Corruption Haunts Every Nigerian Presidency

According to the final vote tabulation on February 27, 2019, President Buhari, who had promised to fight corruption, won re-election by a wide margin. He asked his voters not to gloat, since victory was prize enough. As expected, his opponent, Mr. Abubakar, claimed the vote count in some areas was suspect, and he said he would contest the election in court.       

     Nigeria's February 16, 2019 presidential election had been rescheduled to February 23. Leading candidates, current President Muhammadu Buhari and wealthy businessman Atiku Abubakar, both Fulani Muslims from northern Nigeria, blamed each other for the delay as an attempt to rig the election in their favor. The National Election Commission claimed weather conditions prevented all the ballots from reaching Nigeria's 120,000 polling places.

     There was general agreement that either winner would have to deal with: Boko Haram terrorists determined to eliminate Christian influences, conflict between cattle herders and farmers, restructuring representation to provide greater balance between Muslims in the north and southern Christians, unemployment over 20%, economic hardship from volatile oil export revenue,  crushing public debt, and corruption.

     Buying votes and rigging elections are features of local, governor, party primary, and presidential elections, but they are far from the only sources of corruption in Nigeria. The state-owned Ajabkuta Steel Company, which has received $8 billion and "employed" 10,000 over a 40 year period, has never produced any steel, according to The Economist (February 9, 2019). Carnegie's Endowment for International Peace identified corruption as the greatest obstacle preventing Nigeria, with Africa's largest economy and population, from achieving its enormous potential.

     Contract fraud, embezzlement, money laundering, bribes, and other forms of corruption siphon off billions from every economic sector: petroleum, trade, manufacturing, agriculture, transportation, energy, banking, and the environment.
Bureaucratic corruption channels funds into questionable departments. Nigeria has three space agencies that only have managed to launch five satellites into orbit.

     Politicians also pocket funds meant for hospitals and clinics. In the areas of health, education, and humanitarian aid, corruption prevents international organizations from providing development and emergency assistance.

     Authors of books on trust in business, Barbara Brooke Kimmel and Charles H. Green, note "the most powerful form of trust is personal." They know words require backup by action. Nigeria may lay claim to democracy, security, and progress, but these words have no meaning as long as corruption undermines every personal transaction.

What Happens After Wars?

 Wise decision making does not need data from another war. Human history already has enough data about the positive and negative results of wars to make additional surveys unnecessary. Marathon runners race 26 miles in the Olympics, because the Greeks defeated the Persians in 490 B.C. But no battle is responsible for Olympic figure skating.

     Clearly, wars have resulted in: disarmament, unemployed military personnel and weapon designers and manufacturers, collective security, land grabs and new borders, displaced populations, inflation, economic collapse, new financing for rebuilding, foreign aid, competing ideologies, independence and self determination for ethnic populations, release of prisoners, and medical advances. The question is: could positive outcomes from wars be achieved without bloodshed?

     Students attend Model UN meetings to discuss current world problems, and each year the Foreign Policy Association (fpa.org) prepares a Great Decisions Briefing Book and DVD to guide group discussions and provide topics for student essays. There also could be summits where students decide what wartime achievements could be gained without wars. (In 2019, the Great Decisions' discussion topics include: nuclear negotiations, cyberwarfare, U.S.-China trade and U.S.-Mexican relations, regional conflict in the Middle East, refugees/migration, European populism.)

     The challenge is to find out how similar subjects have been handled successfully after past wars. Has there ever been a way to incorporate a country's former rebel and military leaders into a productive government? Or could the Kurds who now live in Iraq, Turkey, and Syria break away peacefully and form their own country the way the Czech Republic (Czechia in English) and Slovakia did? Instead, as U.S. troops began pulling out of Syria, President Trump has called on Turkey's government, which is responsible for harsh treatment of its Kurds, to protect the Kurds the U.S. troops fought with in Syria, a questionable idea.