails on almost every level;clueless, inept,uninspiring and cowardly.
However, i disagree with Obama assertion. Dude is more hype than anything else. Their are dozens of Nigerians who can do whatever he has done,way better. I am not talking of prospects, i am talking of Nigerians with tangible results in their lives and careers. Obama is just a product of good marketing and a gullible buying public. He is a very intelligent man but nothing extraordinary.

25th to comment.

Y

I used to be of the opinion that we needed a strong man but not anymore. What we need are strong men that can build strong institutions.

can't read this....

Reserved.