Feature/OPED
Why Kamala Harris Lost and How Donald Trump Won: A Deep Analysis of the 2024 US Election
By Ifeanyi Abraham
Today, I am mourning, but this too shall favour me—Donald Trump’s victory and Kamala Harris’s loss carry lessons for us all. She joined the race just 107 days ago, facing a former president who began his campaign journey nearly eight years prior. No easy feat.
In 2016, I wrote an article for HuffPost titled ‘Five Quick Lessons From The 2016 US Election Results – What A Donald Trump Win Tells Us.’ Back then, I explored what a Trump victory signified for democracy and how it reflected the people’s power to rise above societal expectations and media narratives. Democracy, in its raw form, had spoken, and I accepted the results as a lesson in the resilience of choice—even when those choices may be bewildering to some.
As I process the loss of Kamala Harris in this election, I find myself in a familiar place. Only this time, my feelings are deeper, more personal. I was wholeheartedly pro-Kamala because I believed her ascent to the highest office was an opportunity for the United States to rise above its historical misogyny, to embrace progress, and to validate the dreams of countless women and people of color who see themselves reflected in her story.
Losing this chance feels like a setback. But, as I reminded myself in 2016, democracy sometimes challenges us to accept results we did not expect or want. Yet, in every loss, there is a lesson, a seed of transformation waiting to bloom.
The journey toward equality and justice is never a straight line. And while today’s results may not reflect the progress we hoped for, they do not erase the strides made or the path forward. Kamala’s impact, her vision, and her voice remain, and so does the fight for an America that lives up to its ideals.
So where did things go wrong, and why, despite everything stacked against him, did Donald Trump manage to secure a win once more?”
Where Kamala Might Have Gotten It Wrong
- Disconnect with Key Voter Concerns: Kamala’s campaign leaned heavily into issues like reproductive rights, social justice, and healthcare reform. While these are undeniably important to many Americans, they may not have resonated as strongly with voters whose primary concerns were economic stability, national security, and border control. With rising inflation, job insecurity, and worries over crime, many Americans felt an acute need for economic and personal security. In contrast, Kamala’s emphasis on progressive social policies may have seemed less relevant or even disconnected from these immediate, everyday concerns. Furthermore, her focus on issues that resonate with urban and coastal areas may have alienated rural and working-class voters, who felt overlooked or misunderstood by the campaign.
- The Elon Musk, X, and Former Democrats Factor: The influence of figures like Elon Musk, along with platforms like X (formerly Twitter), created a new dynamic in the political landscape. Musk’s outspoken criticisms of progressive policies and endorsement of more centrist or libertarian values resonated with former Democrats and independents who had grown disillusioned with the party’s direction. His support for free speech and critique of “woke” culture resonated with voters who felt that the Democratic Party had strayed too far left. Musk’s platform, X, became a prominent space for these discussions, amplifying voices that criticized Harris and the Democratic establishment.
- Concerns Around Her Perception of Ascension: When President Biden stepped aside, Kamala Harris was swiftly positioned as the natural successor—a move that came with both benefits and pitfalls. While it solidified her as the party’s standard-bearer, it also raised questions about whether the Democrats had shielded Biden’s health and cognitive issues for too long. Some voters felt blindsided, questioning the transparency of the administration. The rapid transition to Kamala’s candidacy, though understandable given the need to rally quickly, left little room for a thorough exploration of alternative Democratic candidates who might have appealed to a broader base.
This accelerated timeline and sense of inevitability surrounding Kamala’s candidacy may have alienated voters who prefer a primary process that gives a wider field a fair shot. With other Democratic contenders overlooked or sidelined, some voters felt that the party’s decision was more about maintaining the status quo than refreshing its leadership. As a result, Kamala’s campaign began with a perception of entitlement—an “ascension” rather than a competitive win—leaving her vulnerable to criticisms of being out of touch with everyday Americans who valued humility and felt their voices weren’t fully considered in the process.
- Perceptions of Competence and Authenticity: Kamala’s past as a prosecutor brought mixed perceptions. For some, her record on criminal justice issues conflicted with her progressive stances, leading to questions of authenticity. The “top cop” label, often used by critics, created an image that didn’t align seamlessly with the values of the Democratic Party’s left-leaning base, who prioritize criminal justice reform. Simultaneously, accusations of being “out of touch” with working-class Americans added to this perception. Even though she grew more effective as she campaigned, her initial challenges in relating to middle America and rural voters left a lasting impression.
- The Jill Stein, Nikki Haley, and Independents Factor: The presence of independent and third-party candidates such as Jill Stein and Republican Nikki Haley introduced new dynamics that complicated Kamala’s campaign. Candidates like Stein appealed to disenchanted progressives who felt that Kamala was not progressive enough, pulling votes from the left. Meanwhile, Nikki Haley’s appeal to moderate conservatives and independents added pressure from the right, attracting voters who valued a more measured conservative approach. This splitting of the voter base on both sides left Kamala with less room to consolidate support, especially among independents who were disillusioned with the Democratic and Republican establishments alike.
- Electability and Gender Bias: Kamala faced a persistent double standard, rooted in deeply ingrained biases about gender and leadership. Women in politics are often held to a higher standard of “likability” and perceived strength. Kamala, in particular, faced questions about her ability to handle the presidency with the same assertiveness traditionally expected of male candidates. Voters may have unfairly scrutinised her for appearing “too ambitious” or not “tough enough,” a criticism rarely levelled at her male counterparts. This bias not only influenced perceptions of her competence but also played into narratives that questioned her ability to lead in times of crisis.
Why Donald Trump Won Despite Controversies
- Message of Economic Strength and Stability: Despite improvements in the broader economic metrics under President Biden—such as reduced inflation, stock market gains, and job growth—many Americans remained unconvinced. For them, the economy wasn’t measured by stock performance or government data but by the money in their pockets, the prices at grocery stores, and a feeling of financial security. Trump’s messaging zeroed in on this gap, emphasizing how he would “make America prosperous again” in a way that spoke directly to the daily experiences of working Americans. By framing the economy in terms of immediate, tangible outcomes rather than complex indicators, Trump won over voters who felt that economic recovery hadn’t reached their wallets.
- Immigration and Border Control: Immigration proved to be one of the most decisive issues for voters in this election. Trump’s hardline stance and frequent focus on securing borders struck a chord with voters concerned about national security and economic opportunity. His rhetoric painted immigration as an urgent threat to American stability, framing it in terms of job competition, increased crime, and resource strain. This focus played particularly well in states and communities where anti-immigrant sentiment was already strong, amplifying voter concerns that weren’t fully addressed by Harris or the Democratic campaign. Trump’s willingness to embrace the immigration debate, even if it was controversial, attracted voters who felt unheard on this issue by the establishment.
- Polarizing Yet Relatable Persona: Trump’s persona as an “outsider” and a disruptor made him relatable to a large portion of the electorate that feels disillusioned with career politicians. His blunt, often brash style—and his willingness to push against traditional decorum—resonated with Americans who viewed polished political figures as inauthentic or out of touch. Trump’s unfiltered, often controversial approach gave the impression of authenticity, endearing him to voters who prioritize a “tell-it-like-it-is” attitude. For many, he came across as a leader willing to fight against the elite on their behalf, which helped him energize a loyal base that saw him as genuinely committed to their values.
- Single-Issue Voters on Social and Cultural Issues: Social and cultural issues such as abortion, religious freedom, and gun rights continue to drive a significant portion of the electorate. Trump’s open support for conservative values in these areas made him a stronghold for single-issue voters who saw him as the steadfast choice to protect their values. Many conservative voters, for example, felt that Trump’s Supreme Court nominations and stance on abortion were directly aligned with their own priorities. For these voters, his personal controversies were far outweighed by his commitment to conservative social policies, making him the clear choice to uphold what they view as American values.
- Media Influence and Distrust: One of Trump’s most powerful strategies was his ability to leverage distrust of mainstream media. Trump reframed media attacks on him as attacks on his supporters, fueling a sense of solidarity among his base. This loyalty insulated him from many controversies, as his supporters grew to see critical media coverage as biased or even malicious. For these voters, criticisms of Trump only strengthened their support, further fueling his base’s enthusiasm. This distrust toward traditional media allowed Trump to sidestep controversies that might have impacted a more conventional candidate.
- Embracing Non-Conventional Media to Amplify His Message: Trump took an innovative approach in reaching potential voters by embracing non-traditional platforms like podcasts and long-form discussions. Unlike many politicians who rely primarily on major networks or structured campaign rallies, Trump reached voters directly by appearing on popular podcasts across political and cultural spectrums, appealing to audiences that may not have tuned in to traditional news sources. These appearances allowed him to explain his positions in-depth, unfiltered, and in a style more conversational than combative. By adopting these formats, Trump expanded his reach and tapped into a diverse audience, resonating particularly with younger, independent voters who frequent these platforms and view long-form content as more authentic than sound bites.
What Trump Might Actually Do Right from a Global Perspective
- Strengthening Economic Ties Through Strategic Trade Agreements: Trump has historically favoured bilateral trade agreements over multilateral ones, aiming to secure deals that directly benefit the U.S. economy. His focus on “America First” trade policies may provide opportunities for revitalising manufacturing sectors, protecting intellectual property, and creating jobs domestically. By striking balanced, mutually beneficial deals with allies and emerging markets, Trump could not only bolster U.S. economic influence but also encourage fair trade practices worldwide. With strengthened economic ties, the U.S. would be positioned as a more stable partner for global trade, potentially fostering closer alliances and reducing dependency on single large economies like China.
- Addressing China’s Global Influence: Trump’s hardline stance on China remains a defining feature of his foreign policy approach. While his administration’s tariffs and sanctions against Chinese goods were met with mixed reactions, they underscored a commitment to countering what he perceives as China’s unfair trade practices, intellectual property theft, and regional aggression. Trump’s policies may encourage other nations to join the U.S. in adopting a more robust, unified stance against China’s economic monopolisation, especially in technology and infrastructure. A strong U.S.-led coalition could press China to adhere to fair trade standards, promoting a more balanced global economy and checking China’s expanding influence in regions like Africa, South America, and Southeast Asia.
- Encouraging Energy Independence and Technological Innovation: Trump has consistently advocated for energy independence, historically focusing on fossil fuels. However, this term offers an opportunity to expand into alternative energy sources. By supporting investment in renewables, nuclear power, and technologies like electric vehicles and carbon capture, Trump could position the U.S. as a global leader in sustainable energy solutions. Such advancements would not only reduce reliance on Middle Eastern oil but also create new avenues for global partnerships in clean technology. If Trump embraces innovation alongside traditional energy sources, the U.S. could drive a new era of sustainable economic growth and provide leadership in addressing global environmental concerns.
- Revamping NATO and International Defense Alliances: Trump has often been critical of NATO allies for not meeting their defense spending commitments, but his pressure has led to increased contributions from European nations. Continuing to push for fairer burden-sharing among NATO members could strengthen the alliance, making it more self-reliant and prepared to respond to security threats. By fostering a more balanced and capable NATO, Trump could also enhance global stability, reassuring allies in Eastern Europe and reducing dependency on U.S. military resources. This approach might help solidify the West’s collective defense stance, particularly as it navigates complex challenges like the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
- Potential Role in Ending the Russia-Ukraine Conflict: Trump has expressed intentions to broker peace between Russia and Ukraine, claiming he could bring both sides to the table for negotiation. While this claim is controversial, Trump’s unique relationship with Russia may enable him to leverage diplomatic channels that have remained closed to other leaders. If Trump were to adopt a balanced, pragmatic approach, he might help facilitate a ceasefire or peace talks, potentially de-escalating one of the world’s most destabilising conflicts.
- Engaging Israel and Middle Eastern Politics with a Pro-Israel Stance: Trump has a well-established record of being pro-Israel, with decisions like moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and recognising Israel’s sovereignty over disputed territories solidifying his support. His administration championed the Abraham Accords, which led to historic normalisation agreements between Israel and several Arab states. Given his close alignment with Israel, it’s likely that Trump would continue prioritising policies that bolster Israel’s security and economic interests.
However, there is a hope—especially among Arab Americans and Lebanese Americans with whom he has recently engaged—that he might adopt a more balanced approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Although Trump has yet to show significant interest in addressing Palestinian issues, his recent dialogue with Arab communities suggests that he may be open to listening to concerns from both sides. Convincing Trump to prioritise Palestinian welfare or advance solutions that improve Palestinian living conditions remains a challenge, yet there is cautious optimism that his outreach to Arab Americans may bring some degree of increased awareness.
- Shaping Middle Eastern Policy for Stability and Security: Beyond Israel, Trump’s approach to Middle Eastern politics could focus on stabilising countries like Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, where ongoing conflicts have weakened state structures and allowed terrorist groups to thrive. By fostering partnerships that promote economic aid and counter-terrorism efforts, Trump could encourage a more stable Middle East. His strong relationships with leaders in Saudi Arabia and the UAE could enable a more unified stance on issues such as combating extremism, countering Iranian influence, and supporting economic development initiatives in these nations. A strategically focused Middle Eastern policy could reduce threats to U.S. interests, decrease global oil price volatility, and stabilise a region that has long been a hotbed of conflict.
A Global Path Forward
While Trump’s policies are often divisive, he has the opportunity to shape a foreign policy agenda that reinforces American strength and addresses urgent global issues.
If executed thoughtfully, these efforts could foster a more secure, economically stable world order that aligns with U.S. interests and values.
Assembling a Better Team: Leveraging Expertise and Innovation
One of Trump’s key strengths during the campaign was his ability to galvanize a diverse set of influential figures—people who had previously been critical of him or had vastly different political perspectives. By uniting voices like JD Vance, Elon Musk, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Tulsi Gabbard, Trump built a coalition that appealed across a broad political spectrum, resonating with traditional conservatives, independents, and even disillusioned progressives.
JD Vance, once a vocal critic of Trump, became a powerful advocate for his agenda, bringing credibility and support from conservative grassroots. Elon Musk, a champion of free speech and unconventional thinking, found common ground with Trump’s anti-establishment messaging, aligning on issues such as government efficiency and economic innovation. Meanwhile, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., known for his strong views on public health and government transparency, became a valuable ally on issues like reforming the FDA and supporting alternative health perspectives. Tulsi Gabbard, a former Democrat and critic of interventionist policies, added to this coalition with her anti-establishment stance, attracting independents and moderates looking for a candidate willing to challenge traditional party lines.
Here are some ways he can benefit from assembling a powerful team;
- Driving Technological Innovation with Elon Musk: One of the most impactful choices Trump could make is involving visionary leaders like Elon Musk. Musk’s expertise across various tech sectors, from electric vehicles and sustainable energy to space exploration, could guide Trump’s administration in adopting forward-looking policies that position the U.S. as a global leader in innovation. With Musk’s insights, Trump could accelerate initiatives that support electric vehicle adoption, renewable energy infrastructure, and advancements in space technology, aligning economic growth with technological progress. By harnessing Musk’s unique ability to push boundaries, Trump could promote an agenda that not only benefits American industry but also addresses environmental challenges, driving the U.S. to lead in clean energy and high-tech innovation.
- Economic Policy Grounded in Fiscal Responsibility with Ron Paul: Another valuable addition to Trump’s team could be Ron Paul, known for his commitment to free-market principles and fiscal conservatism. Paul’s emphasis on limited government spending, low taxation, and personal economic freedoms could provide a balance to Trump’s more populist, pro-business approach. Paul’s influence could ensure that economic policies are sustainable, with an eye toward reducing national debt and preventing excessive government intervention. Including Paul in an advisory role would likely appeal to conservative voters who prioritise economic responsibility and small government, reinforcing policies that encourage entrepreneurship, reduce bureaucratic burdens, and maintain a focus on long-term fiscal health.
- Building a Cohesive Team for Global Impact: Beyond Musk and Paul, Trump’s administration could benefit from assembling a well-rounded team of strategists and defense experts to address complex global challenges. Advisors with expertise in diplomacy, cybersecurity, trade, and national security could help the administration navigate the intricacies of international relations. This cohesive approach could improve America’s reputation abroad and bolster its influence in global forums, creating a foreign policy strategy that is both robust and adaptable.
- Adapting to Shifting Global Dynamics: With a team of knowledgeable advisors from diverse fields, Trump could adapt to shifting global dynamics more fluidly. As the U.S. faces emerging challenges in areas like artificial intelligence, biotech, and data privacy, advisors such as Musk could inform policies on tech regulation, while experts in international law and ethics could ensure that American technological advancements align with global standards.
Final Reflections
In 2016, I wrote that democracy can surprise us, sometimes forcing us to confront truths we’d rather ignore. Today, I find that this lesson still holds.
While today I mourn, I also recognise that this loss is not the end. America’s future remains unwritten, and Kamala’s campaign—despite its outcome—has left an indelible mark.
Ifeanyi Abraham is a Global PR and Communications Strategist, Founder of The Diverse Business and Tech Summit, FindBlackExperts.com, TechSoma Africa and the Middle East, and Co-Founder of FindExperts
Feature/OPED
Nigeria’s Booming Growth Leaves Citizens Trapped in Deeper Poverty
By Blaise Udunze
With the chanting of the ‘Renewed Hope’, it appears to be Uhuru in Nigeria, following the recent World Economic Outlook presented by the International Monetary Fund, which projected that Nigeria’s economy would expand by 4.1 per cent in 2026. Though this specifically shows an economy faster than economies like the United States and the United Kingdom, as it handed the administration of President Bola Tinubu a powerful narrative. No doubt, the projection happens to be a narrative of progress, of reform, of a nation supposedly turning the corner after years of instability and setting the kind of moment that reassures investors, quiets critics and signals competence.
But once its statistical sheen is put aside, the weight of reality takes centre stage. The truth is, while Nigeria may be growing on paper, it is simultaneously shrinking and does not in any way reflect the lived experience of its citizens, as the populace can attest to. With the current lived experience, nowhere is this contradiction more glaring than in the widening gulf between macroeconomic projections and the daily economic suffering of over 200 million people.
The truth is uncomfortable, but it must be said plainly that a country where poverty is deepening, inflation is persistent, debt is rising, and basic survival is becoming more difficult cannot meaningfully claim economic success, no matter what the growth figures suggest.
The most damning evidence against the “fastest-growing economy” narrative, as enumerated by the Special Adviser to President Tinubu on Policy Communication, Daniel Bwala, comes not from opposition voices or political critics, but this time it is coming from the World Bank itself. Alarming to this is that according to its latest Nigeria Development Update, poverty in the country rose to 63 per cent barely months back, translating to roughly 140 million Nigerians living below the poverty line. This is not just a statistic; it is a humanitarian crisis unfolding in real time, which in a real sense calls for quick interventions.
Even more troubling is the trend. Poverty has not plateaued; it is accelerating, worsening and not stabilising at all. From 56 per cent in 2023 to 61 per cent in 2024, and now 63 per cent in 2025, the trajectory is unmistakable, as can be seen the data shows a clear upward trend over time that calls for concern. And projections from PwC suggest that the numbers will climb even higher, with an estimated 141 million Nigerians expected to be poor in 2026.
It would surprise many that these figures expose a fundamental contradiction; it is a total irony that an economy is growing while its people are becoming poorer, hence, while no one would hesitate to say that the type of growth taking place is flawed. Well, without jumping to a hasty conclusion, the answer lies in that growth. To say that the economic growth taking place is imbalanced, it is uneven, exclusionary, and not absolutely linked or largely disconnected from the sectors that sustain the majority of Nigerians. Growth driven by services and capital-intensive industries does little for a population whose livelihoods depend heavily on agriculture and informal enterprise. When growth bypasses the poor, it ceases to be development and becomes mere arithmetic.
The government’s defence often leans on the argument that inflation is easing and that reforms are beginning to stabilise the economy. But even this claim is increasingly fragile, as reported that the recent data from the National Bureau of Statistics shows that inflation has begun to rise again. This now shows that the headline inflation is ticking up to 15.38 per cent in March 2026, alongside a sharp month-on-month increase of 4.18 per cent. The pain Consumer Price Index climbed to 135.4, underscoring sustained pressure on household spending.
Another aspect that raises further questions is that the most critical component for ordinary Nigerians, which is the food inflation, skyrocketed to 14.31 per cent, with a similar month-on-month surge. It must be made known that these are not just numbers on a chart; they represent the escalating cost of survival, mostly for the common man. The ripple effect of this, which is yet to change, is that families are compelled to pay more for basic meals, more for transportation, and more for the essentials of daily life.
Noteworthy is that even when inflation showed signs of moderation in previous months, the fact is that it did little to reverse the damage already inflicted. The World Bank has been clear on this point when it said that household incomes have not kept pace with price increases. The underlying point is that the earlier spikes in inflation eroded purchasing power to such an extent that any subsequent easing has been insufficient to restore real income levels, and this is where the figures churned out were misleading.
This explains the inconsistency at the heart of Nigeria’s economy, where nominal indicators are improving, but real conditions are deteriorating. Nigerians are earning more in absolute terms but are able to afford less. This is further confirmed by data showing that while nominal household spending increased significantly, real consumption declined, while it would be said that people are spending more money, but they are consuming less. That is not growth; but the right word for it is economic suffocation.
The structural consequences of ongoing reforms compound the situation. The removal of fuel subsidies, which was the gift to Nigerians for electing President Tinubu and the liberalisation of the foreign exchange market were framed as necessary steps toward long-term stability. And in theory, they are defensible policies. But in practice, the result has been an extraordinary cost-of-living crisis, especially for the larger section of struggling Nigerians.
Speaking of the fuel subsidy removal, which has driven up transportation costs across the country, affecting both urban commuters and rural farmers, the pain has been further intensified by the geopolitical conflict in the Middle East. The second policy shift, which was the exchange rate liberalisation, has led to currency depreciation, with the experiences biting hard across the board, making imported goods more expensive and fueling inflationary pressures. These policy choices, which were perhaps deemed necessary, and without further ado have imposed immediate and severe burdens on households that were already vulnerable.
The International Monetary Fund has warned that these pressures are far from over. Rising global tensions, particularly in the Middle East, are pushing up the cost of energy, food, and transportation. For Nigerians, especially those at the lower rung in society, this translates into even higher living costs and deeper economic strain to contend with.
In this context, the government’s insistence on celebrating growth projections begins to appear not just disconnected, but insensitive. For millions of Nigerians, the economy is not an abstract concept measured in percentages. It is a daily struggle defined by whether they can afford food, transport, and shelter.
Compounding these challenges is Nigeria’s growing debt burden. Unexpectedly, public debt has climbed to over N159 trillion, with projections indicating a continued rise in the coming years because of the government’s appetite for borrowing. While the debt-to-GDP ratio may appear moderate compared to global averages, this comparison is totally misleading. The question is why the debt is ballooning when Nigeria’s revenue base is narrow, heavily reliant on oil, and constrained by a large informal sector that contributes little to tax income.
The current position of things is that debt servicing consumes a disproportionate share of government revenue, leaving limited fiscal space for investment in infrastructure, healthcare, education, and social protection, which has continued to expose the majority of Nigerians to untold hardship. It is a precarious position, one where the government is borrowing more while having less capacity to translate that borrowing into meaningful development outcomes, and the part that is also critical is that Nigeria’s rising debt profile is entering discomforting quarters, as concerns shift from the sheer size of borrowings to the growing risks associated with refinancing existing obligations.
Even more troubling are the emerging questions around fiscal transparency and governance. Only recently, there were allegations by Peter Obi on the missing N34 trillion in federation revenue that remains unaccounted. This, according to him, has intensified concerns about systemic leakages and institutional corruption. The fact is, even though these claims remain contested, they resonate deeply in a country where public trust in government financial management is already fragile and has remained a subject of discussion for many Nigerians.
The truth is that if even a fraction of such resources were effectively managed and invested, the impact on infrastructure, social services, and poverty reduction could be transformative, but this has yet to be embarked upon. Instead, the persistence of such allegations reinforces the perception of an economy where wealth exists but is inaccessible to the majority, which brings to bare if there will ever be a respite in a situation like this.
Adding another layer to this complexity is the excessive contradiction of oil revenue. With global crude prices that were once sold above $113 per barrel and currently hovering around $85-$90, which is still far exceeding Nigeria’s budget benchmark, the country stands to hugely benefit from a significant windfall, as was the case in the past. You know that history is more revealing than ever; it suggests that such opportunities are often squandered.
Analysts repeatedly have continued to warn that without disciplined fiscal management, these revenues may be absorbed by debt servicing or recurrent expenditure rather than being invested in productive sectors. The risk is that Nigeria once again experiences a boom without transformation, a cycle that has defined its economic history for decades.
Meanwhile, the irony in all of this is that, despite having plenty, every day Nigerian continues to bear the brunt of systemic inefficiencies. As the people bear the brunt, the country’s transportation costs are rising, food prices remain volatile, and access to basic services is increasingly strained, while the rural areas are not left out of the equation, as insecurity continues to disrupt agricultural production. This has further constrained food supply and driven up prices. In urban centres, the cost of living is pushing more households into financial distress.
The cumulative, as well as the ripple effects of these pressures, are a society under strain. Lest we mistake this, economic hardship is not just a financial issue; it has social and psychological consequences, while unbeknownst to many, its resultant effect fuels frustration, erodes trust in institutions, which also leads to fertile ground for instability.
What makes the current situation particularly troubling is the widening disconnect between official narratives and lived reality. There are two instances in which it was noted that, on the one hand, the government points to IMF projections and macroeconomic indicators as evidence of progress. On the other hand, citizens experience rising poverty, declining purchasing power, and limited opportunities. Another good example stems from when President Tinubu declared in September of last year that the federal government had met its 2025 non-oil income goal by August.
However, the former Minister of Finance, Wale Edun, stated that the Federal Government lacked sufficient funds to appropriately fund its capital budget during a public hearing at the National Assembly late last year. The minister stated that in order to pay the N54.9 trillion “budget of restoration,” which was intended to stabilise the economy, ensure peace, and create prosperity, the federal government had estimated N40.8 trillion in income for 2025.
These two reports sounded and appeared contradictory, and it was probably one of many factors responsible for the fallout.
This disconnect is more than a communication gap; it is a credibility crisis. When people’s lived experiences contradict official claims, trust erodes. And without trust, even well-intentioned policies struggle to gain acceptance.
The claim that Nigeria is growing faster than advanced economies may be technically accurate, and perhaps it must be seen as an absolute insult to Nigerians and it must be noted that it is fundamentally irrelevant to the country’s core challenges. This key fact must be taken into cognisance that growth rates, in isolation, do not capture the quality, inclusiveness, or sustainability of economic progress, and this is because they do not reflect whether growth is creating jobs, reducing poverty, or improving living standards. Note that in Nigeria’s case, the evidence suggests otherwise, in which the reality continues to dominate outcomes, and this is not the case.
For growth to be meaningful, it must translate into tangible improvements in people’s lives. At this point, it is necessary to understand that it must create jobs, raise incomes, and expand opportunities. Another important factor that must not be left out is that it must be inclusive, reaching not just the top tiers of society but the millions at the base of the economic pyramid. At present, Nigeria falls short on all these counts.
The path forward requires more than optimistic projections and reform rhetoric. It demands a fundamental rethinking of economic priorities. Policies must be designed not just for macroeconomic stability but for human welfare, and while investment must be directed toward sectors that generate employment and improve productivity, particularly agriculture and manufacturing. Social safety nets must be strengthened to protect the most vulnerable from economic shocks, which has yet to be considered by the government of the day.
Equally important is the need for transparency and accountability in public finance. Without trust in how resources are managed, even the most ambitious economic plans will struggle to gain legitimacy.
Nigeria is not lacking in potential, and this is one of the ironies of it all since it has a young population, abundant natural resources, and a dynamic entrepreneurial spirit. But potential, without effective governance and inclusive policies, remains unrealised.
The uncomfortable reality is that Nigeria is at risk of normalising a dangerous illusion, which connotes that growth on paper is equivalent to progress in practice. The truth is that it is not and cannot be contested. And until this illusion and deception are confronted, the gap between economic narratives and human realities will continue to widen.
In the end, the true measure of an economy is not how fast it grows, but how well it serves its people. By that standard, Nigeria’s current trajectory raises serious questions, take it or leave it. Because in a nation where over 140 million people live in poverty, where inflation continues to erode incomes, where debt is rising and where basic survival is becoming more difficult, the claim of being a “fast-growing economy” is not just misleading. Yes, it is a mirage!
And for millions of Nigerians struggling to get by each day, it is a mirage that offers no relief, no hope, and no future.
Blaise, a journalist and PR professional, writes from Lagos and can be reached via: [email protected]
Feature/OPED
Nigerian Opposition: What You Have to Do
By Prince Charles Dickson, PhD
“And Jesus said to Judas… what you are going to do, do quickly.”
There is a hard, almost rude lesson in that line. History does not wait for the timid to finish their committee meeting. Politics, especially Nigerian politics, is not kind to hesitation dressed as strategy. It rewards those who understand timing, nerve, structure, and the brutal arithmetic of power. That is where the Nigerian opposition now stands: not at the edge of impossibility, but at the edge of urgency.
The first truth is the one opposition politicians do not enjoy hearing at rallies where microphones are loud, and introspection is scarce. They are not getting it right. The evidence is not only in Tinubu’s strength, but in their own disorder. INEC said on February 5, 2026, that there were now 21 registered political parties and warned that persistent internal leadership crises within parties pose a serious threat to democratic consolidation. Eight days later, the commission formally released the notice and timetable for the 2027 general elections. In other words, this is no longer the season of abstract grumbling. The whistle has gone. The race is live.
Yet the opposition often behaves like students who entered the examination hall with righteous anger but forgot their pens. Too much of its energy is spent on lamentation, rumours, courtroom oxygen, personality feuds, and that old Nigerian hobby of mistaking noise for architecture. You cannot defeat an incumbent machine by forming a WhatsApp coalition of wounded egos and calling it national salvation. Voters may clap for drama, but they still ask the unromantic question: who is in charge, what is the plan, and why should we trust you with the keys?
Now comes the more uncomfortable truth. The opposition is not facing an ordinary incumbent. It is facing Bola Ahmed Tinubu, a man whose political DNA was forged in opposition. He is not merely benefiting from power; he understands opposition as craft, pressure, infiltration, timing, persistence, and theatre. In his June 12, 2025, Democracy Day speech, he taunted rivals by saying it was “a pleasure to witness” their disarray, while also reminding Nigerians that he once stood almost alone against an overbearing ruling machine. This was not casual banter. It was a warning shot from a politician who knows both the grammar of resistance and the machinery of incumbency.
That is why copying Tinubu’s old template will not be enough. Yes, the coalition instinct is understandable. In July 2025, major opposition figures, including Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi, aligned under the ADC banner, presenting themselves as a bulwark against one-party drift, with David Mark as interim chairman. But here is the problem: Tinubu’s own coalition history worked not simply because men gathered in one room and glared at the ruling party. It worked because there was a disciplined merger logic, state-level anchoring, message coordination, and a ruthless understanding of elite bargaining. What the present opposition sometimes offers instead is photocopy politics with low toner: a coalition of convenience trying to frighten a man who practically wrote the Nigerian handbook on political accommodation, defection management, and patient conquest.
This is also why the opposition’s moral complaint, though not baseless, cannot be its only language. Yes, concerns about democratic shrinkage are real. Tinubu himself publicly denied that Nigeria is moving toward a one-party state, even as defections from opposition parties to the APC intensified and his own party welcomed them. But to say “democracy is in danger” is not yet the same thing as building a democratic alternative. Nigerians do not eat constitutional anxiety for breakfast. They want a credible opposition that can protect pluralism and still explain food prices, jobs, security, power supply, transport costs, and what exactly it would do on Monday morning after taking office.
On the government’s side, the picture is mixed enough to make both triumphalism and apocalypse look unserious. Reuters reported this week that the World Bank expects Nigeria’s economy to grow by about 4.2% in 2026, with external buffers improving and the debt-to-GDP ratio falling for the first time in a decade. Inflation had eased to 15.06% in February from roughly 33% in late 2024. Those are not imaginary numbers, and any fair-minded analysis must admit that Tinubu’s reforms have altered the macroeconomic conversation. But the same report warned that the Iran war has pushed fuel prices up by more than 50%, with obvious consequences for transport, food, and household pain. Add the continuing insecurity, underscored again this week by the killing of a Nigerian army general in Borno, and the government begins to look like a man who has repaired the roof but left half the house still flooding. That is not a collapse. It is not a command either. It is a meandering reform under political stress.
So, what must the opposition do, and do quickly? First, it must stop making Tinubu the only subject of the campaign. Anti-Tinubu is not a manifesto. It is a mood. Moods trend; structures win. Second, it must settle leadership questions early and publicly, because no voter wants to hire a rescue team still fighting over the steering wheel. Third, it needs an issue coalition, not just an elite coalition. Security, inflation, youth jobs, electricity, federalism, and institutional reform must become a coherent national offer, not a buffet of press conference talking points. Fourth, it must build from the states upward. Presidential romance without subnational organisation is political karaoke: loud, emotional, and usually off-key by the second verse.
Fifth, it must look seriously at the legal terrain. The Electoral Act 2026 has made party organisation even more central. PLAC notes that the new law tightens party registration rules, removes deemed registration, expands INEC’s regulatory discretion, and preserves the fact that candidates still need political parties as the vehicle for contesting most elective offices because independent candidacy is not permitted. In plain language, parties matter even more now. A fragmented opposition is therefore not just aesthetically untidy. It is strategically suicidal.
Still, there are dangers in the opposite direction, too. A desperate anti-Tinubu mega-bloc could become a cargo truck of incompatible ambitions. If all it offers is the promise to defeat one man, it may reproduce the same habits it condemns once power arrives. Nigeria does not need a ruling party so swollen that democracy gasps for air. But it also does not need an opposition whose only ideology is turn-by-turn revenge. The health of democracy lies somewhere between monopoly and mob. It requires competition with content, not merely competition with bitterness. Tinubu himself, in that same June 12 speech, defended multiparty politics even while mocking the opposition’s disorder. That irony should not be wasted. He has thrown them both an insult and an assignment.
So, yes, the opposition is right to worry. But worry is not a strategy. Outrage is not an organisation. The coalition is not coherent. And history is not sentimental. The man they are up against is ruthless, seasoned, and intimate with the dark arts of democratic combat. He knows the game. Some of his opponents are still learning the rules from old newspaper cuttings.
Which brings us back to the scripture. What you are going to do, do quickly. Not recklessly. Not hysterically. Quickly. Settle your house. Name your purpose. Offer something fresher than recycled indignation. Build a machine that is not merely anti-Tinubu but pro-Nigeria in a way ordinary Nigerians can feel in their pockets and in their pulse. Otherwise, the opposition will keep arriving at battle dressed in borrowed armour, only to discover that the tailor works for the man they came to unseat—May Nigeria win!
Feature/OPED
The Digital Imperative for Women-Led Businesses in Nigeria
By Gloria Onosode
Nigeria is targeting an ambitious $1 trillion economy by 2030. To achieve this, women-led businesses must transition from mere passive observers to primary growth drivers at the heart of the economy and strategic participants in their respective industries.
According to the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), the increased ownership rate of MSMEs by women represents a significant contribution to economic growth and job creation. Digital empowerment for these enterprises must move from being a social responsibility or gender support initiative to contributing to broader economic development.
To reach the $1 trillion GDP milestone, women-led businesses must be positioned to operate at a macroeconomic scale. This requires moving beyond subsistence trading and into the digital value chain. For instance, a fashion designer in Aba, through digital positioning, can access broader markets and commercial networks and thereby facilitate better record-keeping and data-driven decision-making, supporting improved financial record-keeping, which may be considered in credit assessments by financial institutions.
FairMoney Microfinance Bank (MFB), a bank licensed and regulated by the Central Bank of Nigeria, contributes to the digital transitioning of small businesses in Nigeria by providing tools specifically designed for the realities of the Nigerian entrepreneur. For women, whose businesses often fluctuate with seasonal demands or family needs, the ability to protect and grow capital is paramount. FairMoney MFB offers features that empower women to move from informal ‘under-the-mattress’ savings to digitised interest-bearing savings products. By embracing digital transition, tech-based saving platforms can enable business owners to set specific goals, such as purchasing new equipment, saving towards business goals in a disciplined manner, while earning interest at applicable rates.
For that business owner who requires immediate liquidity, our flexible savings feature offers interest while allowing for withdrawal access that is subject to applicable terms and conditions to cover emergency restocks. For longer-term scaling, our fixed-term savings feature allows entrepreneurs to lock away funds for a fixed period and accrue interest based on product terms, subject to terms and conditions. By automating savings and providing interest at applicable rates, FairMoney MFB is designed to support financial planning and resilience over time for women-led SMEs.
Nigerian women are among the most entrepreneurial globally, consistently defying structural barriers to build enterprises from the ground up. According to the Small and Medium Enterprise Development Agency of Nigeria (SMEDAN), Nigeria has approximately 39.6 million nano, micro, small, and medium enterprises. Charles Odii, Director General at SMEDAN in 2024, also recently shared that approximately 72% of these enterprises are now classified as being owned or led by women. This is a significant jump from previous years, which hovered around 40–43%, largely due to the surge in ‘nano’ and ‘micro’ home-based businesses. These female-led enterprises are the primary engines of job creation and community stability.
Despite this drive, women entrepreneurs face a unique set of structural hurdles that stifle their ability to scale. The ‘financing gap’ remains the most formidable obstacle. The World Bank IFC Nigeria2Equal initiative reports that while Nigeria has one of the highest female entrepreneurship rates globally, the credit gap for these women is estimated at over 2.9 trillion Naira, forcing them into the ‘savings and family’ funding model.
The case for supporting these businesses extends beyond equity; it is rooted in the ‘multiplier effect’. Research demonstrates that women reinvest up to 90% of their income into their families and communities, specifically in education, healthcare, and nutrition. Supporting these enterprises is, therefore, a direct investment in Nigeria’s human capital. By bringing these businesses into the formal sector, the accuracy of economic planning will be improved. When a woman-led SME flourishes, the benefits ripple across the entire socioeconomic landscape.
The future of the Nigerian economy is intrinsically tied to the success of its women. When we prioritise women-led businesses, we are not merely fulfilling a gender quota; we can contribute to unlocking economic potential across sectors. By bridging the digital gap and providing robust financial tools for saving and credit to women-led businesses, Nigeria can begin to support the growth of micro-enterprises over time. A $1 trillion Nigeria is not just a dream; it represents a significant opportunity that can be progressively realised by the resilient women entrepreneurs of our nation.
Gloria Onosode is the Director of Enterprise Sales at FairMoney Business
-
Feature/OPED6 years agoDavos was Different this year
-
Travel/Tourism10 years ago
Lagos Seals Western Lodge Hotel In Ikorodu
-
Showbiz3 years agoEstranged Lover Releases Videos of Empress Njamah Bathing
-
Banking8 years agoSort Codes of GTBank Branches in Nigeria
-
Economy3 years agoSubsidy Removal: CNG at N130 Per Litre Cheaper Than Petrol—IPMAN
-
Banking3 years agoSort Codes of UBA Branches in Nigeria
-
Banking3 years agoFirst Bank Announces Planned Downtime
-
Sports3 years agoHighest Paid Nigerian Footballer – How Much Do Nigerian Footballers Earn
