Connect with us

Feature/OPED

Why Kamala Harris Lost and How Donald Trump Won: A Deep Analysis of the 2024 US Election

Published

on

donald trump kamala harris

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.

  1. 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;

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Feature/OPED

Nigeria’s Children Under Siege as Politics Trumps over Governance

Published

on

Tinubu Nigeria’s Children Under Siege

By Blaise Udunze

Chapter Two, Section 14 (b) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended) is explicit when it states that the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government.  Hence, by every standard, the welfare of Nigerians should be the first priority of the government. What would be said if the same government had failed on this path? Judging by this rhetorical question and series of unfolding events, indications have shown that Nigeria is drifting into a dangerous territory where politics increasingly overshadows governance, and the amazing part of it is that insecurity, poverty and social despair continue to consume the very foundations of the state.

Surprisingly, this is eventually playing out when millions of Nigerians expect leadership, empathy and decisive action, the political class appears preoccupied with permutations for 2027, coalition-building, defections, endorsements and electoral calculations. Meanwhile, criminals are expanding their territory.

The horrendous, tragic kidnapping of pupils, teachers and school workers in Oriire Local Government Area of Oyo State has become one of the most painful symbols of Nigeria’s deepening security crisis. Shamefully, it would be recalled that recently armed terrorists invaded three schools in Ahoro-Esinle and Yawota communities. Yes, this might not be the first time of abducting school pupils, but one thing that is more troubling in this case is that dozens of schoolchildren and teachers were abducted, as this includes toddlers barely old enough to understand what was happening around them.

Intently looking at the incident, one vicious act is that among those abducted were two-year-old Christianah Akanbi and three-year-old Sikiru Salami, who are also not exempt from the daily torture.

The horror became even more devastating when a video emerged confirming the gruesome murder of Michael Oyedokun. He was a Mathematics teacher who had simply gone to work on a Friday morning to educate Nigerian children. He never returned home. The life of a teacher, a father and a mentor was cut short when beheaded in captivity by terrorists in Nigeria in May 2026.

His death is not merely a tragedy for his family. But the harrowing experience is that it is an indictment of a nation that appears increasingly unable to guarantee the safety of its citizens.

Let us consider the recent attack in Oyo State; this is not an isolated incident. It is part of a growing pattern that demonstrates the alarming deterioration of security across the country. And this is one harrowing and traumatic situation that might continue to heighten fear in the southwest: barely days after the Oyo school abductions, gunmen invaded Yashikira in Baruten Local Government Area of Kwara State, attacked the Emir’s palace, set parts of it ablaze and abducted ten residents. Also, of great concern is that just days earlier, worshippers had been killed and others abducted from a prayer ground in the same state.

Worst still, these nightmares have been the lived realities confronting Nigerians across Benue, Plateau, Katsina, Zamfara, Borno, Niger and other states. Stories of killings, kidnappings and displacement have become routine headlines.

The frightening reality is that Nigeria is gradually normalising the abnormal. Schools are becoming targets. Highways have become theatres of terror. Farms have become killing fields. Communities are becoming refugee camps. And citizens increasingly feel abandoned.

What makes the situation even more troubling is the growing perception that governance has been subordinated to politics.

This is to say that it has become glaring that while communities mourn their dead and families desperately search for abducted loved ones, the “sorry” situation is that public attention at the highest levels of government often appears focused on political calculations ahead of the 2027 elections.

This perception gained further traction following the Oyo school abductions. Nigerians watched grieving parents cry on television. Videos emerged showing abducted teachers pleading for help from captivity. This has triggered a negative notion, as many citizens felt there was insufficient urgency from the federal authorities in responding to one of the most horrifying school attacks in recent years.

Leadership is not measured only by policies and speeches. It is measured by empathy, responsiveness and the ability to assure citizens that their pain matters.

Section 14(2)(b) of Nigeria’s Constitution leaves no room for ambiguity. It states clearly that the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government. Not politics. Not elections. Not defections. Not coalition building. Security and welfare.

Unfortunately, many Nigerians increasingly believe that the priorities of government no longer reflect this constitutional obligation. The consequences extend far beyond security. The educational sector is becoming one of the biggest casualties of the country’s security collapse.

The vicious incidents have brought the society to a standpoint whereby parents who once worried about examination results now worry whether their children will return home alive from school. Meanwhile, teachers who have continued to work tirelessly and still should be focused on learning outcomes are increasingly forced to think about survival.

One glaring adverse impact from all these abnormalities is that school enrolment in vulnerable communities is likely to decline as parents choose safety over education.

The long-term implications are frightening because the fact is that every child denied education today becomes a future economic liability. Every school abandoned due to insecurity creates another generation vulnerable to poverty, extremism and social exclusion. Every teacher lost to violence weakens Nigeria’s human capital.

Another aspect that is more of concern is that the abduction of children from schools represents more than a security challenge, but this is a thorough attack on Nigeria’s future. Perhaps the most heartbreaking and horrendous aspect of these attacks is the psychological damage inflicted on children. It must be established beforehand that when rescued, many victims may never fully recover from the trauma. This could be linked to, especially to the screams, the gunshots, the confusion, the separation from parents and the terror of captivity.

With the recent and past occurrences, without any iota of doubt, such experiences often leave invisible wounds that endure for years. Considering that the children who should be learning multiplication tables and nursery rhymes are instead learning fear.

The real question is, can a nation that cannot protect its children confidently speak about its future? Never! Emphatically, it should be understood that beyond education, insecurity is fueling a broader socio-economic epidemic.

Nigeria is already grappling with one of the worst affordability crises in its history, which also depicts the continued governance complacency. Talking of the removal of fuel subsidy and exchange rate liberalisation, inflation has eroded purchasing power, while food prices, transportation costs, rents and utility bills continue to soar, and worse off is the skyrocketing price of cooking gas.

Yet insecurity is making the crisis even worse. Farmers cannot access their farmlands. Harvests are disrupted. The country has witnessed the rural economies collapsing heavily. The resultant effect is that food production has continued to decline, and supply chains are increasingly vulnerable. The result is predictable because the simple arithmetic is that higher food prices, worsening hunger and deeper poverty.

The level of security collapse has shown that many northern farming communities, bandits now function as parallel authorities, imposing levies and determining who can farm and who cannot. This directly impacts food availability in urban centres hundreds of kilometres away.

Thus, insecurity is no longer merely a security problem; the truth is that it has become an economic problem, which is developmental, educational, and humanitarian. And ultimately, a governance problem.

The inability to effectively confront insecurity also raises difficult questions about institutional capacity.

As public affairs commentator Leonard Umunna recently observed, weak institutions produce weak outcomes. Corruption, poor accountability and ineffective governance structures have collectively undermined the state’s ability to deliver security and development.

Some of the terrifying truths Nigerians must take into cognisance are that when institutions become compromised, citizens lose confidence. Also, when accountability disappears, impunity flourishes, as the same applies when governance fails, criminality fills the vacuum. One truth that cannot be argued is that the vacuum is becoming increasingly visible across Nigeria.

The irony being experienced today in Nigeria is that while political actors are preparing intensely for 2027, the very foundations required for democratic stability are being eroded.

The terror and anxiety are definitely obvious, and the fact is that democracy cannot thrive in an environment of widespread fear.

Citizens who cannot travel safely, farm safely, worship safely or send their children to school safely are unlikely to have confidence in democratic institutions.

Perhaps, some ought to translate these messages to those at the helm of affairs in Nigeria that security is the foundation upon which every other national aspiration rests. And, without security, economic reforms become ineffective. Without security, educational investments become vulnerable. Without security, foreign investment declines. Without security, national unity weakens. Also, another underlying fact is that without security, democracy itself becomes fragile.

The well-known truth, which is quite unfortunate today, is that Nigeria’s challenges are not insurmountable because the country possesses the manpower, resources and institutional structures necessary to reverse the tide.

What appears lacking is the political will, urgency and strategic focus required to confront the crisis comprehensively.

This moment demands more than condolences after attacks. It demands intelligence-driven operations. It demands stronger coordination among security agencies. It demands improved local intelligence networks. It demands accountability. It demands institutional reforms. Most importantly, it demands leadership that places governance above politics.

As Nigeria inches toward another election cycle, political leaders must recognise a simple truth, and that truth is that there may be little value in winning elections in a nation increasingly overwhelmed by insecurity, poverty and social fragmentation.

The pursuit of political power cannot become more important than the survival of the republic itself. The death of Michael Oyedokun should haunt the conscience of the nation. So should the tears of Christianah Akanbi. So, should every parent be afraid to send a child to school? So should the pain of every community living under the shadow of terror. Nigeria is at an intersection; it has reached a tough moment where important and critical decisions must be made.

One path leads to deeper insecurity, educational decline, economic hardship and national instability. The other requires courage, responsibility and a renewed commitment to governance. The choice should not be difficult.

For if politics continues to take precedence over governance, the greatest casualty may not be any political party or administration. It may be Nigeria itself. The country is redeemable, and there is still hope for a better Nigeria.

Blaise, a journalist and PR professional, writes from Lagos and can be reached via: bl***********@***il.com

Continue Reading

Feature/OPED

Facing the Reality of Inflation in Everyday Life

Published

on

Timi Olubiyi Reality of Inflation

By Timi Olubiyi, PhD

Currently, many are passing through one of the most difficult times due to inflationary pressures. From transportation to food, electricity, healthcare, school fees, rent, and communication, the rising cost of living has altered the daily experience of millions of households. What used to be considered necessities have now become luxuries for many families. Across the country, the average citizen is under enormous pressure to survive amid worsening inflation, shrinking purchasing power, and economic uncertainty.

While inflation is a global phenomenon, the Nigerian experience has become particularly severe because of the combined effects of fuel subsidy removal, exchange rate volatility, high transportation costs, insecurity in food-producing regions, and weak wage growth. The reality of petrol selling at nearly N1,400 per litre in some parts of the country has significantly changed household economics and business sustainability. The consequences are visible everywhere in markets, offices, homes, schools, hospitals, and on the streets.

In practical terms, transportation fares have more than tripled in many cities within a short period. Food inflation has equally become alarming. Bread, eggs, cooking gas, yams, tomatoes, beans, and other staple foods continue to rise beyond the reach of average Nigerians. Electricity tariffs and telecommunications costs have also increased, while rent in urban centres keeps climbing. Unfortunately, salaries and wages have not kept pace with these realities. This is perhaps the greatest crisis confronting workers and small business owners today. Many employees still earn wages negotiated several years ago under entirely different economic conditions. Yet the value of those salaries has been severely eroded by inflation. In real terms, many workers are poorer today despite remaining employed.

The truth is that the salary structure available now can no longer effectively support decent living standards for many households. Even professionals with stable employment now struggle to meet basic obligations. Civil servants, teachers, artisans, small traders, entrepreneurs, and even middle-income earners are feeling the weight of the economic squeeze.

For many families, survival now depends on borrowing, reducing consumption, postponing healthcare, or sacrificing savings and investments. More troubling is the psychological effect of this prolonged hardship. Economic pressure is increasingly and significantly affecting mental health, marriages, productivity, and social stability.

Anxiety, frustration, depression, anger, and emotional exhaustion are becoming common experiences among citizens trying to survive difficult conditions. Difficult times and hardship often fuel marital conflicts, domestic tension, and reduced emotional well-being. In workplaces, economic uncertainty lowers morale, concentration, and productivity as employees struggle to cope with transportation costs, food, and other basic needs.

In fact, many people now live permanently in survival mode, uncertain about what tomorrow may bring. Businesses are equally under pressure. Rising operational costs continue to threaten sustainability, especially for small and medium-scale enterprises. Diesel prices, transportation costs, imported raw materials, electricity bills, taxation, and weak consumer spending have reduced profitability across many sectors. Several businesses have downsized operations, reduced staff strength, or shut down completely. Others remain in operation but merely struggle to survive.

Consequently, the era when a single salary could comfortably sustain a family is gradually disappearing in Nigeria. One of the clearest lessons from the current economic climate is that relying solely on one source of income has become increasingly risky. Economic realities now require individuals and households to think beyond traditional salary structures and embrace income diversification. In fact, multiple streams of income are no longer optional; they are becoming a necessity for financial survival and resilience. Families that depend entirely on one monthly salary are highly exposed to economic shocks, inflation, job loss, or business disruptions. The harsh reality is that even regular employment no longer guarantees financial security.

Therefore, Nigerians must begin to intentionally explore additional income opportunities that can complement existing earnings. This does not necessarily mean abandoning primary jobs or businesses, but rather creating alternative sources of income that can provide support during difficult times. Technology and digital platforms have made this more possible than ever before. Social media, e-commerce, freelancing, online consulting, digital content creation, virtual training, and remote services now offer opportunities for additional income generation.

Many professionals can monetise their knowledge, experience, or talents through side engagements without compromising their primary employment. In a way, passive income opportunities such as agriculture, cooperative investments, real estate, dividend-paying stocks, mutual funds, and small-scale trading can help cushion economic shocks over time. Land acquisition, for instance, remains one of the most reliable long-term stores of value in Nigeria despite current economic challenges. Assets that appreciate over time can provide financial protection against inflation. More so, living below one’s means may no longer be a matter of choice but a practical necessity under present realities. The culture of excessive social competition and pressure to maintain appearances despite declining income can worsen financial stress. Economic survival today requires financial honesty, discipline, and strategic planning.

In conclusion, the current economic realities in Nigeria demand a shift in mindset, financial behaviour, and survival strategies. Fuel at N1,400 per litre is not merely an energy issue; it affects transportation, food prices, school fees, healthcare costs, business operations, and overall quality of life.

Inflation has redefined daily living for millions of Nigerians. Therefore, building multiple streams of income, improving financial literacy, embracing prudent spending, and investing for the future are no longer luxury ideas but necessary responses to economic realities.

The truth is simple: depending solely on salary income in today’s Nigeria may no longer be sufficient for financial stability. The earlier households adapt to this reality, the better positioned they may be to survive and thrive despite the challenges ahead. Good luck!

How may you obtain advice or further information on the article? 

Dr Timi Olubiyi is an expert in Entrepreneurship and Business Management, holding a PhD in Business Administration from Babcock University in Nigeria. He is a prolific investment coach, author, columnist, and seasoned scholar. Additionally, he is a Chartered Member of the Chartered Institute for Securities and Investment (CISI) and a registered capital market operator with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). He can be reached through his Twitter handle @drtimiolubiyi and via email at dr***********@***il.com for any questions, feedback, or comments. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author, Dr Timi Olubiyi, and do not necessarily reflect the views of others.

Continue Reading

Feature/OPED

Nigeria’s Booming Banks And A Collapsing Economy

Published

on

CBN Gov & new Bank logo(1)

By Blaise Udunze

Nigeria’s banking industry appears to be booming, largely driven by the policies of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), under Governor Olayemi Cardoso, while the real economy continues to suffocate.

At a time when millions of Nigerians are sinking deeper into poverty, when inflation continues to erode household incomes, when businesses are collapsing under unbearable operating costs, and when migration has become a survival strategy for many young professionals, Nigerian banks are announcing staggering profits, stronger capital positions and unprecedented liquidity growth.

According to the bank’s financial statements, the financial system appears healthy. In reality, the economy where citizens work, trade and survive is gasping for breath.

This growing disconnect between financial sector prosperity and economic suffering now represents one of the gravest threats to Nigeria’s long-term economic stability and its ambition of building a $1 trillion economy.

The numbers are indeed impressive. Nigerian banks’ shareholders’ funds reportedly surged to about N27 trillion following the recapitalisation exercise. The top five banks now command balance sheets estimated at over N164 trillion. Tier-1 banks collectively generated trillions in profits within the first quarter of 2026 alone, while the sector-wide recapitalisation exercise raised over N4.56 trillion.

Ordinarily, such figures should inspire confidence about the future of the economy. Stronger banks are expected to translate into stronger businesses, more jobs, industrial expansion and wider economic opportunities. But Nigeria’s experience is proving otherwise.

Instead of serving as engines of productive growth, banks are increasingly becoming custodians of liquidity trapped within the financial system itself. That is the real danger.

Even as banking liquidity expands sharply, lending to the productive economy remains weak and constrained. Reports indicate that banks parked a record N24.13 trillion with the CBN, while simultaneously increasing investments in government securities and treasury bills because these avenues are safer, more profitable and less risky than lending to businesses operating within Nigeria’s harsh economic climate. This reality exposes a dangerous contradiction.

A developing economy desperately in need of industrialisation, manufacturing growth, infrastructure expansion and job creation cannot afford a banking system that prefers financial safety over productive economic risk.

A sustainable economy cannot thrive where the real sector is starved of funds. Yet this is exactly where Nigeria now stands.

Despite the massive liquidity in the banking system, growth in lending to the private sector continues to lag behind the pace of liquidity expansion. The implication is clear. Financial sector strength is no longer translating into real economic development. This is not how healthy economies function.

Ordinarily, banks in developing economies are expected to operate as catalysts for economic transformation. Across successful economies, commercial banks finance manufacturing, agriculture, innovation, infrastructure and entrepreneurship because those sectors generate jobs, productivity and national wealth.

Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs), especially, are globally recognised as the backbone of grassroots economic development. Nigeria is no exception.

SMEs account for over 70 per cent of registered businesses, contribute nearly half of Nigeria’s GDP and generate between 84 and 90 per cent of employment opportunities. Yet despite their overwhelming importance, SMEs reportedly receive barely between 0.5 per cent and one per cent of total commercial bank lending. That is not merely a policy failure. It is an economic tragedy.

Every denied SME loan is a denied employment opportunity. Every failed business represents another frustrated entrepreneur. Every frustrated entrepreneur becomes another Nigerian contemplating migration.

This is how economic dysfunction transforms into human displacement. The so-called “Japa” phenomenon did not emerge in isolation. It is deeply connected to economic hopelessness. When productive citizens lose faith in their country’s economic future, migration stops being a lifestyle choice and becomes a survival mechanism.

Unbeknownst to the policymakers is that Nigeria cannot realistically build a $1 trillion economy while productive sectors remain financially suffocated.

A closer glance at the trend of events helps to reveal that the danger becomes even more severe when viewed against the backdrop of the recent outcome of the 305th Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) meeting, where the CBN retained the Monetary Policy Rate (MPR) at 26.5 per cent in its bid to sustain disinflation and macroeconomic stability.

It is understandable and certain that inflation control is important, but the fact is that at 15.69 per cent, inflation remains painfully high and continues to weaken purchasing power. Food prices remain elevated. Transportation costs remain unbearable. Consumer demand is weakening. The middle class is shrinking rapidly.

But maintaining elevated interest rates also comes with painful consequences. Simple arithmetic tells us that higher interest rates mean higher lending costs. Higher lending costs mean higher production costs. Higher production costs worsen inflationary pressures and weaken business survival rates.

Invariably, this also tells us that for Nigerian manufacturers and corporates already battling a weak naira, volatile exchange rates, expensive diesel, energy insecurity and declining consumer demand, access to affordable credit is becoming almost impossible.

Many businesses are no longer borrowing to expand production or employ workers. They are borrowing merely to survive. This is economic suffocation.

Meanwhile, banks continue to profit massively from high-yield government securities and treasury investments. Reports indicate that major Nigerian banks generated over N6.68 trillion from investment securities and treasury bills instead of financing productive enterprises capable of stimulating growth and employment.

The government’s appetite for borrowing itself shows no sign of slowing down. Public borrowing reportedly climbed above N39 trillion. Historically, excessive government borrowing crowds out private sector investment because banks naturally prefer lending to the government rather than exposing themselves to risks associated with businesses operating in unstable economic conditions.

The result is predictable. The real sector weakens while speculative and non-productive financial activities flourish. This explains why Nigeria increasingly resembles a financial system disconnected from the realities of ordinary citizens.

While banks celebrate rising profits, poverty and hunger worsen visibly across the country. Unemployment continues to rise. Small businesses are dying quietly. Household purchasing power is collapsing under inflationary pressure.

Yet the financial system appears more liquid than ever. That contradiction should alarm policymakers. The recapitalisation exercise itself now raises difficult questions.

What exactly is the purpose of stronger banks if stronger banks do not strengthen national productivity?

If recapitalisation merely empowers banks to deepen investments in government debt instruments while manufacturers, farmers, exporters and SMEs remain starved of affordable credit, then the exercise risks becoming financially impressive but economically hollow.

Indeed, the current monetary environment appears to reward financial conservatism over productive risk-taking.

The stringent Cash Reserve Requirement (CRR), elevated interest rates and broader macroeconomic uncertainty continue to discourage aggressive lending to the private sector. Banks understandably seek safety. But nations do not industrialise through excessive financial caution.

No economy develops when capital circulates primarily within treasury bills and government securities instead of flowing into factories, farms, logistics, housing, innovation and production.

This is the larger danger confronting Nigeria today. Economic crises rarely begin with recession statistics alone. Sometimes, they begin when financial institutions become detached from the suffering realities of the wider economy. They begin when growth exists only within banking balance sheets but disappears from households, factories and streets.

Without productive credit expansion, economic growth becomes artificial and exclusionary. Without affordable financing, businesses cannot scale. Without business expansion, jobs cannot emerge. Also, it must be noted that without jobs, insecurity, poverty and migration inevitably worsen. The implications for social stability are enormous.

One painful fact is that citizens already burdened by inflation, debt pressures and widespread distrust now face a system where economic opportunities continue shrinking despite apparent financial sector prosperity. One of the lurking dangers is that this deepens resentment, weakens confidence in institutions and threatens long-term economic cohesion.

The CBN’s inflation fight may be necessary, but monetary stability alone cannot substitute for productive economic expansion. Financial stability without inclusive growth eventually becomes unsustainable.

The real economy matters more than banking optics. Nigeria urgently needs policies that incentivise real sector lending, reduce structural risks facing manufacturers and SMEs, strengthen credit infrastructure, lower production bottlenecks and redirect liquidity toward productive economic activity.

As a matter of fact, it is high time for Nigeria to start rethinking the growing dependence on debt-driven fiscal management that continues to crowd out private investment. Development cannot occur when government borrowing consumes the financial oxygen needed by businesses.

Ultimately, banking profitability should not become an isolated island of prosperity surrounded by a collapsing productive economy.

A nation cannot celebrate trillion-naira banking profits while millions of citizens sink deeper into economic despair. No society sustains such a contradiction indefinitely.

If Nigeria truly hopes to build a resilient and inclusive economy, then the banking sector must once again become a vehicle for national development rather than merely a beneficiary of government debt and monetary tightening.

Otherwise, the country risks creating a contradictory economy where banks grow richer while citizens grow poorer and where financial prosperity exists only on paper while economic hardship defines everyday life.

Blaise, a journalist and PR professional, writes from Lagos and can be reached via: bl***********@***il.com

Continue Reading

Trending