A Glorious Exit: The Good, the Bad, and the Buharian (2)
What is glorious about the exit of a Head of Government as President Muhammadu Buhari?
Despite the 8 positive achievements of the Buhari government in 8 years (2015-2023), do the negative metrics not outweigh the positive?
Let’s see.
If one took a cursory look at the trend(line) of the Fragile States Index (FSI), Mr Buhari firmed up the state apparatus more than his predecessors.
Everything seems not so bad with President Buhari's performance as Nigeria’s Head of State if one ignores these 3 facts:
the high state fragility score of 98 out of a maximum fragility score of 120 in 2023,
the fact that Nigeria currently ranks as the 15th most fragile state among 179 countries,
and the fact that the fragility score worsened by 0.80 points in 2023 compared to 2022.
This hasty observation would make only these 3 good points apparent:
Nigeria’s high state fragility levels were reduced in 5 of Buhari’s 8-year tenure and increased only in 3 of the 8 years.
In the past 5 years (during Buhari’s tenure), the fragility index reduced by 1.9 points
That in the past 10 years (8 of which were during Buhari’s tenure), the fragility index reduced by 2.7 points
Yet a thorough assessment shows that the Nigerian state was worse during the 8 years of Muhammadu Buhari as the Head of State than in the past 17 years under review.
Buhari is leaving the Nigerian State more fragile than the average levels in 17 years, and worse than 2 of his 3 predecessors.
Within the Obasanjo years (2006-2007), the average aggregate state fragility score was 95.0. For Yaradua (2007-2010), the average aggregate was 97.8. And for Jonathan (2010-2015), the average aggregate score increased further to 100.7 points.
However, the average aggregate of all the Presidents (2006-2023) is 99.1 points.
Mr Buhari mishandled the Nigerian state worse than the already bad average levels, with a higher fragility score of 99.6 points.
In essence, President Muhammadu Buhari’s performance, as the Head of State between 2015 and 2023, is worse than all the 3 previous presidents combined.
Why is this the case?
Could it be that Muhammadu Buhari’s bad leadership qualities outweigh his good leadership qualities?
To weigh his bad markers against the good, let’s see details of the 8 things Buhari worsened in his 8 years in office.
1. The Buhari Administration mismanaged the Nigerian Economy more than any other in the past 17 years
The Muhammadu Buhari-led government showed its greatest incompetence in economic management. It heightened the levels from 7.6 in 2015 to 8.8 in 2023.
Whether pre or post-COVID-19 pandemic, the country was steered by the poorest team of economic managers since 2006.
According to the Fund for Peace, the Economic Decline Indicator reviews the performance of a country with regard to the following:
patterns of progressive economic decline of the society as a whole as measured by per capita income, Gross National Product, unemployment rates, inflation, productivity, debt, poverty levels, or business failures.
sudden drops in commodity prices, trade revenue, or foreign investment, and any collapse or devaluation of the national currency.
the Government’s responses to economic conditions and their consequences, such as extreme social hardship imposed by economic austerity programs, or perceived increasing group inequalities.
illicit trade, including drug and human trafficking, capital flight, or levels of corruption and illicit transactions such as money laundering or embezzlement.
2. Buhari’s government worsened the security situation in the country leading to increased refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs)
The Refugees and IDP indicator measures “the pressure upon states caused by the forced displacement of large communities as a result of social, political, environmental or other causes,” according to the Fund for Peace.
These pressures include inadequate governmental spending for the settling, security, and welfare of the refugees and IDPs.
This could in turn lead to congestion in the camps, an outbreak of diseases and epidemics, a surge in the number of unemployed people, and new waves of crime by and against the displaced persons.
During the Buhari Administration, government officials severally attributed a new wave of crime, kidnappings, and killings in the country to the influx of unsettled people from neighbouring countries north of the country.
There were also many reports of mistreatment of IDPs, sexual abuse of women and exploitation of children among the IDPs. This includes blocking aid and relief materials to refugees and IDPs, and bombing of IDP camps, among other violent treatments of civilians severely affected by conflicts.
All these build up immense social, economic and political pressure on the state, alongside other disturbing demographic pressures that characterised the Buhari years.
3. Under Buhari’s watch, Demographic Pressures increased to disturbing levels
Demography pressures describe pressures associated with the structure of the population in a country.
“The Indicator considers demographic characteristics, such as pressures from high population growth rates or skewed population distributions, such as a “youth or age bulge,” or sharply divergent rates of population growth among competing communal groups, recognizing that such effects can have profound social, economic, and political effects,” the Fund for Peace notes.
To understand the enormity of the problem Buhari allowed to degenerate, the following are details of the Fund for Peace’s measurement of the demographic pressure sub-index:
Population
Population Growth: Is the population growth rate sustainable?
Population Distribution: Is the current and projected distribution reasonable?
Population Density: Is population density putting pressure on areas of the state?
Infant Mortality: What is the infant mortality rate – actual and projected?
Orphan Population: Is there a high orphan population?
Public Health
Disease Control: Is there a system for controlling the spreading of diseases or pandemics?
Disease Epidemics: Is there a high likelihood or existence of diseases of epidemics?
HIV Aids: What is the rate of spread of HIV Aids cases—most recent and projected?
Food and Nutrition
Food supply: Is the food supply adequate to deal with a potential interruption?
Drought: Is there are high likelihood of droughts or is there currently a drought?
Starvation: Is there a short-term food shortage that needs to be alleviated?
Malnutrition: Are there long-term food shortages affecting health?
Resources
Resources: Does resource competition exist and are there laws to arbitrate disputes?
Land competition: Does land competition it and are there laws to arbitrate land disputes?
Water Supply: Is there access to an adequate potable water supply?
Environment
Environment: Do sound environmental policies exist and are the current practices sustainable?
Likelihood of Natural Disasters: Is a natural disaster likely, or recurring?
Impact of Natural Disasters: If a natural disaster occurs, is there an adequate response plan?
Deforestation: Has deforestation taken place or are there laws to protect forests?
4. Buhari looked on as human rights records surpassed that of his predecessors combined
While Buhari struggled to manage human rights abuses that peaked under his watch, the level of abuses the people suffered, whether they survived or were smothered, exceeded the average levels of abuses suffered under Buhari’s predecessors.
The average human rights abuse score during the Obasanjo, Yaradua, and Jonathan governments was 8.2 points. Buhari exceeded that with an 8.6 points average during his 8 years.
Buhari maintained his hold on the state apparatus through several cases of human rights abuse, ranging from attacks on the judiciary, stifling of the civic space through indiscriminate bans on social media, disregard for court injunctions, attacks on the press and incarceration of voices of dissent and other non-political civilians.
A case in point was a gentleman that was arrested because he named his beloved dog Buhari.
5. Factionalised Elites
The trend in the factionalised elites sub-index shows that Nigeria is a very diverse but divided country. Yet, it is hard to clap for Buhari for spending 8 unbroken years to drive these divisions further towards the precipice.
The issues Buhari failed to respond to and the underlying questions he evaded, as set by the Fund for Peace, are these:
Representative Leadership
Leadership: Is leadership fairly elected? Is leadership representative of the population?
Fragmentation: Are there factionalized elites, tribal elites and/or fringe groups? How powerful are they?
Political Reconciliation: Is there a political reconciliation process?
Representation in Military: Is the military representative of the population?
Identity
National Identity: Is there a sense of national identity? Are there strong feelings of nationalism? Or are there calls for separatism?
Extremist Rhetoric: Does hate radio and media exist?
Stereotyping: Is religious, ethnic, or other stereotyping prevalent and is there scapegoating?
Cross-Cultural Respect: Does cross-cultural respect exist?
Resource Distribution
Concentration of Wealth: Is wealth concentrated in the hands of a few?
Growing Middle Class: Is there a burgeoning middle class?
Control of Resources: Does any one group control the majority of resources?
Resources Distribution: Are resources fairly distributed? Does the government adequately distribute wealth through its tax system and taxes?
Equality and Equity
Law: Are the laws democratic or extreme?
Representation in Judicial System: Is the system representative of the population?
6. Poor Public Service
Clearly, Nigerian presidents need to do a better job at public services.
From the regime of Obasanjo to Yaradua’s, from that of Jonathan to Buhari, the people endured poor public services beyond the 80th percentile.
Going by the Fund for Peace’s metrics, this is what the public service ratings of Buhari mean:
Buhari failed woefully and worse than his predecessors in providing healthcare, education, housing, and infrastructural services to the people. On top of that, he promoted inequality of access to these public services.
7. Overall, President Buhari failed more than he succeeded compared to previous Presidents
President Muhammadu Buhari failed in his service to the country than the average performance of the 3 previous Presidents - Olusegun Obasanjo, Musa Yaradua, and Goodluck Jonathan put together.
Buhari’s aggregate average fragile states score for the period 2015 to 2023 is 99.6 while the average from 2006 to 2023 is 99.1 (where the worst possible global fragile state score is 120).
Though Buhari now leaves the country less fragile than Goodluck Jonathan left it, he could not match the performance of Obasanjo and Yaradua (Jonathan scored 100.7, the worst and highest fragile states index point of the 4 Presidents).
Yet, if Yaradua’s 2 years before his demise are added to Jonathan’s 6 years, to make up the possible 8 years of his former boss and then compared with Buhari’s 8 years, Buhari’s full 8-years of wasted opportunities would become more obvious.
In that case, Yaradua-Jonathan’s 8 years would end up with a score of 99.3 which as poor as it is, still outperforms Buhari’s poorer performance of 99.6 (where the worst global fragile state score is 120).
8. THIS IS IT: When President Buhari’s office wants to fail in one thing, it fails higher than it succeeds in another
This sums up the debate about how good or bad President Muhammadu Buhari’s glorious exit on May 29, 2023, is.
His bad markers are bolder than his good markers.
To reduce Human flight and Brain Drain by 0.51 points, President Buhari stoked up Nigerians’ economic adversity by 0.72 points.
When he reduced economic inequality between the poorest and the poorer Nigerians by 0.44 points, he kept watch over the gruesome killings of peasants and wayfarers, over kidnappings for ransoms of school children, peasants, and lukewarmly rich persons that resulted in a surge in refugees and internally displaced Nigerian families by 0.55 points.
When he supported improved electoral processes that reduced disputes about state legitimacy by 0.29 points, he supervised higher demographic pressures by 0.43 points.
And when he reduced the grievance of certain groups by 0.19 points, he fostered human rights abuses by 0.21 points.
Yes, President Buhari indeed reduced the need for external intervention by 0.11 points but fanned the embers of discord among ethnic elites, and regional and religious leaders, so that the gulf between their followers in various ethnic and religious groups widened by 0.12 points.
Lastly, he traded off reducing threats to State Security by increasing poor public services equally by 0.08 points.
In the end, our lives as mortals in the family, in the office, and in this life would be weighed on the same balance - the good against the bad.
How about you having a score like Mr Muhammadu Buhari’s has in an office he sought with tears and occupied for 8 years?
Whatever we think, remember “perspective is all”, And the gentle grandfather has begged for forgiveness of all.
While many of us would never face the public scrutiny Muhammadu Buhari faces today, Mr Ahmed Bola Tinubu should remember that he would not be as lucky as that.
Posterity begins to weigh how bad and good Tinubu’s entry and exit will be from 12 noon on May 29, 2023.
See you on the good side of the weights next week!