₦airaland Forum

You deserve this............

KanwuliaMama:


Trouble in the WEST!

Fake AfeniFEFEFEre that can’t liberate itself from a DRUG-DEALER!

bedspread:
YOUR HATRED FOR THE Igbos While Drown u into things u can't recover from!

Help URSELF bro!

chiefolododo:
Buhari is assistant satan

Ziggylady:
They sure will...faster than the speed of light.

People should try and fear God. This dude has sold his soul to the devil. He doesn't have a conscience he has lost all that makes him human.

iamJ:
asides to get a taste of their big ass women that are cheap to Bleep, wetin I wan go find for that backwards country?


a country that the presidents bodyguards carry baton is that one a serious country

Please try and respect other Nations no matter how small you think they are.

Buhari is the worst president of Nigeria till date.......

Bede2u:
eat shit and die bro. Even u show me pics of atiku robbing a bank, i will still vote him

Giovanni2332:
Good news

how is this good news?

none

Nemesis001:
Atiku should never make the mistake of picking a VP outside SOUTH EAST or else, Igbos will decide to support Buhari in other to get the presidency in 2023.

what the dude is saying makes a lot of sense..........read the write up again

Finally o! make we rest......i wonder why he really wants to be president. at least he has his O level result....

Justinlean02:
Mumuchester United

Igbo wannabe

Mynd44:
She is 14. There is no consent

The first time you made sense.

States don't fail overnight. The seeds of of their destruction are sown deep within their political institutions.

BY DARON ACEMOGLU, JAMES A. ROBINSON |

Some countries fail spectacularly, with a total collapse of all state institutions, as in Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal and the hanging of

President Mohammad Najibullah from a lamppost, or during the decade-long civil war in Sierra Leone, where the government ceased to exist

altogether.


Most countries that fall apart, however, do so not with a bang but with a whimper. They fail not in an explosion of war and violence but by

being utterly unable to take advantage of their society’s huge potential for growth, condemning their citizens to a lifetime of poverty. This type

of slow, grinding failure leaves many countries in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, and Latin America with living standards far, far below those in the

West.

What’s tragic is that this failure is by design. These states collapse because they are ruled by what we call “extractive” economic institutions,

which destroy incentives, discourage innovation, and sap the talent of their citizens by creating a tilted playing field and robbing them of

opportunities. These institutions are not in place by mistake but on purpose. They’re there for the benefit of elites who gain much from the

extraction — whether in the form of valuable minerals, forced labor, or protected monopolies — at the expense of society. Of course, such elites

benefit from rigged political institutions too, wielding their power to tilt the system for their benefit.

But states built on exploitation inevitably fail, taking an entire corrupt system down with them and often leading to immense suffering. Each

year the Failed States Index charts the tragic stats of state failure. Here’s our guide to 10 ways it happens.

Mohamed Abdiwahab/AFP/GettyImages



1. North Korea: Lack of property rights

North Korea’s economic institutions make it almost impossible for people to own property; the state owns everything, including nearly all land

and capital. Agriculture is organized via collective farms. People work for the ruling Korean Workers’ Party, not themselves, which destroys their

incentive to succeed.

North Korea could be much wealthier. In 1998, a U.N. mission found that many of the country’s tractors, trucks, and other farm machinery

were simply unused or not maintained. Beginning in the 1980s, farmers were allowed to have their own small plots of land and sell what they

grew. But even this hasn’t created much incentive, given the country’s endemic lack of property rights. In 2009, the government introduced a

revalued currency and allowed people to convert only 100,000 to 150,000 won of the old currency into the new one (equivalent to about $35 to

$40 at the black-market exchange rate). People who had worked and saved up stocks of the old currency found it to be worthless.

Not only has North Korea failed to grow economically — while South Korea has grown rapidly — but its people have literally failed to flourish.

Trapped in this debilitating cycle, North Koreans are not only much poorer than South Koreans but also as much as 3 inches shorter on average

than the neighbors from whom they have been cut off for the last six decades.




2. Uzbekistan: Forced labor

Coercion is a surefire way to fail. Yet, until recently, at least in the scope of human history, most economies were based on the coercion of

workers — think slavery, serfdom, and other forms of forced labor. In fact, the list of strategies for getting people to do what they don’t want to

do is as long as the list of societies that relied on them. Forced labor is also responsible for the lack of innovation and technological progress in

most of these societies, ranging from ancient Rome to the U.S. South.

Modern Uzbekistan is a perfect example of what that tragic past looked like. Cotton is among Uzbekistan’s biggest exports. In September, as

the cotton bolls ripen, the schools empty of children, who are forced to pick the crop. Instead of educators, teachers become labor recruiters.

Children are given daily quotas from between 20 to 60 kilograms, depending on their age. The main beneficiaries of this system are President

Islam Karimov and his cronies, who control the production and sale of the cotton. The losers are not only the 2.7 million children coerced to

work under harsh conditions in the cotton fields instead of going to school, but also Uzbek society at large, which has failed to break out of

poverty. Its per capita income today is not far from its low level when the Soviet Union collapsed — except for the income of Karimov’s family,

which, with its dominance of domestic oil and gas exploration, is doing quite well.




3. South Africa: A tilted playing field

In 1904 in South Africa, the mining industry created a caste system for jobs. From then on, only Europeans could be blacksmiths, brickmakers,

boilermakers — basically any skilled job or profession. This “color bar,” as South Africans called it, was extended to the entire economy in 1926

and lasted until the 1980s, robbing black South Africans of any opportunity to use their skills and talents. They were condemned to work as

unskilled laborers in the mines and in agriculture — and at very low wages, too, making it extremely profitable for the elite who owned the

mines and farms. Unsurprisingly, South Africa under apartheid failed to improve the living standards of 80 percent of its population for almost a

century. For 15 years before the collapse of apartheid, the South African economy contracted. Since 1994 and the advent of a democratic state,

it has grown consistently.





4. Egypt: The big men get greedy

When elites control an economy, they often use their power to create monopolies and block the entry of new people and firms. This was exactly

how Egypt worked for three decades under Hosni Mubarak. The government and military owned vast swaths of the economy — by some

estimates, as much as 40 percent. Even when they did “liberalize,” they privatized large parts of the economy right into the hands of Mubarak’s

friends and those of his son Gamal. Big businessmen close to the regime, such as Ahmed Ezz (iron and steel), the Sawiris family (multimedia,

beverages, and telecommunications), and Mohamed Nosseir (beverages and telecommunications) received not only protection from the state

but also government contracts and large bank loans without needing to put up collateral.

Together, these big businessmen were known as the “whales.” Their stranglehold on the economy created fabulous profits for regime insiders,

but blocked opportunities for the vast mass of Egyptians to move out of poverty. Meanwhile, the Mubarak family accumulated a vast fortune

estimated as high as $70 billion.


5. Austria and Russia: Elites block new technologies

New technologies are extremely disruptive. They sweep aside old business models and make existing skills and organizations obsolete. They

redistribute not just income and wealth but also political power. This gives elites a big incentive to try to stop the march of progress. Good for

them, but not for society.

Consider what happened in the 19th century, as railways were spreading across Britain and the United States. When a proposal to build a

railway was put before Francis I, emperor of Austria, he was still haunted by the specter of the 1789 French Revolution and replied, “No, no, I

will have nothing to do with it, lest the revolution might come into the country.” The same thing happened in Russia until the 1860s. With new

technologies blocked, the tsarist regime was safe, at least for a while. As Britain and the United States grew rapidly, however, Austria and

Russia failed to do so. The track tells the tale: In the 1840s, tiny Britain was undergoing a railway mania in which more than 6,000 miles of

track were built, while only one railway ran in vast continental Russia. Even this line was not built for the benefit of the Russian people; it ran

17 miles from St. Petersburg to the tsar’s imperial residences at Tsarskoe Selo and Pavlovsk.






6. Somalia: No law and order

One must-have for successful economies is an effective centralized state. Without this, there is no hope of providing order, an effective system

of laws, mechanisms for resolving disputes, or basic public goods.

Yet large parts of the world today are still dominated by stateless societies. Although countries like Somalia or the new country of South Sudan

do have internationally recognized governments, they exercise little power outside their capitals, and maybe not even there. Both countries

have been built atop societies that historically never created a centralized state but were divided into clans where decisions were made by

consensus among adult males. No clan was ever able to dominate or create a set of nationally respected laws or rules. There were no political

positions, no administrators, no taxes, no government expenditures, no police, no lawyers — in other words, no government.

This situation persisted during the colonial period in Somalia, when the British were unable even to collect poll taxes, the usual fiscal basis for

their African colonies. Since independence in 1960, attempts have been made to create an effective central state, for example, during the

dictatorship of Mohamed Siad Barre, but after more than five decades it’s fair and even obvious to say they have failed. Call it Somalia’s law:

Without a central state, there can be no law and order; without law and order, there can be no real economy; and without a real economy, a

country is doomed to fail.



7. Colombia: A weak central government

Colombia isn’t Somalia. All the same, its central government is unable or unwilling to exert control over probably half the country, which is

dominated by left-wing guerrillas, most famously the FARC, and, increasingly, right-wing paramilitaries. The drug lords may be on the run, but

the state’s absence from much of the country leads not only to lack of public services such as roads and health care, but also to lack of well-

defined, institutionalized property rights.

Thousands of rural Colombians have only informal titles or titles lacking any legal validity. Although this does not stop people from buying and

selling land, it undermines their incentives to invest — and the uncertainty often leads to violence. During the 1990s and early 2000s, for

example, an estimated 5 million hectares of land were expropriated in Colombia, typically at gunpoint. The situation got so bad that in 1997,

the central government allowed local authorities to ban land transactions in rural areas. The result? Many parts of Colombia essentially fail to

take part in modern economic activities, instead languishing in poverty, not to mention proving to be fertile havens for armed insurgents and

paramilitary forces of both the left and right.

Calca and nearby Acomayo are two Peruvian provinces. Both are high in the mountains, and both are inhabited by the Quechua-speaking

descendants of the Incas. Both grow the same crops, yet Acomayo is much poorer, with its inhabitants consuming about one-third less than

those in Calca. The people know this. In Acomayo, they ask intrepid foreigners, “Don’t you know that the people here are poorer than the

people over there in Calca? Why would you ever want to come here?”

Indeed, it is much harder to get to Acomayo from the regional capital of Cusco, the ancient center of the Inca Empire, than it is to get to Calca.

The road to Calca is paved, while the one to Acomayo is in terrible disrepair. To get beyond Acomayo you need a horse or a mule — not due to

any differences in topography, but because there are no paved roads. In Calca, they sell their corn and beans on the market for money, while

in Acomayo they grow the same crops for their own subsistence. Acomayo’s people are one-third poorer than Calca’s as a result. Infrastructure

matters.




8. Peru: Bad public services

Calca and nearby Acomayo are two Peruvian provinces. Both are high in the mountains, and both are inhabited by the Quechua-speaking

descendants of the Incas. Both grow the same crops, yet Acomayo is much poorer, with its inhabitants consuming about one-third less than

those in Calca. The people know this. In Acomayo, they ask intrepid foreigners, “Don’t you know that the people here are poorer than the

people over there in Calca? Why would you ever want to come here?”

Indeed, it is much harder to get to Acomayo from the regional capital of Cusco, the ancient center of the Inca Empire, than it is to get to Calca.

The road to Calca is paved, while the one to Acomayo is in terrible disrepair. To get beyond Acomayo you need a horse or a mule — not due to

any differences in topography, but because there are no paved roads. In Calca, they sell their corn and beans on the market for money, while

in Acomayo they grow the same crops for their own subsistence. Acomayo’s people are one-third poorer than Calca’s as a a result.

Infrastructure matters.




9. Bolivia: Political exploitation

Bolivia has a long history of extractive institutions dating back to Spanish times — a history that has brewed resentment over the years. In

1952, Bolivians rose up en masse against the traditional elite of land and mine owners. The leaders of this revolution were mostly urbanites

excluded from power and patronage under the previous regime. Once they seized power, the revolutionaries expropriated most of the land and

the mines and created a political party, the Revolutionary Nationalist Movement (MNR). Inequality fell sharply at first as a result of these land

seizures, as well as the MNR’s educational reforms. But the MNR set up a one-party state and gradually rescinded the political rights it had

extended in 1952. By the late 1960s, inequality was actually higher than it had been before the revolution.

For the great mass of rural Bolivians, one elite had simply replaced another in what German sociologist Robert Michels called the “iron law of

oligarchy.” Rural people still had insecure property rights and still had to sell their votes for access to land, credit, or work. The main difference

was that instead of providing these services to the traditional landowners, they now provided them to the MNR.






10. Sierra Leone: Fighting over the spoils

Intense extraction breeds instability and failure because, consistent with the iron law of oligarchy, it creates incentives for others to depose the

existing elites and take over.

This is exactly what happened in Sierra Leone. Siaka Stevens and his All People’s Congress (APC) party ran the country from 1967 until 1985

as their personal fiefdom. Little changed when Stevens stepped aside, passing the baton to his protégé, Joseph Momoh, who just continued the

plunder.

The trouble is that this sort of extraction creates deep-seated grievances and invites contests for power from would-be strongmen hoping to

get their hands on the loot. In March 1991, Foday Sankoh’s Revolutionary United Front, with the support and most likely the command of

Liberian dictator Charles Taylor, crossed into Sierra Leone and plunged the country into a vicious, decade-long civil war. Sankoh and Taylor were

interested in only one thing: power, which they could use, among other things, to steal diamonds, and they could do so because of the regime

that Stevens and his APC had created. The country soon descended into chaos, with the civil war taking the lives of about 1 percent of the

population and maiming countless others. Sierra Leone’s state and institutions totally collapsed. Government revenues went from 15 percent of

national income to practically zero by 1991. The state, in other words, didn’t so much fail as disappear entirely.



Daron Acemoglu is Elizabeth and James Killian professor of economics at MIT and co-author of Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power,

Prosperity, and Poverty.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/06/18/10-reasons-countries-fall-apart/

IgbosAreOsus:
Ndi ara
Frustrated d0lt
That's the picture of your tribesman carrying the heads of your brothers recently sacrificed to Amadioha
Otorcha

those dudes dont human head for whatever they do. i believe your tribe has masquerades if you dont then the igbos are not to blame. the only sensible thing for you to do is to ask. than to score dumb points.......if your tribe carries peoples head then i am sorry for how useless ur tribe is......

Pivotal:
Consult your history books or teacher

i have read my history i doubt if you have done the same.

Ugosample:
disintegration is not even possible

The country is stuck

What we need to restructure is our mentality as a people

The key to driving Nigeria forward is in the private sector

but then the mentality there is something else

And disintegrating the country will not delete that mentality all of a sudden

No country is stuck. do not have that mentality because greater countries felt that way and we all know how it ended. Nigeria is a country that has never attained greatness i stand to be corrected. private or no private. The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is the determining factor. and the North have been the people who have always wanted to rule even when we all know that their reason is just to hold on to power and enslave the southern part because of its enormous human resource potential. having separate entities might be problematic for the first few years but a deeper sense of Nationalism would start to take center stage.

Ugosample:
you know what tribalism means in the Nigerian context, so don't even try to play smart

i dont do that. i say it as it is. that is the definition. i did not write the dictionary.

Ugosample:
tribalism is not a bad thing per se?

can you hear what you saying? ?
(you just exhibited the barbaric mentality I have been complaining about)

The founding fathers if Nigeria in a way polarised the country with that rubbish mentality and look at where it has gotten us.

Nigeria has sailed far and can no longer disintegrate;
We have no secession clause in our constitution, and only a constitutional amendment (which is mission impossible) that can even give provision for separation

Another option is war, but we tried that before and saw how it ended

So Nigerians better find a way to eschew that rotten mentality

Ghana can be compared to Nigeria itself because Ghana has many many many tribes too for theur size.
And they have been able to build a national identity
All thanks to Nkrumah.


Nigerians have to throw away this mentality for real progress to happen

dude....lets stop being more catholic than the pope. we are not a country because we decided to come together irrespective of our tribal affiliation to become progressive and build a society that would give us a better life with basic and required things of life. we are a country because the British in their convenience created a country to loot the resources from Nigeria and in Africa as a whole. there were great Nations that have been together and now there are just memories. soviet union,Yugoslavia, India and Pakistan,Ethiopia and Eritrea ,Malaysia and Singapore. just to mention a few. these countries never had secession in their constitution but they cease to exist. you might call me what ever name you wish but i am a realist. they only way to progress is either we revert to a 36 state style federalism were states exploit their resources and determine their destinies or we DISINTEGRATE. it might sound crude and illogical but we are heading towards that. i have nothing in common with an average Northerner neither do i have with a Yoruba man. i do not hate these people. but when push comes to shove, we all would always side our own. its not a bad thing its just the way God has created humans. its better we do it now that the opportunity presents itself or it would be done by force.

Ugosample:
tribalism is not a bad thing per se?

can you hear what you saying? ?
(you just exhibited the barbaric mentality I have been complaining about)

The founding fathers if Nigeria in a way polarised the country with that rubbish mentality and look at where it has gotten us.

Nigeria has sailed far and can no longer disintegrate;
We have no secession clause in our constitution, and only a constitutional amendment (which is mission impossible) that can even give provision for separation

Another option is war, but we tried that before and saw how it ended

So Nigerians better find a way to eschew that rotten mentality

Ghana can be compared to Nigeria itself because Ghana has many many many tribes too for theur size.
And they have been able to build a national identity
All thanks to Nkrumah.


Nigerians have to throw away this mentality for real progress to happen

tribalism
ˈtrʌɪbəlɪz(ə)m/Submit
noun
the state or fact of being organized in a tribe or tribes.
DEROGATORY
the behaviour and attitudes that stem from strong loyalty to one's own tribe or social group.

Pivotal:
Thanks to those that started the civil war n also those that do not want Buhari who is building the infrastructure that made SA what it is today but want a PDP that will rather loot Nigeria to it grave.

and who started the civil war?

Runalong333:
Why can't we first try put our respective regions in order ? If we can better manage them , that would be proof that each individual nation would prosper .

the regions were all doing well until the military came in. we have seen what we can do as individuals. and we can see what we have been doing for more that 50 years as one entity. its not working. we all know the tribes that are benefiting from this union. that is not how a country should function. having read a little history of Nigeria. the best solution is disintegration. i was not born a slave so i wonder why there are people who are more opportuined in Nigeria than every other people. it is not right. we didnt get independence only to be enslaved by new set of colonialist.

Ugosample:
when the founding fathers agreed that Nigeria should gain independence together , the British was absolved of any blame


What has made Nigeria this way is not about the diverse tribes (America and India and Indonesia amongst other countries are more diverse)

it's much more than that

Ghana has a hundred tribes and have never fought a civil war.


it's all about the people in that country, that's the truth, and decades of military rule also did its damage


If every ethnic group strove to develop his own corner of Nigeria, Nigeria as a whole would have been presentable


But illiteracy (where the tribalism roots from) And barbaric mentality is the real problem of Nigeria


That's just it

lets take the UK for example.you have certain countries that are independent for each other. they have their seperate culture and religion and way of life. they are not one country. they are a group of countries with the power to leave the union if so be. now Ghana doesn't have they same number of tribes Nigeria does. that is why they have relative peace. tribalism is not a bad thing per say because every one pays allegiance to his Nation. when ahmadu bello said derogatory things about the igbos in 1963, it was what he was programmed to do in the sense that everybody supports where he or she comes from. awolowo performed well in the western region because he was a visionary and he was a nationalist to the Yoruba people. same can be said of Ojukwu. he came at a time the Igbo nation needed a leader and rose to be a leader for his people. no matter how educated you are, you would always feel that your tribe is the best and must reach for the stars. the only way africa can grow is through separation of heterogeneous tribes and creating countries with a homogeneous culture and religion. Nigeria is just one big entity created by the British for selfish purposes not because they love us so much.

Nigeria like someone above said is a Geographical expression with so many Nations. That being said, each individual Nation have a very different perspective and view on how progress should be made. we were not amalgamated and united by our consent. it was done by force. you cannot forcefully marry a woman who does not know you or love you. it is in very rare scenarios that you have a forceful marriage turn out to be a bed of roses. WE WILL NEVER BE UNITED. ITS A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE THE DOOMS DAY PROPHETS ARE VINDICATED. NIGERIA IS JUST A MARRIAGE OF PEOPLE WHO DO NOT REALLY LOVE ONE ANOTHER. i hope when the inevitable happens, i pray lives wont be lost.......

IgbosAreOsus:
Osus been stabbing each other in the back since the days of Ojucrook

you obviously do not have sense. even if you want to poke fun at least be smart about it. how does an osu relate with the picture you posted above? dvmb tribal monkey

Nigeria is a failed state. and it would get worse.

if i had an interest before i would just drop it on seeing that name..."ojukwu". the dude is an opposite of what the father represented.