Part 2
The ‘Nigeria’ President Tinubu Inherited: Separating Political Narratives from National Reality
By Gloria Fraser, MFR
Opening Reflection
Every President inherits two nations. One exists in campaign speeches and political expectations. The other exists in government files, economic data and institutional realities. The first is shaped by hope; the second by history. Only when those two nations are understood together can any President be judged fairly.
On 29 May 2023, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu stood before Nigerians and took the oath of office amid enormous expectations. Millions expected immediate solutions to rising living costs, unemployment, insecurity and a struggling economy. Supporters saw the beginning of a new era. Opponents questioned whether meaningful change was possible. Both were united by one reality: Nigeria urgently needed answers.
Yet history reminds us that no President begins with a blank sheet of paper.
Every administration inherits decisions already taken, debts already accumulated, institutions already shaped and structural challenges that have evolved over many years. Governments make choices, but they also inherit the consequences of choices made by those who came before them. That is why serious historians rarely judge a leader by promises alone. They first seek to understand the nation that leader inherited.
This principle is particularly important in Nigeria’s case.
The country President Tinubu inherited was not a failed state. Nor was it a nation without hope. It remained Africa’s largest economy by gross domestic product, home to one of the continent’s most dynamic entrepreneurial populations, an expanding technology sector, globally recognised creative industries and immense agricultural and mineral resources. Nigerian banks had established a significant presence across Africa, while the country’s youthful population continued to demonstrate extraordinary resilience and innovation despite difficult circumstances.
These strengths were real.
But so too were the structural weaknesses that had gradually accumulated beneath them.
For decades, Nigeria had struggled with an economy heavily dependent on crude oil revenues, despite repeated commitments to diversification. Government revenue remained relatively low compared with the country’s development needs, while rapid population growth increased demand for schools, hospitals, infrastructure, housing, electricity and employment. Public expenditure expanded, but national needs expanded even faster.
The economy therefore carried two conflicting stories.
One was the story of remarkable potential.
The other was the story of persistent structural imbalance.
That imbalance was visible in many sectors. Manufacturers struggled with high production costs driven by unreliable electricity and expensive logistics. Farmers, particularly in some food-producing regions, faced growing security challenges that affected agricultural output. Businesses encountered foreign exchange constraints and policy uncertainty. Infrastructure development continued but often lagged behind the demands of a rapidly growing economy. These were not new problems created in 2023. They had developed gradually across successive administrations, each solving some challenges while leaving others unresolved.
Perhaps the greatest misconception in Nigerian political debate is the assumption that national problems begin with the administration currently in office. History suggests otherwise.
Economic conditions are cumulative. They are shaped by years of policy decisions, global economic trends, demographic pressures, institutional strengths and institutional weaknesses. By the time one President leaves office, many of the conditions that will confront his successor have already taken shape.
That was the reality confronting President Tinubu.
He inherited an economy with enormous potential, but one that had also reached a point where many economists believed that difficult structural decisions could no longer be postponed indefinitely.
The significance of that inheritance cannot be overstated.
It provides neither an excuse for future shortcomings nor an automatic justification for every subsequent policy. It simply establishes the context within which those policies must be understood.
History has always insisted upon context before judgment.
Nigeria deserves no less.
Understanding the circumstances President Tinubu inherited is not an attempt to transfer responsibility to previous administrations. Democracies do not function by allocating blame indefinitely. Every elected government must ultimately accept responsibility for the decisions it makes. Yet neither do democracies serve themselves well by ignoring context. Fair judgment requires an honest understanding of where a nation stood before a new administration assumed office.
That distinction is important because public debate often confuses inherited challenges with newly created ones. Inflation, exchange-rate pressures, rising debt obligations, declining public revenues relative to national needs, infrastructure deficits and insecurity did not emerge on 29 May 2023. They were the product of long-term structural weaknesses that had accumulated over decades, even as successive governments made genuine efforts to address different aspects of them.
President Tinubu therefore inherited an economy standing at a crossroads.
One path offered temporary political comfort through the continuation of familiar policies. The other required confronting long-standing distortions whose correction would almost certainly impose immediate hardship. Neither path was free of consequences. The real choice was whether Nigeria should continue postponing difficult decisions or begin addressing problems that many economists had warned were becoming increasingly unsustainable.
This is where politics and economics often diverge.
Politics naturally rewards short-term popularity. Economics frequently demands long-term discipline. The decisions that prove most beneficial over time are not always those that are most popular at the moment they are taken. History offers countless examples of leaders who paid a significant political price for reforms later recognised as necessary, just as it records governments that postponed difficult choices only to leave even greater burdens for their successors.
That does not mean every difficult decision is automatically the correct one.
Nor does it mean every reform will succeed simply because it was well intentioned.
Reforms are not validated by courage alone. They are validated by results.
Supporters of President Tinubu’s programme argue that Nigeria had reached a stage where structural reforms could no longer be delayed without exposing the economy to even greater risks. Critics respond that the pace of implementation imposed severe hardship on households and businesses already under pressure. Both perspectives deserve careful consideration because each highlights a different aspect of the national interest.
The real test, however, lies beyond the arguments.
If the reforms strengthen public finances, attract productive investment, expand agriculture and manufacturing, improve infrastructure, create sustainable employment and ultimately raise living standards, history is likely to judge them differently from contemporary political debate.
If they fail to produce those outcomes, history will be equally unsparing.
That is why this series does not ask readers to suspend criticism or embrace unquestioning optimism. It asks something far simpler and far more demanding: that the reforms be assessed fairly, with evidence rather than emotion, and with an appreciation of the conditions that made them necessary in the first place.
Every generation reaches moments when difficult choices can no longer be postponed. The Nigeria President Tinubu inherited was approaching such a moment. Whether the decisions taken since then will ultimately transform the nation’s trajectory remains a question that only time can answer. But no serious assessment of those decisions can begin without first understanding the circumstances that produced them.
The Final Word
History rarely judges leaders by the problems they inherited. It judges them by the courage, wisdom and discipline with which they confronted those problems. President Tinubu did not choose the Nigeria he inherited; he chose how to respond to it. Whether that response ultimately succeeds will be determined not by today’s political passions but by tomorrow’s measurable results. History, as always, will deliver the final verdict.
Food for Thought
“Leadership is not tested when circumstances are favourable. It is tested when difficult realities leave no easy choices.”
THE NATIONAL PATRIOTS.
The National Patriots believe that every administration should be judged fairly, with due regard for the circumstances it inherited and the results it ultimately delivers. Nigeria’s future depends not on political narratives but on honest leadership, courageous reforms, strong institutions and measurable improvements in the lives of ordinary citizens.
Princess Gloria Adebajo-Fraser MFR.
Former Special Adviser to Former President Goodluck Jonathan GCFR.
