Hello.

If you’re here from TikTok, hellloooooo. I’m so glad you decided to read more.

If you’re not from TikTok- if you’re just part of the Substack family- then welcome. This is the Civic Textbook by Sonma.

I have decided to stand against political and social ignorance in Nigeria. And Civics Class is my instrument of war.

Every Wednesday, I teach on TikTok. This Substack is the textbook. It’s where we go deeper. Where the class continues after the video ends.

So grab a new notebook and a pen.

Get comfortable.

Civics Class is here.

INTRODUCTION

There’s no denying that there are a lot of problems in Nigeria. Corruption, Misappropriation of funds, unfair justice system, Insecurity, loss of human rights. Nigeria is at a point where some might refer to it as a failed state. Numerous Nigerians attribute the country’s crisis to several factors especially tribal and religious disparity. What if I told you that tribalism and religious wars are not causes of Nigeria’s crisis. What if I told you they are evidence?

What if I told you that this was exactly what Nigeria was designed to be. That Nigeria is fulfilling its original purpose.

The reason why we misdiagnose when it comes to Nigeria is because we ignore the country’s precolonial and colonial past in analyzing its successes and failures. This does not rid statesmen of their involvement in the crisis. Instead, it provides context to the attitude of the government and public.

What I'm trying to say is that Nigeria- the Royal Niger Company was created to fail.

The issue is that I, that WE, are citizens of the company and if we can come together and educate ourselves, WE can rewrite fate.

ONCE UPON A TIME

Once upon a time, we didn’t exist.

Nigeria was nothing but a selfish dream from a British elite made real. The Igbo, Yoruba, Hausa, Bini people, and over 300 other ethnic groups lived independently. The only relationship we had with each other was limited to business transactions.

The Igbo operated a decentralised egalitarian society where everybody had a say. Every family was represented by their first son. Every first son was represented by the oldest male in the extended family. Every extended family was represented by the oldest in the clan. The oldest in every clan came together to form the “heads” of the community.

The Yoruba and Hausa practised monarchical systems of governance. The Hausa kingdom was more centralised than the others, as it had been under Muslim rule since the conquest of Usman dan Fodio in 1804.

The colonisation of these groups happened in different ways and forms. The most popular was indirect rule- where the British governed through traditional rulers. Indirect rule was imposed in various ways.

In the North, it was a complete success because of the already established central system of governance. In the West, it was partially successful. The conquest of the Oyo Empire meant easier access to the rest of Yoruba land due to the empire’s influence. However, the British benefited from the decline of the Oyo Empire and internal divisions among the Yoruba, not just a single conquest. In Igbo land, it was a total failure because of decentralisation. The Igbo had no kings.

After the conquest of Arochukwu in 1902, the British still faced resistance from individual Igbo communities through the early 1900s. The famous Aba Women's War came in 1929.

Other groups in Nigeria were captured through conquest, treaties, or commercial agreements.

SOMETIME IN 1914

Sometime in 1914, Nigeria became.

On the 1st of January 1914, the colony and protectorate of Nigeria was created through the merger of the North and South protectorate. This was the amalgamation by Lord Frederick Lugard, who would become the first governor of Nigeria (He had previously been governor of the Northern Protectorate). This administrative decision was made in Britain, discussed and decided by British officials without consulting the tribes involved in the merger. This decision, amongst many, was economically driven. The North protectorate had a budget deficit and the south had a surplus. The idea was to use the money from the south to subsidize the north. This is still a politically sensitive point in modern Nigeria. You don't need to dwell on it, but it's worth noting that this point has been debated. Some argue it's simplified, but it's the standard historical account. Administrative ease was also another motivating factor. They were able to combine projects, railways, imports and exports, and rule both colonies as one. The name Nigeria was suggested by British journalist Flora Shaw (who would later become Lugard’s wife) back in 1897. Despite the fact that the north and south had different educational systems, legal background, cultures, traditions and beliefs, they were to become one country. In the years that followed, this decision would create a country ridden with tribal, religious, and identity crises.

ANOTHER TIME IN 1960

Another time in 1960, Nigeria gained her independence.

Nigeria was GIVEN her independence. The difference between a country that gained independence and one that was given independence would be discussed in later classes.

Nigeria was now a country. However, its independence was limited to a flag change, anthem change and governance by its own people. Nothing else changed. Ethnic groups stuck with each other. Colonial institutions and systems left in place.

The economy still served foreign interests. This was possible through neocolonial dependency. Nigeria still produced and exported raw agricultural materials for Western nations. The global prices were set by these nations so they would buy raw materials at cheap prices and resell finished goods to Nigeria at much higher prices. Early post-independence currency was tied directly to the British pound, binding monetary stability to foreign financial policies.

The fabric of governance was severely weakened by inter-tribal conflict and the desire to attain positions to fulfill personal and tribal goals. There was no “Nigeria for Nigerians” but “Nigeria for Igbos, Yorubas or Hausas”. Political candidates campaigned with their tribal affiliations and voters cast votes based on tribal or religious affiliation instead of focus of the country’s growth. This was visible in the First Republic. Parties were often regionally and ethnically based. The ethnic divisions created or sharpened under colonial rule didn't disappear. They were now the foundation of the new country.

We did not inherit a country. We inherited a company . And we were the workers.

FROM 1960-2026

From 1960-2026, the development of Nigeria has experienced a downward slope. From an exchange rate of 0.55 Nigerian naira to one dollar in 1960, to 105 naira to a dollar in 2002, to 305 naira to a dollar in 2016, it is finally at 1,340 naira to a dollar in 2026. Just as the economy, every other aspect of the Nigerian state has gone downhill.

When I say Nigeria was never meant to be a flourishing country, It might seem like I'm less patriotic or I hate the country. However, the history of Africa’s colonization and the patterns in Africa’s colonial governance is evidence for this argument.

There is a famous speech by Lee Kuan Yew, the first prime minister of Singapore, in which he said something uncomfortable: African countries might never succeed. His reason was simple. They lacked the one trait every stable state is supposed to have: homogeneity. African states, he argued, were not nations in the true sense. They were collections of different ethnic groups, with different beliefs, different languages, different traditions, and different loyalties, forced into one territory by colonial powers who drew borders without consulting the people inside them. The social forces inside such a state were enormous. Too enormous for weak institutions to manage.

Under colonial rule, there was a kind of order. But that order did not come from unity. It came from domination. The British held together different groups by treating them all as subjects. Whatever differences existed were secondary because everyone was under the same colonial boot. But when that boot left in 1960, the old differences returned. Except they didn’t return as they once were. They returned harder. Sharper. More political.

THE CREATION OF TRIBAL CONSCIOUSNESS

Tribal consciousness, as we understand it today, is not ancient. It is modern.

Before colonial rule, people had ethnic identities, yes. But those identities were local, fluid, and often secondary to other forms of belonging such as family, village, trade, religion. The idea that every Igbo person, everywhere, was part of one unified “Igbo nation” was not inevitable. The idea that every Yoruba person shared a single political destiny was not ancient. These identities were sharpened under colonial rule and after it. In Rwanda, the Belgians formalized the distinction between Hutu and Tutsi. They issued identity cards. They favoured one group over the other. That division did not create the genocide alone, but it gave it a structure. The same colonial logic played out across Africa in different ways.

In Nigeria, the term “Yoruba” as a broad ethnic identity only began to take shape in the 19th century, and it was first used by Anglican missionaries. Before that, people identified more as Oyo, Egba, Ijebu, Ekiti, and so on. The colonial encounter consolidated those smaller identities into a larger one.

Similarly, in the 1950s, an Igbo leader named B.O.N. Eluwa travelled throughout Igbo land to convince different communities that they were all “Igbo.” Before that, many of those communities did not see themselves as one people. The idea of a unified Igbo identity had to be taught.

And what of being “Nigerian”?

That idea is even newer. According to historian Thomas Hodgkin, everyone recognises that the notion of being Nigerian is a new kind of conception. It was not something people grew up knowing. It was something they had to be convinced of. And in many ways, they are still being convinced.

TYING IT TOGETHER

If Nigeria was created as a colonial convenience, sharpened by indirect rule, assembled without consent in 1914, and handed independence without structural change in 1960, then the crises we face today are not interruptions in our development. They are the continuation of a design. The economic dependency, the ethnic competition, the weak institutions, the elite capture, these are not failures of an otherwise sound nation. They are the logical outcomes of a country built on division and extraction. Once that is understood, the conversation shifts from asking “why is Nigeria like this?” to asking “what system are we actually operating inside, and how do we change it?”

WHAT’S THE WAY FORWARD

In a lecture by Nnamdi Azikiwe, he argues that tribalism can be a tool for national unity. He acknowledges the inevitable prejudice that would occur in a heterogenous society due to tribal affiliations.

When members of the human race congregate in an environment, they tend to be parochial at the initial stage, only to become cosmopolitan later. The factors responsible for their parochialism are mainly ethnic, but those responsible for their cosmopolitanism are ethical and sociological

His thesis is that, despite the initial occurrence of ethnic loyalties, it would change overtime if people are happy. The only way the happiness of people can be guaranteed is through the protection of their individual liberties.

I deduce from this following position that human beings will attach less importance to their racial, linguistic and cultural origins, so long as as their individual liberties are insulated from tyranny and their group attachment is insured from want, provided that the environment is one which their life is conducive to human happiness.

According to Zik, human happiness is an abstract that can be made tangible through its relation to satisfying the needs of man. This can be achieved through different frameworks : Capitalism, Socialism and Welfarism. Whether the practice of any framework is sufficient to attract the allegiance of racial, cultural and linguistic groups depend on the rigidity or flexibility of such guarantees, the temperament of the people concerned and the calibre of leaders.

In all, Azikiwe’s formula for solving tribalism is to figure out a framework that protect the individual liberties of the people so well that they wouldn’t have to seek protection or belonging with members of their “tribe” because they receive the “belonging” from the country men regardless of tribal affiliation.

“The key to solving the problem of tribalism is to discover the circumstances which can be superimposed on natural chains of language or culture, which have linked the people in Nigeria, to enable them to develop a feeling of personal security and group preservation under changed but permanent circumstances”

What Zik is saying is simple: if the state protects people well enough, tribe becomes secondary. People don't cling to their ethnic group because they hate other groups. They cling because they are looking for safety. If the nation can give them that safety, the tribe loses its power.

CONCLUSION

Nigeria is not a nation that keeps failing despite its potential. Nigeria is a colonial structure that continues to function exactly as it was built to function. The amalgamation created a territory, not a people. Independence changed the flag, not the system. And the political class has managed that system ever since, not to serve citizens but to preserve the arrangement. Until Nigerians understand this, the country will continue to reproduce the same crises in new forms. Civics Class is not about complaining. It is about learning the system well enough to refuse it.

SEE YOU NEXT WEDNESDAY. TOODLES.

AUTHOR’S NOTE

This is an opinion essay. I am thinking out loud about what leadership means in a world where power often triumphs over principle. It is not exhaustive. It is a starting point.

What does it mean to be an “effective” political leader in a world rife with conflict, inequality, and injustice? Is it simply about protecting borders and advancing national interests, or is there a deeper responsibility to humanity that transcends power and politics?

I sat for a few minutes, reflecting on what the true benchmark for effectiveness might be. Initially, it seems simple: a political leader is effective when they protect the state, safeguarding the lives and properties of its citizens. Simple, right? Wrong.

Consider this: millions of Palestinians and Ukrainians are dead or homeless, yet the justification for such horrendous acts remains the same, “to protect the lives and interests of the citizens of the states of Israel and Russia, respectively.” Does this make the political leadership in both countries effective? To some, yes. To others, no. In my opinion, absolutely not. Until someone proves that every single person in these countries is content with being the reason why others lose their jobs, their families, and even their lives, my stance remains unshaken.

Planet Earth, in all its glory and ruin, comprises 198 countries, each represented by a “statesman” or “stateswoman” tasked with protecting and advancing the will of the state. Together, these nations form a union known as the United Nations, an organization dedicated to maintaining international peace and security through cooperation and friendly relations. Since all member states agreed to this pact, the responsibility of every leader extends beyond their borders. It becomes their duty to contribute to the peace and security of the world and everyone in it.

Yet, the most unimaginable violations of human rights have taken place in countries like Syria, Palestine, Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Haiti. Do such acts reflect effective leadership? Certainly not. These leaders, and even the leaders of nations who support or tolerate such atrocities, have failed to fulfill their responsibilities. After all, they signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, didn’t they? Emphasis on the word “universal.” So, is it not time we broaden our understanding of what makes a leader effective? Should we continue to assess leadership using criteria limited by national borders?

From a broader perspective, the effectiveness of a political leader lies in their ability to foster a political culture that ensures societal harmony, both within their state and beyond. A leader is not separate from the political system they operate within. In truth, the system is the leader, shaping their actions, decisions, and priorities. This raises an even bigger question: what political system is best suited for achieving global and national stability?

Renowned political philosophers have pondered this question for centuries, offering diverse and often conflicting perspectives. Immanuel Kant believed that a leader must act in accordance with moral principles, promoting peace and security. Niccolò Machiavelli cancelled that claim out, asserting that morality must be second to power and consolidating power only. Thomas Hobbes believed that humans are naturally selfish and chaotic, requiring a centralized authority to keep them in check. John Locke contradicted this, arguing that humans are rational and reasonable beings who only need a leader to protect their natural rights, no tyrants required. Plato argued that the best leaders are philosopher-kings, the wise ones who govern for the good of the state. Jean-Jacques Rousseau proposed that true stability comes from the general will, where decisions reflect the collective decision of the people, not the rule of a few elites. Aristotle proposed a balanced government, monarchical, aristocratic, or democratic, as the key to a stable society. Karl Marx believed that such systems perpetuate inequality and that a classless society breeds true stability. John Stuart Mill suggested that a leader’s effectiveness is tied to their ability to promote individual liberty and freedom of expression. Friedrich Nietzsche opposed this, asserting that liberty and freedom make a leader weak; the most effective leader, he argued, is one who rises above the masses with extraordinary will and vision.

Without doubt, all of these great minds contradict themselves. Every single section of the guideline for political leadership meant for the present time contradicts itself. Some believe in the rule of elites, some in tyranny, some in democracy, and some call for the dissolution of systems and structures to create a classless society.

One might think, “These are just differing opinions and advice given by philosophers to fix the government and society of their time. How is it supposed to affect us today?”

Yes, they were just pieces of advice written down and published, at the time, often considered “mere” public opinion. The problem is that these “opinions” have come together to form a repertoire of guidelines that is supposed to effect change in today’s society. 198 different countries, all claiming to work together to achieve global change, have adopted different parts of this “guide,” all claiming to practice “democracy.” Some believe the words of John Stuart Mill and actually give their citizens the right to public opinion. Others cling to the beliefs of Friedrich Nietzsche, stripping humans of every basic right. Some nations have held onto “Hobbesian” beliefs that require the state to give all its rights to a supposed “Leviathan,” which explains the 24-year rule of a certain Syrian tyrant. On the other hand, some nations are entrenched in Machiavellian beliefs: “do anything to protect your state interest, even if it means violating the rights of innocent human beings.” How else do we explain the fairy tale a former US president used as an excuse to get into Iraq? Even more so, the folklore carefully crafted by another president to utterly destroy Libya.

As a result, we live in a world where stability in one region often means instability in another. While some eagerly await new phone models, others dread them. Children in one part of the world add gadgets to their Christmas wish lists, while children elsewhere are overworked to produce the resources that make those dreams possible. When every nation at the UN votes for a ceasefire in Gaza, one nation nullifies it with a “veto.” Meanwhile, Afghan women’s rights are eroded, and leaders respond by attending lavish meetings with top security, offering words but no action.

The effectiveness of a leader has been boxed to what happens within the state, not their actions concerning foreign relations.

An effective leader listens to the voices of their people and acts on them. They protect the rights not just of their citizens but of all humanity. They foster fair trade with other nations and do not advocate for others’ rights by flying to meetings in luxury private jets. They recognize that not everyone is privileged to live in a stable state and strive to extend help where needed. They understand the value of healthy competition and never justify genocide or war crimes with fabricated narratives. They defend their citizens but resort to war only when all dialogue has failed. Above all, they prioritize human lives over intangible “state interests.” True leadership is measured not by power or borders, but by the humanity it preserves and uplifts.

In a world shaped by power struggles and global inequalities, can true leadership ever rise above self-interest?

The answer is no. Not because leaders are incapable of morality, but because the system itself rewards self-interest. Until the rules of the game change, leadership will remain what it has always been: power dressed up as principle.

10K on TikTok. What the hell.

Let me put this into context.

At the beginning of this month, I had 737 followers.

Today? 10,000.

Ten thousand actual human beings, bloodclat humans, who decided they want to listen

to me rant about political theory, about Nigeria, about the things that make me angry

and curious and hopeful.

I didn’t think anybody would want to hear it. Not like this.

And now there are ten thousand of you. I love y’all so much.

To celebrate, I made you something. It’s small, but it’s from me.

It’s called A Beginner’s Guide to Thinking Deeply.

How I read. How I take notes. Where to start.

But if I’m being honest, there is a method. It’s simple, and it works. And it’s the reason I can sit in front of a camera and explain ideas without losing my mind.

This guide is that method.

It’s not a shortcut to being smart. It’s not a hack. It’s a practice on how to read actively,

take notes that actually mean something, and start thinking deeply about the world

around you.

Use it. Adapt it. Make it yours.

And if it helps, come back and tell me what you’re reading.

PART 1: How to Read

Most people read to finish. That’s the mistake. They want to say “I’ve read 50 books this year.” But finishing is not the goal.

Understanding is.

How I read:

1. I follow curiosity, not curriculum. I don’t read because someone said I should. I

read because something is itching in my brain and I need language for it. If a topic

doesn’t interest you, don’t force it. Find the one that does.

2. I read with a pen. Always. Underline. Circle. Write in the margins. Argue with the

author. If a sentence hits me, I stop and mark it. Reading without a pen is just

looking at words.

3. I ask one question constantly: What is this explaining right now? If I can’t connect

what I’m reading to something real, a current event, a pattern in my life, something

happening in Nigeria, then it stays abstract. And abstract ideas don’t move people.

4. I read slowly. I’m not racing. I’m trying to understand. One page understood is

worth more than ten pages skimmed.

Part 2: How to Take Notes

I don’t have a fancy note-taking system. I have a pen and a brain.

What I actually do: I write in my books. Underline. Circle. Argue in the margins. If a sentence hits me, I mark it immediately. I ask questions while reading. Not “what does this mean?” but “what does this explain right now?”

I pull one quote per chapter. Not ten. One. The line I can’t stop thinking about.

I write a reaction, not a summary. Not “this chapter was about X.” But “this chapter made me think about Y.

The rule: If I can’t explain what I just read in two sentences, I didn’t read it, I just looked at words. You don’t need a perfect notebook or a system. You need to stop reading passively. Read with a pen. Talk back to the book.

Part 3: How to Think

Reading is input. But thinking is what you do with it.

My process:

1. Main point. What is the central argument?

2. Supporting argument. What backs it up? Theory? Evidence? Logic?

3. Example. Where does this show up in real life? For me, usually Nigeria.

4. Main point again. Circle back so it sticks.

That’s the structure behind every video I make. It’s not magic. It’s just a way of organising thought.

Part 4: Where to Start

These are the books and essays that shaped how I think. Don’t rush. Start with whichever category pulls you most, and read with a pen.

Domestic & Global Politics

The Wretched of the Earth - Frantz Fanon (colonialism, violence, and the

postcolonial state)

Neo-Colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism - Kwame Nkrumah (why

independence didn’t mean freedom)

The Political Order of Changing Societies - Samuel P. Huntington (how political

stability and change actually work)

Capitalism, Socialism & Democracy

Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy - Joseph Schumpeter (how capitalism evolves,

and whether it can survive)

A Brief History of Neoliberalism - David Harvey (why the rich got richer and the

state stopped caring)

The Communist Manifesto - Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels (the classic. read it, argue

with it, understand it)

Feminism & Racism

Feminism is for Everybody - bell hooks (why feminism isn’t what you think)

The Will to Change - bell hooks (men, patriarchy, and emotional illiteracy)

Sister Outsider - Audre Lorde (race, gender, and the power of speaking your truth)

Black Skin, White Maska - Frantz Fanon

Tribalism & Religion

The Trouble with Nigeria - Chinua Achebe (a short, sharp diagnosis of tribalism,

corruption, and leadership)

The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins (a critique of religion, read it even if you

disagree)

The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism - Max Weber (how religion shapes

economic behaviour and culture)

If You Only Read Five

1. Pedagogy of the Oppressed - Paulo Freire

2. The Wretched of the Earth - Frantz Fanon

3. The Trouble with Nigeria - Chinua Achebe

4. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy - Joseph Schumpeter

5. Sister Outsider - Audre Lorde

Final Word

You don’t need to be a genius to think deeply. You need to be curious, patient, and willing to sit with an idea long enough to understand it.

Start small. Read one thing. Write one note. Ask one question. That’s how it starts.

And when it does, come back and tell me what you’re reading.

Once again, Thank you for being a part of this family. Toodles

If you want to download : https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/mobile/my-drive?pli=1

I’m a product of two Nigerian medical doctors. Having parents who constantly complain about reading shouldn’t come as a surprise. Growing up, my father forced us to do virtually everything. He had our days planned, always made breakfast before work according to his own meal plan. He would always call by 11am to make sure we had taken cornflakes with canned liquid milk, by 12pm to verify if we’d drunk Ensure and by 3pm to make sure we had eaten eba and the designated soup for lunch. He gave us our reading tasks for the day, came back home from work to have personal math lessons with us after the lesson sessions with the private tutor he hired. He would speak every single day about consistency and how crucial a routine was. Most frequently, he went on about the importance of being well-read. He forced us to read books every single day. My father was present. I used to wish he wasn’t. Frankly, I never cared. I would chew the cornflakes raw and lie that I took it with the milk. I would throw the breakfast in the bin if it was too much. I would force my younger brother to drink my Ensure and eba for lunch was substituted for noodles. I would lie that I satisfied my daily reading task and make deals with my lesson teacher to sign his attendance for him if he didn’t want to show up. I failed every single math exam up until my last day of high school.

The only thing I was consistent at was GOSSIP. Oh, how I loved gossip. At the time, it wasn’t necessarily gossip to me. It was the one channel that provided me friends. People didn’t like me as much, and being the youngest and frankly, underage in high school did not help matters. Everyone wanted to hang out with their mates, people they could relate to. While girls had reached the point in their lives where they cared in detail about their looks and bunched up in groups to discuss the seniors they were dating, I was a child who honestly couldn’t relate by reason of my age. Any senior who was going to date an 11-year-old SS1 student was nothing but absolutely weird. So the only way I would be listened to was if I had something interesting to say. The only interesting thing that could come out of a child’s mouth was gossip about someone else. That was my “get a friend” formula. In addition, I wanted to know everything about everyone. My definition of a solid friendship was a certain one, and certainty is only present when you feel comfortable enough to share anything with me.

My turning point wasn’t anything grand. It was a sunny evening, around 4pm on Saturday. We were all in my parents’ room telling on our schoolmates, discussing who got flogged on judgement day (a day when all students who had below a 50-point average are punished). My uncle came in and the issue of politics and tribalism sprang up. My uncle and father were arguing the superiority of the Igbo tribe. Their evidence was rooted in the ability of the Igbos to build up from nothing after the loss of the Biafra war, despite their only reparation being 20 pounds from the government after they had lost their properties. My father proceeded to tell us about the Aburi Accord — how all the leaders met in Aburi, Ghana, and the then-military head of state, Yakubu Gowon, unknowingly signed a confederacy for Nigeria (he wasn’t lied to, he just didn’t know what confederacy meant). On his way back to Nigeria, he was told what it truly meant for the central government, so he receded. He refused to go through with the plan and then the Igbos decided to secede and created BIAFRA. That was what led to the genocide of the Igbos. Three million people. Dead. And the world turned away. The entire world turned their backs on the deaths of Igbo people until one white man decided to set himself on fire in front of the UN headquarters with a placard that said to free the Igbo people. That was when they all decided to interfere. What it meant was that the life of one white man was equal to the lives of over three million Igbo people. After that evening, all I remember thinking was: “Damn, that’s a good story. I must tell everybody.”

I did exactly that. I went back to school and in a government class, I told the story like I was there when it happened, adding extra lines to spice it up. The reception was wonderful. The teacher thought it was impressive. He asked me how I knew, and I said that I had read it. That “I read a lot.” I was the example for the class that day on how we need to know our history, and the only way to be smart is to read. “I mean, look at the way Sonma instantly knew what I was talking about.” I had the brightest smile on my face. After the class, I told the story to any ear that bothered to listen. Any group I met, I shared with them wisdom from my intelligent self. The reception amongst students was even better. Maybe it was my storytelling skills or the lies I added to the story, I don’t know. I started searching for history stories everywhere. I would call my dad to tell me more, disturb my uncle until he would answer and collect books from my grandpa’s library. Then, my aim was to have stories to tell people. I wanted to know so I could say. If people couldn’t relate to me on a more personal level, then they would on an academic level. I didn’t have any original thoughts. I was more or less a reporter. I could tell you everything about everyone but I couldn’t tell you what I actually thought about anything. I was a vault of other people’s stories, empty of my own.

Share

I took this belief with me to university. This time, however, it was a bit different. I didn’t want to always talk. I had people who were actually my friends. Still, I wanted to know. Just because I find comfort in certainty and certainty from knowledge. I wanted to know everything. The reduced desire to “report” brought original thoughts with it. On occasions when I speak, everyone advises me to start a social media page or write my thoughts so people could read. I never really took it seriously.

Earlier this year, I decided to start posting my thoughts on my WhatsApp status and a friend advised I post them on TikTok. As scared as I was, that advice led me to 9,500 followers from 700 in one month and 100 Substack subscribers from 12 in one week. Whenever I get DMs about how I started, my reply is always the same: I just like to talk. I love Amebo. And it turns out, that was enough

Fresh as a daisy, I remember the first time my mother and my aunty tried to convince me to join in the kitchen. I was 11 years old, standing in the hallway, right in front of the kitchen. I had my favorite blue dress on. I loved it because of the floral designs at its hem. Originally, I refused because I was lazy… I mean, which 11-year-old would pick confinement to a kitchen over playing WWE with her brothers? So I was reluctant. Mummy categorically said that I had to learn because “I am a woman.” My confusion as to how I had to learn because I was a woman was quickly sorted by my aunty’s question: “If you don’t learn, what would you do in your husband’s house?” When anybody asks when I knew I was a feminist, my answer always points to this story because I knew something was wrong. When I spent time in the kitchen with my mum, and I would stand far from the frying pan or get a cut, her answer would always be, “That’s how it is, you’re a woman.” After the first few times, I resolved within me that I would not cook because the reason given to me didn’t make any sense at all. I wasn’t going to use my entire life as practice for a man I don’t even know yet. After a few years, like every African mother, mummy would soften up and reintroduce cooking to me as a “life skill,” but the damage had already been done. Of course, I whip up a few things once in a while, but I refuse to be the Nigerian stereotypical “hardworking” first daughter. I REFUSED, and I STILL REFUSE.

The family as the first unit of society has a lot of influence on the kind of adults released into society. Like the Nigerian society and many others, the family has failed in raising children. The African parenting playbook ascribes thorough beating to any form of challenge to parental authority. Children are raised to be quiet and obey because parents are always right. Honestly, 90 percent of the time, parents are right, but that is besides the problem. After 18 years of using the same playbook, adults are surprised as to why youths cannot challenge corrupt government and governance. They are confused because they remain quiet even when their rights are being taken away from them, but they have spent the last 18 years beating every form of audacity out of the kid.

Even more pressing a problem across the 36 states and 150+ tribes in Nigeria is the pigeonholing of children into gender roles and how it affects the kind of adults they grow up to be.

The Yoruba victim of rape or sexual assault is going to be asked what she was wearing because we all grew up in homes where the 10-year-old daughter is told to “change those shorts” because a certain “uncle” is coming over. Boys transit into men believing that since their sisters were always told to change, indecent dressing must be an invitation for sexual assault. The same logic that told me to “cook because I’m a woman” is the same that tells her that dressing for it means asking for it.

The Igbo woman would endure verbal and emotional abuse from her partner because when she would report the young boy bullying her in class, the answer would always be, “He likes you, that’s how boys are.” Girls are conditioned to interpret abuse from men as “love,” the exact same way shame is expected to make me learn to cook for my “husband.”

The Hausa girl is constantly asked, “What would she do in her husband’s house?” Her entire life becomes a preparatory phase for servitude to a man. Girls transit into women, limiting themselves, their value, and their goals to marriage. They would do anything to be “wives” because girls are raised to be “wives,” not “people.” Once married, they lose all sense of autonomy and are only regarded in relation to their husbands. I was told to learn to cook, not for myself, but for a “man” I never knew.

The Fulani man who expects his pregnant wife to do all the work most likely grew up in a household where his mom, regardless of what she was going through, still did the house labour, where his sisters would cook, serve, and do the dishes while he did whatever because “he’s a boy.”

Girls are told that their fathers are the “head of the home” because men make “logical decisions” while women are “emotional and dramatic.” Despite the fact that domestic violence cases spike in England after football matches so much that helplines go on high alert ,men still call women “emotional.” Anger is an emotion. But when men are angry, it is called passion. When women are angry, it is called hysteria.

I can never tell if our parents would ever break this cycle because they have been indoctrinated to think and act this way by their parents too. This is years of unfair practice. I cannot tell if a single article would result in a change of heart. My mother didn’t put all her efforts into forcing me into a kitchen because she hated me but because she loves me, and that is how she has been taught to love me. She believes that preparing me to be the best wife is the best gift she could ever give me. I realized she had given up the day she looked at me with tired eyes and said: “I am tired. I just hope life teaches you.” As sad as I felt, I could not help but release a sigh of relief. I was finally free.

How do you break a cycle that has been spinning for generations? You break it by saying NO without offering any explanations. You break it by refusing. You break it by being the daughter your mother cannot understand.

You don’t have to cook if you don’t want to. You don’t have to agree because you want to maintain the peace at home. You don’t have to trade your freedom for the approval from a few elderly people. You must not dim your light in order to be called “wife material.” I say this because it’s inevitable. If you’re going to grow up to be a person who respects herself, who has dreams and visions that do not include loss of autonomy through marriage, if you’re going to grow to be a woman and not a “wife,” you must have that huge fight with your parents. You have to be at the center of that family meeting circle. You must have aunties and uncles who scream at you constantly and ask if you’re “possessed by an evil spirit.” YOU MUST REBEL.

Just like my mum and every other parent, they will eventually adjust, but you need to stand your ground. It’s your life, and you get to choose for YOUR self.

So young girl, REBEL. Wear your shorts. Proudly be a terrible cook. Sit with the men in the living room. Have goals. Have dreams. Have kids if you want to, and if you don’t want to, then DON’T.

REBEL.

The summary is this: A capitalist system does not need people to rally against it. It would eventually DESTROY ITSELF.

Oh, and we’re all fucked because it’s taking us all down with it. At least according to Joseph Schumpeter.

In his 1942 publication “On Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy,” Joseph Schumpeter theorized that the development of capitalism would simultaneously be its destruction.

This is a result of a combination of different factors, but most importantly and most contributing is one simple mistake: Capitalism, alongside its values, underestimated the power of human emotion over human logic.

To effectively drive my point, this essay will briefly explain a few concepts.

1. Creative Destruction

2. The Sociology of Intellectuals, which will in turn explain ;

3. The intrusion of emotion in a supposedly rational plan

Starting off strong, Creative destruction refers to an indispensable process in a capitalist system. Schumpeter notes that a key feature of capitalism is the destruction and creation of new markets. While this makes societies richer, it leads to the overproduction of scholars or traders with skills that are already disappearing. For instance, there were times when we bought DVDs to watch movies. Now we just stream them on Netflix, Showmax, Prime Video, or YouTube. The time in which we switched from DVDs to Netflix is CREATIVE DESTRUCTION. Although this is innovation, it ultimately makes societies wealthier. The only issue is that it creates multiple people with skills that are no longer required, robbing them of their livelihoods. We know that AI has made white-collar work easier and faster; what we don’t know is what has happened tf people who went through all stages of education to acquire knowledge and skills for jobs stolen by AI. In his 1625 essay “Of Seditions and Troubles,” Bacon notes that it creates “scholars without preferments.”

The sociology of intellectuals reflects the inevitable “coming together” of intellectuals against the capitalist system.

According to Schumpeter, intellectuals are not a societal class, but their ability to unite towards a cause makes them seem like one. Intellectuals primarily possess nuisance value, and they usually lack practical or firsthand experience. Their critical attribute stems from the fact that they are all onlookers. Their power stems from their nuisance value, which enables them to criticize and destabilize the government. They do not just protest from outside; they enter the state, influence policy, and shape bureaucracy from within, making the entire apparatus hostile to the system.

Intellectuals obviously existed long before the capitalist system, but they were restricted by walls of protection that included the Feudal or traditional aristocracy, Religion, Moral authority, Local communities, and Social bonds, amongst many others. The Capitalist encouragement of innovation and freedoms made these walls thinner by the year. Capitalism offered them freedom of speech and an unlimited printing press. Francis Bacon argues that people like intellectuals- people who seem to belong to the bourgeois and working class are people whom the masses seem to believe. He says the only way to defeat them is to win them over or confront them with people like them, so their army is divided. The elite supported them as long as their elitist beliefs were backed by intellectual prowess.

Aside from the inescapable event of creative destruction, the latest capitalist civilization has led to inclusivity in higher education spaces, which in turn has led to insufficient job opportunities or unsatisfactory working and wage conditions. These intellectuals cannot return to blue-collar jobs because they feel like they deserve more. They become physically unemployable. Those who eventually return to vocations enter in a discontented frame of mind. Discontentment breeds resentment.

This influential but discontented group can only be restrained by a non-capitalist or elitist government, because doing so means reducing their individual freedoms and elite institutions.

INTELLECTUALS ARE THE ONES WHO WIELD THE POWER OF WRITTEN AND SPOKEN WORDS - Joseph Schumpeter, On Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Chapter 13.

The intrusion of emotions into a rational plan is the channel through which capitalism’s downfall began and the last straw that will break the system’s core. Capitalism succeeds only when logic dominates, and emotions are kept to a minimum.

Capitalism cannot produce loyalty or emotional consideration. For this reason, it destroyed its own protectionist walls.

Schumpeter argues that hatred of capitalism is driven by emotion rather than logic. Even if one provided refutations of a non-capitalist argument, it would not be enough, because the real force behind it is “feeling.” The argument may seem logic-driven, especially among intellectuals, but people feel robbed. They feel they have been sold a lie.

Due to the rapid spread of “deconstruction philosophy” in the 21st century, the capitalist defensive walls grew thinner by the year, leading to an unexpected influx of human emotion into a world that was otherwise completely logical. Religion, moral authority, and traditional aristocracy have been reduced to irrelevance.

The deconstruction plague is also a fault of capitalist provisions. Unlike other systems, capitalism encouraged free thinking, speech, and rapid innovation. Because people are smart enough to recognize that their suffering is a systemic issue rather than an individual problem, they do not hate the system for their suffering. The system created its own problems by teaching people to question everything.

The modern-day capitalist system has broken down the walls that protected its over-rationality, allowing for excessive emotional outbursts from intellectuals - even though it is hidden under the guise of “logic”. Its promotion of inclusive learning has led to the overproduction of critical and discontent intellectuals who lack experience but possess the power of written and spoken words, ready to cause nuisance within society and its institutions. The event of creative destruction is simultaneously the event of mass unemployment.

With large numbers of unemployed people and intellectuals overcome by feelings of resentment and betrayal, the jenga will eventually fall.

Whoever wins the war becomes Justice.

(One Piece)

Sometime from 1941-45, ethnic cleansing occurred and we termed it genocidal and unlawful.

Today, an entire countries are being burnt to the ground and we have arguments on whether it's genocidal or not.

From 1945, an organization was created to foster peace and dialogue in the world. In such an idealistic experiment, how come five countries have veto over a 170+ nations. Of these five, are countries from every continent except one. These decision is actively supported by the most “democratic” nation in the world.

In a courtroom, the truth is rarely a deciding factor, justice is granted to the one with the most convincing narrative. War isn’t any different. Civilians die during war, families lose their sons, fathers, brothers. When the dust settles, the architect of conflicts, would shake hands, sip a cup of wine and sign a few papers, and call it peace.

What then is the law ? What is justice?

I didn’t learn about injustice from history books. I learned it the day I understood that being right doesn’t matter if you’re not the one writing the outcome.

Children who have never seen peace and children who have never seen war have different values. Children raised within corrupt governments and children raised within working systems perceive the world in the different ways. What differentiates them is simply luck. One group was born into the winning side, and the other, forced to thrive in a system set up against them.

Both groups live in one world, but know different worlds. One group cannot fathom the existence of a losing side, let alone being born there. The other, is forced to live that experience of supposedly having it all and having nothing. Most times, luck shines upon them, a certain number of people escape to be with the other group, with hopes that they would return to help them win the battle against these systems.

They never do.

This is what motivates me . My lived reality. These contradictions stopped being abstract to me when I realized I was born on the edge of two worlds, neither defeated nor secure. I am not under privileged; I am far from that. I am not privileged either. I am stuck somewhere in between knowledge and experience, and that’s the worst part of it. Most times, I wish I didn’t know, but I do, and I am burdened with the guilt of privilege, and the desire, not just to help, but to solve.

Justice will most definitely prevail. Whoever wins becomes justice.

I want to win.

I was having a conversation with my mum and brothers when my younger brother suddenly asked my mum why he couldn’t grow or braid his hair.

That’s what we were taught growing up- that was my dad’s answer.

“It’s a sin”- that was my mum’s answer, “and any man who braids his hair will go to hell fire, it’s an Egyptian practice”

Knowing how these conversations usually end in a Nigerian Christian home, my older brother quietly slipped out of the room, choosing peace over truth.

I and my younger brother decided to pry further and we asked my mum where exactly God said “black men shouldn’t grow their hair”.

It’s safe to say that the conversation turned into a 30 minute “if you try it, never come back to this house” session.

I had an epiphany- my mother didn’t have the answers. She was opposed to the idea of men braiding their hair because that was what she was taught and that line of thought was backed by some instruction God gave the African people- and instruction that is clearly not in the Bible.

After my mother’s threat session, I let her know that the worst thing that ever happened to their generation was the inability to be curious. They were told what to believe, defend and practice and they did just that.

Why on earth would God allow the hair of a black man to grow, then command that black man NOT to let the hair grow but also allow a white man to grow his hair ?

The simple reason is because GOD DID NOT SAY THAT SHIT !!!!! Europeans did.

I lust after a world where African Christians would sit down and pick up history books to read. I imagine all of the unnecessary restricting beliefs that would be dropped during that epoch.

In most precolonial Africa societies, hair meant more than aesthetics. It was a means of communication. The way a person wore their hair was used to communicate wealth status, social status, age , marital status and most importantly, tribal identity.

The entry of Europeans into Africa lead to different changes all in the name of “christianity”. Somehow Africans were convinced to drop most of their culture because it was “demonic” . African men were convinced that growing their hair out or braiding it was a “sin”.

People had their names changed from their tribal names to names like “John” and “James” or “Mary”. Hence the stories of Kunta Kinte and the likes. My late grandfather had his tribal name “Ede-Nwali” tattooed on his chest so he wouldn’t forget it.

Truthfully, all of these changes occurred, not to make Africans christian but to make them “white”, to erase their identities.

The fastest way to take control of a person or a group of people is to take away their identity. That way, they will adopt different practices from different cultures. They will eventually become mosaics made from broken pieces of other people. That is the situation of various African societies.

Subscribe now

I wish to see a day where Africans will learn to appreciate themselves in their natural state. I want to see a day where Nigerian schools wouldn’t restrict students from growing out or braiding their hair because doing that means they are irresponsible or force them to cut their hair in order to “keep it neat”.

I wish to see a day where African elders will realize that cutting your hair doesn’t make you christian because GOD NEVER SAID THAT SHIT !!!!!!

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.

There’s a story, popular in every Africa society. The “broom stick” story. In Africa, brooms are made of stiff palm fronds. The midribs of these palm fronds are taken out and left under the sun to dry. Once dried, they are tied together and sold.

During morning devotions or after sibling fights, you are handed one single broom stick and asked to break it, after then you are handed the entire bunch of sticks tied together and asked to break it. The lesson is that “it is much easier to break one broom stick and almost impossible to break the entire bunch tied together”. The “broom stick” story is one told to instill unity in every child or a group of children.

Interestingly, a broom is made of so many different broom sticks. Some are tall and some are remarkably short. Some are darker, some are lighter and some retain their green spots, depending on how long they were under the sun or the different palm fronds they were detached from. However, they are intended for a purpose which cannot be fulfilled except they are bound together.

The lesson of the broomstick is simple: unity creates strength. Yet political history shows that power often survives by ensuring that such unity is never achieved. This was an idea explored centuries ago by Niccolò Machiavelli in The Prince. In chapter 9 where he examines “Monarchies with Public Support”, Machiavelli argues that in every city, “there are two conflicting political positions”- “The people who are eager not be oppressed by noble families and The noble, who are eager to oppress common people”.

The government? Well, the government is nothing but an institution that both sides seek to control.

According to Machiavelli, “the conflicting impulses of both sides will result in a monarchy, republic or an anarchy.”

This goes on to say that the government of a given state is nothing more than a reflection of which side wields more control in the state. A careful look into various states today will offer valuable insight as to which extreme is clearly in control of society.

In several countries scattered across the globe, the “people” gave up control a long time ago. The “nobles” have been able to retain control for centuries, even that the people don’t realize that “power belongs to them” . For the most part, the success of the nobles is due to the introduction and effectiveness of a simple but powerful concept - “DIVISION”

Like the African broom, the world is made up of different broom sticks, each bearing different characteristics.

Short. Tall. Black. Brown. White. Woman. Man. African. European. Asian. Developed countries. Developing countries. The 1500 different tribes existing within Africa. Christian. Muslim. Atheist. Buddhist. Agnostic. Poor. Rich.

By the existence of all of these divisions, human beings are driven to hate themselves, discriminate against themselves, stimulate the feeling of inferiority around themselves and ultimately, KILL themselves.

With the formation and integration of a caste system into daily living, the nobles gained an upper hand. Differences became louder and more defined. Somehow human beings began to master the art of rigid segregation.

The gap between the common people and nobles somehow became even wider. Soon, the common people would forget that they are“the COMMON PEOPLE”, terminologies like “white” people, “Black” people, “African” or “European” people, “men” and “women” will become solidified and a major means of identification. All of these labels would slowly erase the word “common” from the people’s vocabulary.

Fundamentally, the only true disparity exists between the elite and the masses, the “rich and poor”.

But the divisions between people are not sustained by identity alone. They are reinforced by competition - competition for wealth, status, and survival within a system that rewards some while holding others back. With this structured rivalry, social hierarchies become permanent, and the gap between the elite and the masses continues to widen.

These divisions are more economic than they are social or natural. It is within these divisive framework that nobles can flourish while people remain governed by hierarchical rules.

The Rwandan genocide, which occurred from 7th April - 19th July 1994 offers better insight. The genocide which lasted for 100 days saw the deaths of over 800,000 Rwandans. Before the entry of the Belgian government onto Rwanda, there existed 3 major tribes in Rwanda- The Bahutu, Batutsi and Batwa. These three existed in somewhat a “salad bowl” society, where they shared certain similarities but still maintained unique differences.

With the entry of Belgium, the Roman Catholic missionaries, ascribed superior qualities to the Tutsis claiming certain identifiable physical features such as superior heights, lighter skin tones and narrowness of nose. Consequently, the Belgians beginning from the 1930s issued Rwandans identity card and also gave the Tutsis certain privileges. The Hutus began to resent the Tutsis.

The colonial policy of divide and rule ensured that the indigenous ethnic groups in Rwanda were divided and highly hierarchical. The Tutsis were selected to assist the colonizers while the Hutus were dominated and segregated. This weakened the social fabric in the society and further heightened the emerging tension and hatred between the ethnic groups.

The Hutu hated that they weren’t treated nearly as good as the Tutsi were and the Tutsi were so caught up in the euphoria that white preference offered them that they soon began to feel superior to Hutus. While the both tribes developed and nurtured resentment for themselves, the Belgian government successfully, extracted resources from Rwanda with ease .

The genocide in 1994 is a stark example of how hierarchies affect societies.

The Hutu did not hate that the Belgian government was partisan, they hated that they weren’t the ones getting the preferential treatment. The Tutsi, even though aware of the extent of unfairness, supported the Belgian control of a land that was once home to all three major tribes.

Why ? well, they were benefitting from the system, so although it was clearly partisan and based on racist beliefs, they would help to uphold it because it led to strengthening Tutsi supremacy by giving them key administrative roles. The Tutsi leadership welcomed this alliance to reinforce their power over the Hutu majority.

Just like numerous other colonial institutions, The Belgian colonial government in Rwanda was particularly successful because of the realization that people loved hierarchies. People crave to be “more valuable” than each other.

According to Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), human nature is fundamentally materialistic, egoistic, and driven by a fear of death and desire for power and humans exist in a state of “war for all and against all” making life “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”.

The nobles realize that just like every human being, they are “common people” too. They share certain traits with the common people. What differentiates them is that they are vocal about their inordinate desire for wealth, power and influence. All the nobles needed to do was to create enough division that the people don’t even remember their opposition anymore.

This is the same across several disparities that exist within the human race. Patriarchy, an elitist construct, founded and upheld by religion is by far, the most successful venture. In a conversation I had recently, a statement was made in defense to my point about the increasing rate of femicide and rape especially in Africa. He argued that “men get raped too and they do not speak up about it because…..society doesn't permit them to”

My response was simple and direct. “If you know we live in society that stigmatizes rape victims and defend rapists, why don’t you join women to fight that society?” That was the end of the conversation.

The answer is quite simple. Joining hands with women would ultimately mean lending a voice to feminism. It would mean fighting a system that relies on a "reserve army of labor" for domestic duties (cooking, cleaning, caregiving) that is mostly performed by women for free, termed "reproductive labor". You would be up against a system that keeps women dependent on the household structure, often making them more vulnerable to exploitation, one that enables system of male dominance that advantages men by centralizing power, authority, and resources in their hands.

It means fighting a system that you ultimately benefit from by reason of biological framework, a society that says that you’re superior for no other reason asides that “you’re a man” and “you’re a protector”

Surely it wouldn’t be a problem when that same society requests that young fathers, sons, uncles and nephews are to be drafted for a war initiated by two leaders whose children are safe in a different country because “men are protectors”. It will not be an issue when the same society requires exploits the labour of thousands of men because “men are providers”. It can’t possibly be up for debate when the society forcefully disconnects young boys from their feelings, framing seeing support as a “weakness” because “men are strong” and women are emotional because they “cry a lot” and anger is not an emotion because “men are……. men”

Successfully, both genders are placed in a box. Women, confined to certain standards and men, oblivious to their confinement because society declared them superior to women.

Religion has proven even more successful and long lasting than patriarchy has. Over the years, religion has somehow made people lose their sense of humanity. Marx believed religion, like opium, allowed the working class to endure their suffering without revolting against the system that caused it. He argued it provides an illusion of happiness, distracting people from the real causes of their problems.

Sometime last year, During a security crisis in which Northerners in Nigeria were killed by terrorist groups, Nigerian christians cheered for the invasion of their own country by another nation’s military because they promised to “save christians”. Somehow, Nigerians managed to turn a national security crisis into a religious war.

Deborah Samuel Yakubu, a Nigerian Christian college student, was stoned to death and burned by a mob in Sokoto, Nigeria, on May 12, 2022, following allegations of blasphemy against Islam. Suspects were charged but subsequently acquitted.

Some Christians don’t mind then invasion of their own country and possible deaths of Northern civilians because “God is in America and he sent Trump to save us”. At the same time, extremist groups claiming to act in defense of Islam have carried out violence while invoking religious justifications for their actions.

In both cases, religion becomes a powerful narrative through which political struggles are interpreted. While citizens argue over faith and identity, the structural issues driving insecurity like corruption, weak institutions, and economic inequality often remain unaddressed.

Europeans came into South Africa and taught that they ditch their traditional practices for a version of christianity that preaches white supremacy and black subjugation. The Church of England in Ghana would preach “love thy neighbor as thy self” while they sat directly above a male slave dungeon. Their prayers to God would be accompanied by the screams and wails of Ghanaians. The reason being that “black people are children of HAM” and in the Bible, Ham was placed on a curse to serve his brothers for generations to come.

In these contexts, religion did not merely shape belief; it helped maintain social hierarchies. When identity becomes defined primarily through faith, people may forget that before they are Christians or Muslims, they are simply human beings. The common people - members of the same society, facing many of the same struggles.

Based on these various differences, The people divide themselves into groups based on certain traits. Within these groups, they divide themselves into sub-groups based on another set of traits.

The division continues until man is left by himself. Left to fight against man because he would either be repressed or privileged by the traits he possesses. If he is repressed, he would have to fight to be free and if he’s privileged, he’ll have to fight to maintain that privilege. Man is born into a fierce competition.

In all these, the wealth gap increases but it’s alright because “you have to work harder, there’s nothing you put your mind to that you can’t achieve” - explain that to a child born in a “third world country”.

The climate worsens, but it’s alright because “who actually cares about climate anyways”- explain that to Iranians who just experienced a “black rain” (rain mixed with oil) .

People do not have access to water while AI consumes enough water to sustain a country, but it’s alright because “I have enough water where I live” - explain that to thousands of people scattered across the world who do not have it.

There is a steady increase in the number of homeless people but it’s alright because “I have a house” -explain that to the 770,000 homeless people in America.

Thousand of people lose their lives everyday in the Congolese genocide, but it’s alright because “I love the new iPhone 17 anyways and technology will change the world” - explain that to the displaced Congolese people.

In several parts of the world, christians are persecuted for their beliefs, but it’s alright because “It is for their faith and there are 72 virgins in heaven waiting to receive them” - explain that to the families of christians who have lost their loved ones.

The city of Rafah in Gaza which stood for 3500 has been utterly demolished alongside human beings living there but it’s alright because “The people of Israel are God’s children and Palestinians are muslim. #prayforisrael” - explain it to children in Gaza who have nothing else to live for.

Women’s right to life and safety declines, but it’s alright because “it’s not all men”- explain that to thousands of women sexually assaulted by the day.

We need to vote right because government after government, nothing has changed. It’s alright because “I don’t do politics anyways. I like to protect my peace”

I am aware there something fundamentally wrong with the world government but I can’t do anything and it’ s alright, “what can I do anyways ? it’s just me”

In a quest for status, wealth and hierarchy, the people have disbanded. So I would like to refine Machiavelli’s thought a bit.

“The conflicting impulses of both sides will result in a monarchy, republic, anarchy or a DEMOCRATIC OLIGARCHY”

A democratic oligarchy is a system of government which presents the appearance of democracy while functioning in practice as a totalitarian rule. In this system, it seems like the people have control of their government, but in reality, they do not. They are allowed their democratic privilege of electing a representative, yet their choices are limited to an elite few.Power therefore circulates within an elite class, while the broader population is granted the illusion of participation. The durability of a democratic oligarchy rests on three major drivers:

1. The ignorance of the people.

2. The hate and competition of people towards each other and;

3. An economic framework that stipulates that “in order for some to gain, millions must lose”.

We have established the first two drivers. All that remains is dissecting the economic framework. The major questions remains: If societies are constantly competing for wealth, status, and resources, what economic system organizes that competition?

What economic system champions individualism over communal ties ?

What economic system encourages competition ?

What economic system replaces traditional, status-based social distinctions with new hierarchies based on wealth and capital accumulation, which often mirror, rather than break, old caste lines ?

What economic system retain profits by shifting the costs of environmental damage (pollution, climate-related disasters) onto states and ecosystems, rather than internalizing them as production costs ?

What economic system often operates paid productive work from unpaid reproductive work usually performed by women (which subsidizes the economy)?

The answer is simple. One word.

Ten letters.

CAPITALISM.

It is noteworthy that this might not have been the original intention of the theory when it was proposed by its founding fathers e.g : Adam Smith. Capitalism has slowly evolved into the climax of this world.

Like the African broom, the world is made up of different broom sticks, each bearing different characteristics.

Short. Tall. Black. Brown. White. Woman. Man. African. European. Asian. Developed countries. Developing countries. The 1500 different tribes existing within Africa. Christian. Muslim. Atheist. Buddhist. Agnostic. Poor. Rich.

The broomstick story was meant to teach children unity.
But perhaps its deeper lesson is this: power survives only when the broomsticks forget they are tied together. So even in the face of these divisions, we all share one trait, and that is the fact that we are all HUMAN -“THE COMMON PEOPLE” .

“Mankind invented the atomic bomb, but no mouse would ever construct a mousetrap.”

Albert Einstein

I, well i’m seated on a table, with a MacBook.

In case you’re wondering, I’m unable to flexibly switch between windows like the gentle man on a faded yellow T-shirt in front of me. On the bright side, I would bet that they probably think i’m doing something serious. I have a laptop staring at me too. On one side, a notebook I got as a souvenir at a health expo. Scattered on top of my notebook are 6 mentos chewy drages in the flavor “chapman”, I’ve had 5 of 6 already and a blister pack candy, i’ve had 5 out of those. My ears are plugged and my ear drums constantly fed with Sienna Spiro. On the other side, I have a bottle of water and some pens. I think I look pretty serious.

Earlier this morning, I received a reply to a comment I made on an instagram post 6 days ago. The comment said :

“You need to go back to school. Abi na poor people dey contest? They’re rich because you’re poor, they can’t try to bring themselves down to suit your narrative. Mind you, they’re paying their fathers huge sums as salaries! If e reach your turn, wear slippers go vacation…We won’t judge you (@callme_aliyuuuuu)”

For context, the post featured a picture of a Minister’s son alongside the price of the shoes he had on : Maison Martin Margiela Tabi Leather Flats retailing for 2,470 dollars, about 3.4 million Nigerian Naira.

It is not news that Nigeria is in its worst era of governance. In recent years, fragments of corruption has cascaded from government institutions into the media, religious bodies, schools, and families, to the extent that it has become normalized within society.

I felt particularly disturbed by the comment section filled with common Nigerians saying that “He should enjoy it, because when it gets to their turn, they’ll do same or even worse”

For the sake of enlightenment and my peace, I left my 2 cents. Those 2 cents birthed a weekend of arguing with Nigerians on why they shouldn’t be celebrating people who spend their tax money on their personal lives. I never understood how that was controversial, so it came as a shock to me when I had to argue against people defending corruption.

For the sake of fairness, my comment reads

“ Look at you all defending people who are casually wearing your tax money, while there are homeless people on the streets. The earlier you realize the government works for you and not the other way around, the better (@some_mma234)”

By reason of this comment, I spent my weekend explaining to Nigerians why openly flaunting corruption is nothing to celebrate. Last weekend served as support for my belief that the corruption of a country is never fully dependent on the government. The government of any country is usually the reflection of its citizens.

To properly address Aliyu’s comment, I would have to separate the arguments from the insults. In so doing, there isn’t much material to work with.

However, this reply and some other replies would lead me to address the mindset that exists between Nigerians. This venomous mindset allows corrupt governance thrive in any society.

1. Governance of the Elite

2. Wealth as an incentive for governance

3. Measure of government salaries in relation to minimum wage

4. Polarity within society

   Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

GOVERNANCE OF THE ELITE

In his derogatory remark, Aliyu asked a very unintelligent question : Abi na poor people dey contest? Well, Yes. “poor” people are supposed to easily contest for political offices, except that they can’t due to the invasive influence of wealth in democracies.

In a democratic system of government, every person has the right to vote and be voted for. The people’s incentive to vote for a particular candidate shouldn’t be completely dependent on what he/she has, but how he/she intends to serve the people. This is the literal composition of democracy. Regardless of tribe, religion, sex, color and background, everyone is entitled to a voice.

One of the worst things that has happened to Nigeria’s politics is the consolidation of politics in then hands of the wealthy.

This is reflected in the sale of a form for participation in a local government election for 30 million Naira, this excludes campaign costs and miscellaneous spendings. This price covers only a form to indicate interest in participation.

Meanwhile the minimum wage and salaries of many civil servants remain 60,000 Naira.

To afford a form to contest at the local government level, the average civil servant would have to save every Naira of his/her salary for 41 years and 8 months.

If that isn’t the height of political inequality, It’s hard to know what it is.

Quite unfortunate for the political development of the nation is how normal this has become. Wealth is now treated as a prerequisite for political participation.

For as long as the country is a democracy, then everyone deserves a right to vote and be voted for.

Over the years, this understanding has been lost in the disorienting whirlwind of corruption.

WEALTH AS AN INCENTIVE FOR GOVERNANCE

I mentioned earlier that a government of any nation is usually the reflection of its citizens. Just as the corrupt political leaders seek to amass large amounts of resources while in office , the average Nigerian prays to occupy political positions so they can take their share of the “national cake” The notion that government is a gateway to “generational wealth” needs to be needs to be firmly dismantled.

Of course, public office comes with certain benefits, and it’s natural that these roles would attract people. But those benefits should be incidental, not the prize.

Public service should place the well-being of the people first, with personal incentives coming only second.

Subscribe now

MEASURE OF GOVERNMENT SALARIES IN RELATION TO THE MINIMUM WAGE

Aliyu made and astute observation. “They are rich because you are poor”

The funds meant to pay midwives and nurses in primary health care centers across the country is used to acquire lavish living. Money intended to provide roads, clean water, jobs and sustainable living for the population is piled in soak away pits in people’s backyards.

Of course they are rich because we’re poor, that’s the entire point of corruption.

It is unbelievable that a senator in the country can earn 21 million Naira and a civil servant, one who creates actual value is expected to manage 60,000 Naira. One major reason why people struggle to hold on to political power even after their tenures is the advantage of pay gap between the government and the citizens. Senators have wardrobe allowances of 2 million Naira monthly while the average government teacher struggles to feed.

Again, the problem lies in how normalized this has become in Nigeria.

According to the World Bank in 2020, up to 139 million Nigerians were living in multi dimensional poverty.

A government official is not supposed to have 20 cars and live in a 5 billion Naira house while the majority suffer lack in every sector.

We need to wake up to an understanding that being a government official does not make you “ELITE”. It makes you a representative of the people, not Mansa Musa of the Malian Empire.

If there isn’t enough money to raise the minimum wage, then maybe we should cut government wages.

What do you think?

Leave a comment

POLARITY WITHIN SOCIETY

Polarity in International relations refers to the distribution of power in the international arena.

Domestic polarity would therefore be the distribution of power within the country.

Nigeria’s version of polarity stands in sharp contrast to the idea of democracy.

Abraham Lincoln famously defined democracy as “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” If that definition is our benchmark, then Nigeria, in practice, falls short.

By the way power actually functions, Nigeria is effectively unipolar. Power is concentrated in the hands of a small elite, not broadly shared among the people.

The worst part being that Nigerians don’t realize they have control over their society. We refuse to understand that the government is meant to work for us and not the other way around.

We often act as though government exists above us, rather than because of us. We wait for messiahs to emerge, for prayers to be answered, or for foreign intervention to save us.

Yet the uncomfortable truth is this: we are the answers to our own prayers.

Power resides in the hands of the people. Nigeria’s tragedy is not just that power has been taken, but that many have not yet realized it can be reclaimed.

Conclusively, I would not write the nation off as though we all live in complete ignorance.

Nigeria is ready for change and Nigerians are ready for change, more than they even know.

The nation is ripe for revolution. The only question that remains is this :

Who will lead ?

On a morning run two days ago, I listened keenly to the “Self obsessed” podcast by Tam Kaur. It was an episode on how the novelty associated with the new year would wear off soon and the “girlies” would return to the habits they rejected in their new-year resolutions. The podcast was meant to help the “girlies” set realistic and achievable goals for each day, week, month and year.

For the first time in a while, I couldn’t relate.

The first day of a new year is usually my favorite part of the year. It always felt like life was giving me a clean slate to start again. However, there was no feeling of novelty attached to this year, no excitement whatsoever, it felt like any other day.

Throughout the 31st night I was nothing short of morose. I did not engage in the regular “5…4…3…2..1..” count, in fact I slept into the new year.

My reason for that was the exams I had in the next 8 days. I was really tensed most of the time, all I could think about was my upcoming exams. Perhaps the tension took the place of the neophilia of the new year.

“Once I’m done with these exams, my new year would start properly and i’ll chase my goals like never before. The drive would come naturally when the exam is off my mind” was my consolation for the first 8 days of the new year.

It has been 9 days since then, all I have experienced is fatigue, more fatigue and extreme fatigue.

For some weird reason, this year is oddly different.

17th January, 2026.

I yet to figure out where this is leading. However, I spent the morning listening to “Very Bad Wizards”. If you haven’t noticed by now, I listen to a lot of podcasts- not because I love podcasts, but organized people listen to podcasts, and i’m trying to be organized, i’m not sure how that has been working out.

Today’s episode mentioned a theory that reveals that the usage of curse words make one stronger and in turn, enables the completion of goals.

Fuck then.

I really need that strength.

18th January, 2026.

It’s been 4 days since I started writing and I cannot seem to get to a central point. This all seems like a build-up for nothing and I completely forgot how I wanted this essay to end.

Oh, and about the “curse word” theory, it doesn’t work.

19th January, 2026.

I just experienced a year-altering epiphany.

I am now an adult, responsible for my own happiness.If I wanted that thrill that usually accompanied the new year, I was going to intentionally curate it for myself this time around.

That realization was all I needed to mentally pick myself up again.

19th January, 2026 - 10:30am (WAT)

I hoped my first essay for the year was going to be better, more artistic, aesthetically pleasing, the sort of essay that reminds you of all the beauty in creativity. Perhaps I should have done a better job planning and drafting something riveting or maybe provocative. Although I spent days trying to figure something out, I couldn't.

So for the new year, I decided to offer something more visceral than cognitively stimulating.

19th January, 2026. 10:50am (WAT)

Whether or not January is regimented has little to no effect on how the rest of my year. I will plan, structure and replan as many times as possible, to accommodate my personal desires and career needs.

I don’t have any substantial reason to believe this. I just know it somewhere in my heart.

I AM GOING TO HAVE THE BEST YEAR EVER!!!!!!

19th January, 2026. 11:am (WAT)

Fuck.

The curse word theory still doesn’t work.

Leave a comment

On Quora, someone had described AI derived work as “grammatically prefect but soulless”. That filled the gap in knowledge for me. Editors and readers wanted to see and feel “human-ness”. The answer stirred up another wave of confusion.

Subscribe now

What even is “human-ness” ?

The outpouring of emotion would not perfectly define “human-ness”. Emotion is subjective. AI systems reflect the bias and non-objective viewpoints presented in their prompts.

the most satisfying definition of “human-ness” would be “mistakes”. Forgetting to begin a paragraph with a capital letter, Placing a capital letter after a comma, making wrong name entries at work, spilling coffee, creating extra spaces after periods, unnecessary quotation marks, accidentally stepping on the kid sitting next to you at the airport lounge, a lot of extraneous apostrophes missing commas, misusing “it’s”, making a mosaic of yourself with broken pieces of others, mispelling misspelling words and man more.

Perhaps that is the irony , the very things we are taught to avoid become the fingerprints that prove we were here. Perfection may impress, but imperfection invites. It draws the reader closer, offering tiny glimpses of the person behind the words. A missing comma can carry the same intimacy as a laugh mid-sentence, the same way a coffee stain on a love letter tells more of a story than the words alone. These flaws aren’t obstacles to meaning; they are the meaning. And that, perhaps, is where “human-ness” begins.

Editors search for that spark of lived reality, evidence of countless efforts “typing and deleting” until it feels right. There is an extent of imperfection that only a human being can offer and sometimes, it feels refreshing to leave the orbit of grammatical consistency and have a look at work which reminds you that someone’s hands touched these words. From the misplaced apostrophe to the missing comma, lives a person who typed, retyped, paused to think and perhaps even smiled while writing it.

Mistakes are a huge part of “human-ness”. They remind us of a shared reality, so I agree with the editors, I want to feel “human-ness” in every essay or article I read. Perhaps, that’ s the twist, for all my talk about irreplaceable warmth of human flaws, maybe this essay was twisted and polished by a system with no heartbeat at all, or maybe it wasn’t. After all, I did mention that emotions were subjective.

“Such an audacious move for a African”.

Meanwhile, I have started the year reading the state of Africa by Martin Meredith, an analysis of Africa since independence, its government, institutions, the way of life of “Free” Africa. I dropped it at some point. It is in fact, the worst book I have ever picked up to read, not because of its style, grammar, diction or anything relating to the way in which it’s written. I hate it because I consider it a tragedy. At some point in its first 50 pages, I cancelled out a whole page, because I thought to myself

“Such a racist writer”. “Surely it couldn’t have been that bad”.

I had started reading it because I wanted to know where we had it wrong, the point at which we fell off track as a continent, only to realize my quest was wrong. There was never a point since independence that we were a comfortable continent. We’ve only moved through a plethora of civil wars, genocides, power tussle resulting in deaths of many, tribalism and tribal wars, and a strong urge to be “white”.

We have never had it right.

My quest shifted from searching for the moment we had it right to uncovering the reasons for this occurrence.

While reading Machiavelli’s “The Prince”, I came across a statement that has stuck with me for a while.

“In the antiquity and continuity of dominion, the memories and causes of innovation are eliminated”.

Those words forced me to confront a deeper truth. The real battle has never been only about power or territory, but about the mind. One of our biggest problems as Africans is the quiet, persistent mental slavery we inherited and continue to carry.

Our greatest wound however, is the naturalization of this mindset.

At independence, African nations, with less than 1000 educated people through out the continent, more resources than they could seemingly manage, multiple companies belonging to white business owners, became battlegrounds for influence, with “world powers” struggling for loyalty. These were all issues that affected the sustainability of African governments at the time. They provided reason for the government’s struggle.

These reasons however, do not suffice anymore. It has been over 60 years since the independence of Africa began, most Africans remain peasants, while their resources are used to develop new technology everyday. Government institutions barely function, countries are still roped in the rough politics of foreign debt, and the continent’s poverty varies directly with the resources in it.

Yet beneath all these political and economic challenges sits a quieter force, the root cause, the limerence of whiteness. We have been conditioned to aspire to it, defer to it, and arrange our societies around its approval.”

This psychological conquest was a gradual process. Our culture first, then our language, dressing was gone and everything that pertained to being “white” became “the standard”. Over time, with the comfortable settlement of the European governments in Africa, this standards became “natural”. Africa had left its heritage behind to embrace something entirely different from what it had ever known. Speaking “English” made you better than your fellow Africans and wearing suspenders and having “British” tea meant you were close to becoming “human”- which meant “white”.

With the “naturalization”, came the “LIMERENCE OF WHITENESS”. This refers to the innate lust to be white, born from the belief that proximity to “whiteness” is proximity to “humanness”. This notion spread like a virus through out several aspects of African life. From dressing, where we abandoned our “ichafu” for a “hat”, to food, where we suddenly developed a dislike for locally made dishes, to beauty and skincare, where we applied chemicals unto our hair and skin to make us fairer and our hair straighter. Our diverse languages were abandoned for English and finally, the political space was infiltrated by people who viewed their own people as less than them, and themselves, as less than the white man.

My analysis of extreme limerence in the political space is multi faceted. Before independence, Africa knew it wanted freedom, the few educated understood that we deserved it, this knowledge fueled a fierce and uncompromising struggle for liberation. However, it was only after independence we realized that this burning fire, was in many ways, “ignis fatuus” - deceptive hope.

Independence gave us flags and anthems, but not the psychological freedom needed to govern ourselves outside the shadow of the white man. Newly formed governments emerged in a world reeling from global war, trapped in a Cold War tug-of-war, and pressured by competing powers seeking ideological loyalty. Early leaders were callow, yes—but these were only surface-level challenges. The deeper crisis ran much further back.

Africa had been stripped of a coherent political identity.

As a result, many post-independence leaders unconsciously adopted what I call “white politics”: the replication of European political norms, value systems, and hierarchies, often at the expense of indigenous knowledge, communal governance structures, and African sociopolitical realities. Our nations were constitutionally independent, but psychologically anchored to external models that were never designed for African flourishing.

Capitalism and competition had little to no place in countries endowed with enough resources to feed all, yet it was in practice in many parts of the continent, newly elected governments still maintained the colonial structure, assuming roles of the colonial officials, even down to receiving the exact same salaries as them, there was little or nothing done to improve the tension between different ethnic groups, politics became a struggle for power between the educated. The locals were seen as lesser people because they couldn't articulate their speech in English. It was almost like we had forgotten why the movement started in first place.

It was a colonial system, the only difference being that the seat of power were occupied by nationals.

African nations viewed each other as competition, and strived for favour from the west. The African Union existed just for the mere sake of it. The communal nature of Africa as a continent was non-existent.

Even good governments struggled with making any tangible impact because they did not know how to govern Africa. They were found in a struggle between the style of governance in the west and its applications to Africa in its diversity. In the end, the urge to be like the “French” or “Americans” trumped over the consideration of its effects in Africa.

54 different nations with 1500 different ethnic groups, each with different cultures, values, norms and beliefs. Surely the French or British system of administration was going to fail, governments did not consider this because there existed an innate belief that the “white” way was better than whatever we could think of.

Africa, at the individual, societal and national tier, found it very hard to rid itself of “whiteness” that had settled deep in its heart. Parts of the continent assumed western beliefs, and practices that were detrimental to the running of the society, without casting any care to the people at the local levels. There was little to no form of consideration for these individuals because they were far from being “civilized”.

It had been 68 years since the journey of independence began, and 14 years since all countries of Africa became independent. Little to nothing has changed. In parts of Africa, the goal is not to grow the economy or alleviate poverty and hunger.

It is to become like “America”.