Opinion
Still On 2020 US Election
The November 3, 2020, Presidential Election was arguably the most important election in United States post-war history. In these elections, therefore, the participation of American voters was the largest since 1900, demonstrating the resurgence of their political interest and the strongly polarizing climate that prevailed in the country. Át the same time the Democratic Party candidate, Joe Biden, may have won the popular vote (4.5 million more votes than President Donald Trump) and the necessary electors, but Trump has shown great resilience, having in fact against him almost all the media, the vast majority of Hollywood.
These elections showed the deep division in the United States, which in many places led to extremely marginal election results. The intense confrontation between the two sides and the extreme rhetoric and practice is not an isolated event and may deepen even further, having a negative impact on the country.
The reasons for Trump’s electoral resilience are due to the fact that the US President had adopted an anti-systemic rhetoric of complaint of the elites, to which he however belongs, as well as an aggressive tactic against the forces of globalisation, aspects that touched strongly large sections of the middle class and, of course, the working class.
So, to the unemployed, to the people who feel they have no voice, to the provincials who are ridiculed for their manners and customs by arrogant metropolitan residents, even to citizens belonging to minorities but also to all large communities, such as African Americans and Latinos, Trump’s speech has found and continues to find great resonance. And this is despite the fact that all the movements for the protection of rights (black lives matter, etc.) were clearly against him.
And if the coronavirus pandemic had not occurred and the second wave had not broken out, which is hitting the United States as violently as the first, Trump would have easily won the elections. Thus, after the first three years of positive economic performances of the Trump administration, the March lockdown caused the closure of many small and medium-size enterprises, while more than 20 million Americans were suddenly left without a job.
And Trump would certainly have won the presidential election without the health crisis as Biden, who expresses the neo-liberal internationalism, the related globalization process and the “open society” of NGOs and the very powerful economic institutions such as George Soros and Bill Gates Foundations etc., clearly seemed to have run out of forces, proposals and slogans before he even crossed the finish line.
Trump’s political opponents and most analysts and pollsters had focused on the arrogant and selfish traits of his personality, an eccentric and highly impulsive no doubt billionaire, and of course they were wrong in believing that he would be defeated with a big difference. Trumpism, as an ideological and social phenomenon, is certain, therefore, that it has not left, is present and will continue to exist. Trump is not just a parenthesis in US political history but expresses specific distinct trends in American society and among the bourgeoisie.
The American citizens want to prosper economically in a country where social peace, order and security will prevail. Due to globalisation, many industrial units have left for poor countries where there is a cheap labour force. So, the US working class was greatly hurt. Trump was the one who demanded the return of the factories to his country, putting the USA and the American people first, in the context of the ideological tendency of ethnocentric conservatism.
Other countries, especially the powerful ones, may not like the politics of “America First”, but the same is not the case with the average American citizen, notably in deep America and the central states.
On January 20, Joe Biden will sit in his chair at the Oval Office with Kamala Harris as Vice President, for the first time in office, a woman of African, Jamaican and Indian descent. During his term and based on what he said the United States will return to the Paris Climate Treaty, according to which the minimum goal of the states is to keep the temperature at plus 2 degrees Celsius (+2 C), and that will be a positive development, as the climate change is not a “myth”. And this can be easily seen if one takes a look at the extreme weather phenomena that occur on the planet. Let us not forget that the United States is the second largest polluter in the world after China.
Also, multilateral organisms such as NATO, the UN and its offshoots, which have been strongly challenged by outgoing President Trump, will likely be treated differently by Biden’s administration, but US relations with its European allies may move in other directions.
It should be noted at this point that Trump had repeatedly threatened to withdraw the United States from NATO and reduce its contribution if other members showed no willingness to increase their spending on the organisation. Germany-US relations have also been strained for the past four years, with Trump threatening the German car industry and the European Union as a whole several times with duties. Washington’s relations with Brussels were also frozen after its decision to withdraw the United States from international climate agreements and Iran over its nuclear programme.
However, if the Republicans eventually win control of the Senate, it will cause many deep problems for the new President Biden, as they will block most of his legislative agenda.
In closing, I would like to emphasize that the predominance of Joe Biden, who has also starred in all the pathogenic characteristics that led America to its current decline – that is, widespread social inequalities, the problematic welfare state, the favour to the strong economic elites, international lawlessness etc.-is not going to lead the US on bright paths. Besides, he did not present an inspiring, comprehensive and convincing programme plan for the social, economic and political reorganisation of the society and the country.
Karderinis, an economist and novelist, wrote from Geece.
Opinion
A Renewing Optimism For Naira
Opinion
Don’t Kill Tam David-West
Opinion
Fuel Subsidy Removal and the Economic Implications for Nigerians
From all indications, Nigeria possesses enough human and material resources to become a true economic powerhouse in Africa. According to the National Population Commission (NPC, 2023), the country’s population has grown steadily within the last decade, presently standing at about 220 million people—mostly young, vibrant, and innovative. Nigeria also remains the sixth-largest oil producer in the world, with enormous reserves of gas, fertile agricultural land, and human capital.
Yet, despite this enormous potential, the country continues to grapple with underdevelopment, poverty, unemployment, and insecurity. Recent data from the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS, 2023) show that about 129 million Nigerians currently live below the poverty line. Most families can no longer afford basic necessities, even as the government continues to project a rosy economic picture.
The Subsidy Question
The removal of fuel subsidy in 2023 by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has been one of the most controversial policy decisions in Nigeria’s recent history. According to the president, subsidy removal was designed to reduce fiscal burden, unify the foreign exchange rate, attract investment, curb inflation, and discourage excessive government borrowing.
While these objectives are theoretically sound, the reality for ordinary Nigerians has been severe hardship. Fuel prices more than tripled, transportation costs surged, and food inflation—already high—rose above 30% (NBS, 2023). The World Bank (2023) estimates that an additional 7.1 million Nigerians were pushed into poverty after subsidy removal.
A Critical Economic View
As an economist, I argue that the problem was not subsidy removal itself—which was inevitable—but the timing, sequencing, and structural gaps in Nigeria’s implementation.
- Structural Miscalculation
Nigeria’s four state-owned refineries remain nonfunctional. By removing subsidies without local refining capacity, the government exposed the economy to import-price pass-through effects—where global oil price shocks translate directly into domestic inflation. This was not just a timing issue but a fundamental policy miscalculation.
- Neglect of Social Safety Nets
Countries like Indonesia (2005) and Ghana (2005) removed subsidies successfully only after introducing cash transfers, transport vouchers, and food subsidies for the poor (World Bank, 2005). Nigeria, however, implemented removal abruptly, shifting the fiscal burden directly onto households without protection.
- Failure to Secure Food and Energy Alternatives
Fuel subsidy removal amplified existing weaknesses in agriculture and energy. Instead of sequencing reforms, government left Nigerians without refinery capacity, renewable energy alternatives, or mechanized agricultural productivity—all of which could have cushioned the shock.
Political and Public Concerns
Prominent leaders have echoed these concerns. Mr. Peter Obi, the Labour Party’s 2023 presidential candidate, described the subsidy removal as “good but wrongly timed.” Atiku Abubakar of the People’s Democratic Party also faulted the government’s hasty approach. Human rights activists like Obodoekwe Stive stressed that refineries should have been made functional first, to reduce the suffering of citizens.
This is not just political rhetoric—it reflects a widespread economic reality. When inflation climbs above 30%, when purchasing power collapses, and when households cannot meet basic needs, the promise of reform becomes overshadowed by social pain.
Broader Implications
The consequences of this policy are multidimensional:
- Inflationary Pressures – Food inflation above 30% has made nutrition unaffordable for many households.
- Rising Poverty – 7.1 million Nigerians have been newly pushed into poverty (World Bank, 2023).
- Middle-Class Erosion – Rising transport, rent, and healthcare costs are squeezing household incomes.
- Debt Concerns – Despite promises, government borrowing has continued, raising sustainability questions.
- Public Distrust – When government promises savings but citizens feel only pain, trust in leadership erodes.
In effect, subsidy removal without structural readiness has widened inequality and eroded social stability.
Missed Opportunities
Nigeria’s leaders had the chance to approach subsidy removal differently:
- Refinery Rehabilitation – Ensuring local refining to reduce exposure to global oil price shocks.
- Renewable Energy Investment – Diversifying energy through solar, hydro, and wind to reduce reliance on imported petroleum.
- Agricultural Productivity – Mechanization, irrigation, and smallholder financing could have boosted food supply and stabilized prices.
- Social Safety Nets – Conditional cash transfers, food vouchers, and transport subsidies could have protected the most vulnerable.
Instead, reform came abruptly, leaving citizens to absorb all the pain while waiting for theoretical long-term benefits.
Conclusion: Reform With a Human Face
Fuel subsidy removal was inevitable, but Nigeria’s approach has worsened hardship for millions. True reform must go beyond fiscal savings to protect citizens.
Economic policy is not judged only by its efficiency but by its humanity. A well-sequenced reform could have balanced fiscal responsibility with equity, ensuring that ordinary Nigerians were not crushed under the weight of sudden change.
Nigeria has the resources, population, and resilience to lead Africa’s economy. But leadership requires foresight. It requires policies that are inclusive, humane, and strategically sequenced.
Reform without equity is displacement of poverty, not development. If Nigeria truly seeks progress, its policies must wear a human face.
References
- National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). (2023). Poverty and Inequality Report. Abuja.
- National Population Commission (NPC). (2023). Population Estimates. Abuja.
- World Bank. (2023). Nigeria Development Update. Washington, DC.
- World Bank. (2005). Fuel Subsidy Reforms: Lessons from Indonesia and Ghana. Washington, DC.
- OPEC. (2023). Annual Statistical Bulletin. Vienna.
By: Amarachi Amaugo
-
Rivers5 days ago
Shippers Council moves To Enhance Service Delivery At Nigerian Ports
-
Nation5 days agoCommunity Health Practitioners Marks 2025 Week
-
Rivers5 days agoRivers Community Absolves Kingsman of Land Grabbing Allegations, Gives Seven-Day Ultimatum
-
Nation5 days agoOgoni Cleanup Programme, Enabling Pathways To Development Of Ogoni – Zabbey
