The Jackals of Politics: A True Story of Nigeria’s Election

Fellow Nigerians, choose this day whom you will vote for.

Nigeria made a laudable step forward in 1999 when it became a democracy. However, sometimes when you make a step forward you step in shit. The country will elect the next president on March 28, when it goes to the polls.¹ As has been the case in Nigeria since its independence in 1960, the new president will face numerous problems: from jihadist insurgency and rampant corruption. For Nigerians, these problems are so large that, if left unchecked, can rip the country apart.

Nigeria is Africa’s biggest economy,² and hence this election will be significant for the continent. It is worth bearing in mind that this election would be the most important since the country’s civil war 40 years ago and, perhaps, since its restoration of civilian rule in 1999. But there is one problem: on the election day, Nigerians must pick between the incumbent, Goodluck Jonathan, who has not only proved an utter failure but also has blood in his hands (since he allowed Boko Haram to fester, leading to the death of thousands of Nigerians); and Muhammadu Buhari, a former military leader who also has blood in his hands. For a country in which the overlap between politics and corruption is an open secret, these candidates are the standard bearers of a broken political system – a political system that makes all Nigeria’s problems even more intractable. A quick glance at their report cards will validate this fact.

Let’s begin with President Jonathan, who belong to the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) – a political party that has governed Nigeria since 1999. Obviously, he was favored by his first name, Goodluck, given that he stumbled into the Presidency on the death of Yar’Adua – his predecessor – in 2010.³ He had been the country’s president since 2010 and has shown little willingness to tackle endemic corruption. He fired Lamido Sanusi - the country’s central bank governor – just because he reported that $20 billion had been stolen from the country’s coffers.⁴ Much of the northern part of the country has been in flames since 2010 due to the activities of Boko Haram – a jihadist group that claims to have established its caliphate in the region. Until last week, when Nigerian soldiers reclaimed some territories from Boko Haram,⁵ Jonathan has done nothing commendable to stop their insurgency. As of January this year, as much as 18,000 Nigerians has lost their lives from several brutal attacks by Boko Haram. In addition, more than 1.5 million people have either fled their homes or were displaced due to the group’s activities.⁶ Note that Boko Haram’s insurgency occurs mainly in northern Nigeria, which is far from President Jonathan’s southern political heartland. As such, it affects mainly those Nigerians who are the indigenes of northern Nigeria and who are more likely to vote for Buhari, the opposition party’s flag bearer.

President Jonathan do deserve some credit though. He did a good job in handling the ebola virus epidemics – an epidemics that killed more than 4,500 people in West Africa last year, mostly in Sierra Leone, Guinea and Liberia.⁷ Nigerian economy is booming and growing faster than most African economies – an achievement that I am skeptical about giving him the credit. In any case, the current collapse of oil prices will eventually temper the boom. In spite of the high economic growth recorded by the country, poverty has increased under Jonathan’s rule, which implies that the prosperity has not been broadly shared. Life expectancy in Nigeria has also decreased, with more Nigerians dying eight years younger than their poorer neighbors such as Ghana.⁸

Choosing the lesser evil

I will not be surprised if Nigerian voters send President Jonathan packing. They have ample reasons to do that. The All Progressive Congress (APC), the opposition party, has a real chance of winning through the ballot box if Nigeria conducts a free and fair election. Mr. Buhari, their candidate, was an ex-general who came to power in a coup three decades ago. His rule was mercifully short, as well as nasty and brutish. He implemented a program called the War Against Indiscipline (WAI). Many Nigerians still remember WAI as a praiseworthy attempt by Buhari to fight the endemic graft which was preventing Nigeria’s development. Under the program, he ordered whip-wielding soldiers to “discipline” the notoriously unruly Nigerians, forcing them to form neat queues at bus stops. Civil servants were publicly humiliated by being forced to do “frog jumps” if they were late to work. He also implemented a destructive economic policy: He tried to fix prices by banning “unnecessary” imports instead of letting the currency depreciate in the face of a trade deficit. This led to the closure of many businesses and, of course, to the loss of many jobs.⁹ He expelled 700,000 migrants, believing that this would create jobs for Nigerians. His government banned political meetings and curbed free speech. He made an extensive use of secret tribunals, executed people for crimes that were not capital offenses and detained thousands of Nigerians.¹⁰ On the positive side, he was tough on security and, because he was a vanguard of discipline, he retains a rare reputation for honesty among Nigerian politicians, and Nigerians in general.

It is worth pondering one question: given his record, should Buhari be offered another chance? A lot of Nigerians believe he deserves a second chance, mainly because of his honesty and his record of fighting corruption. For instance, Buhari is a sandal-wearing ascetic in a country where both political ministers and religious pastors wear wristwatches and shoes worth many times their annual salaries. Besides, only a few Nigerians will question his commitment to democracy because he had willingly accepted defeat when he lost two presidential elections. In addition, when compared to President Jonathan, he would do a better job of running the country, particularly in defeating Boko Haram. One reason is that he will have greater legitimacy among villagers whose help he will need to isolate the insurgents, since he is a northerner and a Muslim.¹¹ He is also more likely to win the respect of the country’s demoralized army because he was a retired general.

Broadly speaking, I am relieved not to have a vote in this coming election. But as one of the concerned Nigerians in diaspora, I love my home country and feel for my fellow Nigerians. While I will not endorse neither Jonathan nor Buhari (none of them meets my expectations of a good leader), my opinion is that my fellow Nigerians at home should search their conscience and choose the lesser of the two evils.

References

¹BBC News (2015): Nigeria Elections – Buhari Rules Out Boko Haram Talks. Retrieved February 27, 2015 from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-31645455

²Friedman U. (2014): How Nigeria Became Africa’s Largest Economy Overnight. The Atlantic. Retrieved February 27, 2015 from http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/04/how-nigeria-became-africas-largest-economy-overnight/360288/

³Al Jazeera and Agencies (2010): Nigeria’s President Yar’ Adua Dies. Retrieved February 27, 2015 from http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2010/05/20105523627997165.html

⁴Kay C., Bala-Gbogo E., & Mbachu D. (2014): Nigerian President Suspends Sanusi After Missing Oil Claims. Bloomberg Business. Retrieved February 27, 2015 from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-02-20/nigerian-central-bank-governor-sanusi-suspended-by-president

⁵BBC News (2015): African Allies Claim Gains Against Boko Haram. Retrieved February 27, 2015 from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-31493150

⁶Nigeria’s Election: The Least Awful. (2015, January). The Economist. Retrieved February 27, 2015 from http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21642168-former-dictator-better-choice-failed-president-least-awful

⁷BBC News (2014): Ebola Crisis: Nigeria Declared Free of Virus. Retrieved February 27, 2015 from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-29685127

⁸Nigeria’s Election, op. cit., para. 5.

⁹BBC News (2003): “Honest” General Wanted to Rule Nigeria. Retrieved February 27, 2015 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2639165.stm

¹⁰Nigeria’s Election, op. cit., para. 7.

¹¹Ibid

Our sweet enemies: The Price for affluence and urbanization

Poor countries are now getting richer than before. But they are also paying the price of affluence and urbanization: the rise of chronic diseases.

As you read this, nearly 12.1 million people living in Sub-Saharan Africa are struggling with diabetes, with only 15 percent of them diagnosed. Project Hope, a nonprofit organization, estimated that by the year 2030, 23.9 million adults in Sub-Saharan Africa will have diabetes.¹ Broadly speaking chronic diseases, which includes diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer and chronic respiratory diseases, now looms as the pre-eminent public health menace in poor countries. In Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, it is the number one cause of deaths of adults over the age of 30.²

There used to be a time when people in poor countries were too hungry and hardworking to be obese. During that time, only a few people could afford cigarettes and candies, and carbonated drinks such as Pepsi and Coca-Cola were luxuries. Also people in poor countries mostly died before the diseases of ripe middle age kicked in. The general belief then was that non-communicable diseases were a rich-world problem. A lot of things have changed since then. The standards of living in developing countries, particularly African countries, have improved significantly. However, the citizens of these countries are now paying stiff price for this improved living conditions. Today, developing countries bear more than 80 percent of the burden of chronic diseases. Available published evidence indicates that their share of these diseases will continue to grow. This will obviously add more burden to the one they already have – the vagaries of infectious diseases. In countries like India, for example, 40 percent of children under five are malnourished.³ Yet obesity is an acute health problem in that country.

Taking a bite out of progress.

Old and new diseases can be a lethal combination. For instance, those that suffer from diabetes are three times more likely to contract tuberculosis. One type of cancer that is common in equatorial Africa, namely, Burkitt’s lymphoma, is linked to malaria. HIV patients normally receive anti-retroviral treatments. However, this treatment increases their risk of developing diabetes and cancer.

According to the world Health Organization (WHO) deaths from non-communicable diseases will rise by 15 percent between 2010 and 2020. At least 20 percent of this jump value will come from Africa and Asia. In countries like China, the number of diabetics is expected to double by 2025. By the year 2030, chronic illnesses are likely to surpass maternal, child, and infectious diseases as the biggest killer in Sub-Saharan Africa.⁴ Most of these chronic illnesses stem from sedentary lifestyles, sugar, fat and smoke. But they also include diseases that are not caused by any of these factors, such as sickle cell – a blood disorder that kills many African children.

The affected regions in poor countries are woefully unprepared for this development. Their health-care systems, which usually receive funds and medicines from foreign donors, are designed for acute problems. So naturally, less than 3 percent of aid for health in these countries goes to chronic illnesses. And due to poverty, or even a lack of health insurance, many patients tend to delay treatments until it is too late. It is a good thing that many of the drugs donated to these countries are no longer covered by patents, which means that they are supposed to be cheap. However, they are still costly and scarce due to tariffs, poor distribution and high mark-ups. The health authorities are also stretched thin by high demand for their services. A child’s life can be saved for life by the right inoculation. In contrast, chronic diseases may require lifelong medicine and treatments. Like every educated person knows, a big cause of diabetes is unhealthy diet. But then, that makes it more complicated because eating right can be a battle involving brain chemistry and food industry practice. This explains why rich countries are also losing the battle for diabetes.

Not by meeting alone

So far the world’s response has been to have meetings, such as the United Nations summit held in New York in September of 2011. Prior to that, the only summit devoted to health was on HIV and was held in 2001. The summit was motivated by a sense of urgency about the scourge of AIDS.⁵ The outcome, however, was a positive one since it brought about a decade of dramatic progress in managing the AIDS crisis. Unfortunately, for some reasons, non-communicable diseases such as heart disease does not arouse the same passion or urgency. So it was not a surprise that while the countries that attended UN summit in 2011 passed a  political declaration on chronic diseases, they could not agree on targets for reducing them.

With no clear global lead, the affected countries has continued to struggle. In some places like in Kampala (Ugandan capital), most of the healthcare organizations spends a significant proportion of their funds on drugs and staff training. But since money is scarce in that area, health service delivery is inefficient. For instance, getting results from a procedure such as a biopsy can take up to one month if the patient lives outside Kampala.

It is worth bearing in mind that taking simple steps like offering inexpensive drugs, reducing salts in foods and raising tobacco tax can make a big difference here. Raising tobacco tax is particularly important, for two reasons. First, it is the best way for curbing cancer and the diseases of the heart and lungs. Second, it can be a good method for raising money for health care. Using tobacco tax can, however, be a challenge in poor countries. They provide the scarce jobs needed by the masses and revenues needed by the government. So in a country like Uganda, it may be hard to scare the industry away with high taxes.

Using some of the infrastructures and arrangements that are already in place for treating HIV conditions can also be a good strategies for many of these poor countries. For instance, in Western Kenya, the AMPATH program was originally designed to treat only HIV patients. But now that HIV infection is no longer a death sentence, the programs areas of coverage have been extended to cover those with such illnesses as cancer and diabetes.⁶ Its workers conducts a door-to-door screening program where the check the HIV status as well as the blood pressure and blood sugar  of their patients. A similar program initiated by  the United States, known as the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief(PEPFAR), also conduct regular health screening programs that has the goal of fighting HIV  by boosting broader health care.⁷

If the experience of the past ten years teaches us anything, it is that when it comes to fighting chronic diseases in poor countries, the most sustainable efforts will be those that provide healthcare and make money. Take Eli Lilly, the American pharmaceutical giant as a good example. The company provides free insulin to AMPATH in Kenya. The company regularly tests models for the treatment of chronic ailments like diabetes in countries such as Brazil, India and South Africa. But Eli Lilly, like every other corporate organization, also has profit motive. So while proving help for these poor countries now, Eli Lily knows that profits will follow later. Novo Nordisk, the world’s biggest insulin manufacturer, is another company that is making reasonable progress in fighting chronic diseases in poor countries. In China, the country controls almost 63 percent of insulin market as of September 2011.⁸ That represents a significant profit. Now it want to replicate the program in poor countries like Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia.

Given the large size of the population of poor countries, chronic diseases is obviously a huge market – but with lots of pain for the poor masses. Unfortunately, this market is growing in alarming proportions.

References

¹Project Hope (2011): Chronic Disease in South Africa. Retrieved February 20, 2015 from http://www.projecthope.org/news-blogs/africa-blog/2011/chronic-disease-in-south.html

²Ouyang H. (2014): Africa’s Top Health Challenge: Cardiovascular Disease. The Atlantic. Retrieved February 20, 2015 from http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/10/africas-top-health-challenge-cardiovascular-disease/381699/

³Chronic Diseases in Developing Countries. (2011, September 24). The Economist. Retrieved February 20, 2015 from http://www.economist.com/node/21530099

⁴Ibid

⁵Ibid

⁶Strother R.M., et al (2013): AMPATH-Oncology: A Model for Comprehensive Cancer Care in Sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Cancer Policy, 1(3-4), e42-e48.

⁷Chronic Diseases in Developing Countries. (2011, September 24). The Economist. Retrieved February 20, 2015 from http://www.economist.com/node/21530099

⁸Ibid