The critical questions that will determine the outlook for the global economy and politics in 2009 are clear-will the on-going recession in the US, Europe, Japan and parts of Asia be just a recession, a deep and sustained recession or a depression? Will the price of oil be around $40 per barrel, $75 or somewhere in between? Is the worst of the global financial crisis over, or is more to come? What will be the effect of the incoming Obama Presidency on US and global economic and foreign policy? Will the “Obama Effect” mean a major test as predicted by Vice President-elect Joe Biden or will he positively affect the situation in the Middle-East and international terrorism? And to what extent will the so-called BRIC economies particularly China and India and other high-growth economies be slowed down by the adverse global economic conditions?
Given the emerging severity of the data from the US, it will be naive for any economic analyst to rule out a depression in America. I do not however expect one, precisely because US policy makers have learnt from history and will take action, (particularly the major stimulus plan being pushed by the Obama administration even before its commencement date) to avoid that eventuality. So we can predict that most of 2009 will remain a recessionary year. Those economists who have been heard to say incredulously that the US economy will bounce back in the first quarter of 2009 do not know what they are talking about! We know as pointed out in the earlier paragraph the range of possible oil prices-$40-75 per barrel. It is prudent to expect the average in the first half of the year to be closer to $40 but rising as the year unfolds.
The easing of the global financial crisis may now also be tied to the fortunes of the US economy, so return of confidence in financial markets may now be inextricably connected not just to a perceived bottoming-out of the financial meltdown itself, but also now to US economic recovery as well. I believe President-elect Obama will be a positive factor in these dynamics and will take the short-term (stimulus package, public works, relieving mortgage foreclosures, emergency job creation, reduction in war spending etc) as well as longer-term measures (stronger and revamped financial sector regulation, investments in education, science and technology and energy independence, deficit and debt reduction amongst others) that will revitalise the US economy and aid global recovery as well.
In Nigeria, the reality that we live in interconnected economies should be finally hitting home by now. The sharp drop in the price of oil has already distorted our domestic budgetary calculations and hints of tighter economic conditions in 2009, including exchange, interest rates and level of foreign reserves. On the positive side, these may yet lead to a more sensible policy environment. The drop in the oil price for instance reminds us of the folly of a policy that seeks to redress our debilitating power situation through exclusively government investments reportedly to the tune of $85billion. We simply do not have the money, and even if we did it would be more sensible (as we did with telecommunications) to use private capital while using our scare dollars for investments in those areas where private capital may not be interested. And there are a lot of such areas-education, health, security and law and order, rural development, rail and road infrastructure etc
Will our policy makers be encouraged along the path of a reality check by the new budgetary realities? I hope so. There are cautionary signs for optimism. For one I think we have a slightly better cabinet than the Yar’adua regime’s first assemblage. In some critical ministries, we actually have some first class people-Dr Mansur Muktar in Finance has a track record from the Debt Management Office, and as a member of the Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala economic team; Dr Lanre Babalola we are told worked on the Power Policy while at the Bureau of Public Enterprises and should have an idea of the type of policies and actions that will resolve the power situation, if he is allowed to; And Professor Babatunde Osotimehin is an excellent choice in my view for the health ministry, given the success he made of the anti-AIDS effort, probably the most important health policy success in Nigeria in the last decade. And contrary to the predominant view in the ‘commentariat’, I actually think Dora Akunyili is a good choice for Information and Communication.
I also think there are elements of Dr Rilwanu Lukman’s oil sector reorganisation that are worthy of support even though I suspect more fine-tuning will be required along the way. The Infrastructure Concessioning and Regulatory Commission (ICRC) is finally in place and I hope there would be increased support for mechanisms that utilise private capital such as resumed privatisation and concessioning if the oil price stays low. The private sector, particularly the financial sector may also be in for a reality check in 2009. The losses sustained by the banks and capital market operators as a result of our stock market collapse and continued liquidity crunch will not disappear and institutions will have to account for them one way or the other. The financial sector will more closely reflect domestic economic conditions since growth fuelled by government revenue will not be realistic this year, as those revenues are constrained by the oil price.
On the whole, it appears clear that 2009 will be tight economically-both globally and domestically. However this scenario represents an opportunity for Nigeria to more sharply and sensibly define our policy choices and return to economic reform and sustainable progress. If we make that choice then we may have gained something from the adverse conditions in 2009.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Person of the Year 2008
My nominees for person of the year have always been Nigerian individuals and institutions which in our view have made the most positive and enduring impact on the Nigerian nation in the year under review. Of course that choice inherently reflects my values and policy preferences. From the international point of view, there can be no doubting Time Magazine’s choice of Barack Obama as the man of 2008, a choice validated by Obama’s dominance of the world stage last year. The global economic and financial crisis was the most important global issue of 2008 and its impacts will remain with us in 2009 and probably beyond. In terms of global balance of power, China was the main issue, celebrating in emphatic fashion its ascendancy as a global powerhouse with a spectacular Olympics in August.
In 2003 and 2004, I selected the then president’s economic team as “team of the year”. In 2005, I chose an individual member of the same team, Dr Mrs Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala as person of the year. That was the year in which her efforts and those of her colleagues and the then regime culminated in the historic Paris Club debt forgiveness deal. In 2006 I selected the Nigerian Judiciary as “institution of the year” and for 2007 the Supreme Court was the choice. The Supreme Court was recognised for being the last bulwark against dictatorship and unconstitutional actions that characterised the last days of the Obasanjo regime particularly after the Obasanjo-Atiku rift and the “third-term” debacle. The Supreme Court reversed the unconstitutional impeachments of Rasheed Ladoja, Joshua Dariye and Peter Obi and upheld the rights of Atiku and Ifeanyi Araurume to contest the 2007 elections. The Court also extended the rule of Peter Obi to preserve his four-year tenure and brought Rotimi Amaechi to office in Rivers State.
This time I have had problems finding Nigerian nominees for person of the year, perhaps reflecting the reality that not much progress was made in this nation in 2008. I usually start with a short list of ten nominees; this year my best efforts yielded only five names, not one of whom is a functionary of the federal government. While some federal ministers may have exerted themselves individually, the absence of a broad policy direction meant their efforts were by-and-large in vain. I hope with the end of the electoral petitions against President Yar’adua and the constitution of a new cabinet, the nation will experience more vibrant governance in 2009. At the end of the day, my nominees for person of the year 2008 (in no particular order) were Adams Oshiomole, Nuhu Ribadu, Rotimi Amaechi, Babatunde Raji Fashola and Chief Gani Fawehinmi.
Adams Oshiomole completed a rare transition from labour leader to elected political office holder in 2008. Along the way, he made some strategic and pragmatic trade-offs shunning his presumed ideological platform of the Labour Party for first the ANPP, and then the Action Congress in Edo State where he became bedfellows with characters like Tom Ikimi. He appeared to win a decisive victory at the polls, but the PDP rigging machine delayed him. And then he fought a determined legal battle and eventually regained his mandate through the Courts. Oshiomole now has a chance to write his name in history and prove that agitation can be transformed into successful governance. The jury is still out.
Nuhu Ribadu remained in the news throughout 2008. With Ribadu, the Yar’adua regime proved that it could be focused and swift in achieving its objectives no matter the odds. They first invented the subterfuge of sending Ribadu to NIPPS purportedly on course, then replaced him with Ibrahim Lamorde for a season before sending Lamorde himself off to Siberia. Then Ribadu was demoted, and recently dismissed from the Nigerian Police in a state-sponsored vendetta against a committed and brave officer. Ribadu made some mistakes no doubt-he allowed Obasanjo to use him in some discreditable agendas, but today he remains a symbol of courage and anti-corruption and in spite of the best efforts of his adversaries will bounce back sooner than later!
Rotimi Amaechi has been aggressively developing infrastructure in Rivers State-building hospitals and health centres, roads and bridges, primary and secondary schools and rebuilding Port-Harcourt into the garden city it once was. He has ambitious plans for a Port-Harcourt new city and is seeking to restore governance to the service of the people. Babatunde Fashola has simply been a revelation in Lagos State. The transformation he has recorded in Lagos in less than two years has been unprecedented, and he is turning out to be the ultimate vindication of Asiwaju Bola Tinubu. The zeal, focus and simplicity that he has brought to the job is refreshing. The rate of on-going investments in transportation, education, and urban renewal raise a realistic prospect of Lagos becoming a viable global mega-city after eight years of Fashola.
My person of the year is Gani Fawehinmi. This selection honours Gani’s lifelong commitment to the Nigerian nation and particularly the under-privileged. For most of the year, Gani was on his sick bed inside or outside the country, but that did not stop him from continuing to raise his voice passionately against corruption and mis-governance in our dear country. He has used his legal training, media access and even founded a political party, National Conscience Party to realise his dreams for a better Nigeria. He has given of his best, and will go to his God with a clear conscience. He is my person of 2008.
In 2003 and 2004, I selected the then president’s economic team as “team of the year”. In 2005, I chose an individual member of the same team, Dr Mrs Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala as person of the year. That was the year in which her efforts and those of her colleagues and the then regime culminated in the historic Paris Club debt forgiveness deal. In 2006 I selected the Nigerian Judiciary as “institution of the year” and for 2007 the Supreme Court was the choice. The Supreme Court was recognised for being the last bulwark against dictatorship and unconstitutional actions that characterised the last days of the Obasanjo regime particularly after the Obasanjo-Atiku rift and the “third-term” debacle. The Supreme Court reversed the unconstitutional impeachments of Rasheed Ladoja, Joshua Dariye and Peter Obi and upheld the rights of Atiku and Ifeanyi Araurume to contest the 2007 elections. The Court also extended the rule of Peter Obi to preserve his four-year tenure and brought Rotimi Amaechi to office in Rivers State.
This time I have had problems finding Nigerian nominees for person of the year, perhaps reflecting the reality that not much progress was made in this nation in 2008. I usually start with a short list of ten nominees; this year my best efforts yielded only five names, not one of whom is a functionary of the federal government. While some federal ministers may have exerted themselves individually, the absence of a broad policy direction meant their efforts were by-and-large in vain. I hope with the end of the electoral petitions against President Yar’adua and the constitution of a new cabinet, the nation will experience more vibrant governance in 2009. At the end of the day, my nominees for person of the year 2008 (in no particular order) were Adams Oshiomole, Nuhu Ribadu, Rotimi Amaechi, Babatunde Raji Fashola and Chief Gani Fawehinmi.
Adams Oshiomole completed a rare transition from labour leader to elected political office holder in 2008. Along the way, he made some strategic and pragmatic trade-offs shunning his presumed ideological platform of the Labour Party for first the ANPP, and then the Action Congress in Edo State where he became bedfellows with characters like Tom Ikimi. He appeared to win a decisive victory at the polls, but the PDP rigging machine delayed him. And then he fought a determined legal battle and eventually regained his mandate through the Courts. Oshiomole now has a chance to write his name in history and prove that agitation can be transformed into successful governance. The jury is still out.
Nuhu Ribadu remained in the news throughout 2008. With Ribadu, the Yar’adua regime proved that it could be focused and swift in achieving its objectives no matter the odds. They first invented the subterfuge of sending Ribadu to NIPPS purportedly on course, then replaced him with Ibrahim Lamorde for a season before sending Lamorde himself off to Siberia. Then Ribadu was demoted, and recently dismissed from the Nigerian Police in a state-sponsored vendetta against a committed and brave officer. Ribadu made some mistakes no doubt-he allowed Obasanjo to use him in some discreditable agendas, but today he remains a symbol of courage and anti-corruption and in spite of the best efforts of his adversaries will bounce back sooner than later!
Rotimi Amaechi has been aggressively developing infrastructure in Rivers State-building hospitals and health centres, roads and bridges, primary and secondary schools and rebuilding Port-Harcourt into the garden city it once was. He has ambitious plans for a Port-Harcourt new city and is seeking to restore governance to the service of the people. Babatunde Fashola has simply been a revelation in Lagos State. The transformation he has recorded in Lagos in less than two years has been unprecedented, and he is turning out to be the ultimate vindication of Asiwaju Bola Tinubu. The zeal, focus and simplicity that he has brought to the job is refreshing. The rate of on-going investments in transportation, education, and urban renewal raise a realistic prospect of Lagos becoming a viable global mega-city after eight years of Fashola.
My person of the year is Gani Fawehinmi. This selection honours Gani’s lifelong commitment to the Nigerian nation and particularly the under-privileged. For most of the year, Gani was on his sick bed inside or outside the country, but that did not stop him from continuing to raise his voice passionately against corruption and mis-governance in our dear country. He has used his legal training, media access and even founded a political party, National Conscience Party to realise his dreams for a better Nigeria. He has given of his best, and will go to his God with a clear conscience. He is my person of 2008.
The Church and Society
Why is it that the Church in Nigeria does not appear to be engaged in any significant manner with some of the most important challenges confronting our nation? Most Nigerians will agree that Nigeria has been held down by deep-seated corruption, in government and the private sector; the will of the majority is being subverted by an unrepresentative democracy; society is held captive by an unenlightened and rapacious elite; and the vast majority of people are victims of social injustice particularly poverty, oppression, insecurity and abusive use of power.
Every other national problem in my view can be traced to these fundamental causes. Corruption is at the root of our infrastructure deficiency, particularly power and transportation-appropriations get into private accounts rather than deliver power stations, roads, bridges, hospitals, schools, and rural infrastructure. Corruption is at the root of the violent struggle for power and election rigging that destroys our democracy-if public office were about service and sacrifice, we would struggle to find enough people interested in them to fill all the offices we have created in our constitution. Corruption means that police men and military men are so poor and angry that they take out their frustrations on innocent citizens and civilians.
Private sector corruption prevents the corporate sector from fulfilling its developmental role in our economy. CEOs quickly turn public companies and depositors’ funds into private fiefdoms or individual bank accounts, ensuring that those enterprises are soon destroyed by mismanagement, fraud and corporate governance scandals, while employees, poor investors and depositors who had staked their life savings are impoverished. Corruption denies the poor justice in our police stations and magistrates courts, and turns the ‘big man’ into an oppressor over the less fortunate. It is due to corruption that the politician once elected or selected into public office becomes unaccountable to the electorate and even erstwhile “godfathers”, as he quickly amasses enough loot to silence the majority and terrorise the dissenting minority.
So why have these and other social issues not been at the top of the agenda of the contemporary Nigerian Church? Jesus Christ himself spoke out especially on behalf of the poor or weak, those who mourn, the meek, the sick, all those who labour and are heavy laden, widows, the lame, blind etc and he railed against oppression. He declared that he did not come to save the righteous, but the sinners and asked them to allow little children come unto him. It is clear from the ministry of Christ that he was keenly interested in social justice. This is also the case when we examine the impact of the Church on western society.
The Protestant Reformation and the revolutionary teachings of John Wyclif, Martin Luther and John Calvin presaged the economic and industrial progress that Europe would later experience. The personal and social transformation which the beliefs and personal examples of the Puritans and Quakers brought to bear on Western society cannot be de-linked from the Christian value system and pattern of behaviour that was later to accelerate their economic development. As a particular example, Gary Hamel, a Professor of Strategy (and one of my favourites) notes that it was the beliefs of Frederick Winslow Taylor, a Quaker that led him to seek ways of improving workplace practices and led to his path breaking work in developing the principles of scientific management.
Indeed history suggests a connection between the so-called Protestant work ethic (with its principles of honesty, fair-dealing, hard work, trust and integrity) and the industrial revolution in Europe. As many employers of labour in Nigeria (frustrated by the poor ethics and values of employees) would recognise, it would have been impossible to have an industrial revolution without values which encouraged honesty, productivity, diligence, a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay etc-the value system embedded in the Protestant work ethic. So why is the Christian faith not having a similar impact on Nigerian and indeed African society? Why do we have so many Christian Churches of the Orthodox, African, Evangelical, white-garment and Pentecostal varieties and yet there is so much corruption in the land? How come the Churches don’t even talk about these things? Are we like the pre-reformation Catholic Church in Europe, “selling indulgences” to the corrupt and so unable to criticise them?
Jesus himself said in Mathew 5: 13-16 that the Church is supposed to be the salt of the earth and light of the world, and warned against the salt losing its savour or the light being put under a bushel. He specifically entreated the Church to “Let your light so shine before men…” and warned against a Church that loses it impact and becomes good for nothing, “except to be cast out, and trodden under foot of men”. Can we say today that the Church in Nigeria in spite of the large number of people attending Churches is having the kind of impact a pinch of salt has on a whole pot of soup? Are we like the Quakers and Puritans redefining moral and ethical standards or is the Church in fact complicit in them? Christianity is an agent of personal and societal transformation. That was the message Christ preached, and that was the example of the early Church. The Nigerian Church must rediscover this essence.
Every other national problem in my view can be traced to these fundamental causes. Corruption is at the root of our infrastructure deficiency, particularly power and transportation-appropriations get into private accounts rather than deliver power stations, roads, bridges, hospitals, schools, and rural infrastructure. Corruption is at the root of the violent struggle for power and election rigging that destroys our democracy-if public office were about service and sacrifice, we would struggle to find enough people interested in them to fill all the offices we have created in our constitution. Corruption means that police men and military men are so poor and angry that they take out their frustrations on innocent citizens and civilians.
Private sector corruption prevents the corporate sector from fulfilling its developmental role in our economy. CEOs quickly turn public companies and depositors’ funds into private fiefdoms or individual bank accounts, ensuring that those enterprises are soon destroyed by mismanagement, fraud and corporate governance scandals, while employees, poor investors and depositors who had staked their life savings are impoverished. Corruption denies the poor justice in our police stations and magistrates courts, and turns the ‘big man’ into an oppressor over the less fortunate. It is due to corruption that the politician once elected or selected into public office becomes unaccountable to the electorate and even erstwhile “godfathers”, as he quickly amasses enough loot to silence the majority and terrorise the dissenting minority.
So why have these and other social issues not been at the top of the agenda of the contemporary Nigerian Church? Jesus Christ himself spoke out especially on behalf of the poor or weak, those who mourn, the meek, the sick, all those who labour and are heavy laden, widows, the lame, blind etc and he railed against oppression. He declared that he did not come to save the righteous, but the sinners and asked them to allow little children come unto him. It is clear from the ministry of Christ that he was keenly interested in social justice. This is also the case when we examine the impact of the Church on western society.
The Protestant Reformation and the revolutionary teachings of John Wyclif, Martin Luther and John Calvin presaged the economic and industrial progress that Europe would later experience. The personal and social transformation which the beliefs and personal examples of the Puritans and Quakers brought to bear on Western society cannot be de-linked from the Christian value system and pattern of behaviour that was later to accelerate their economic development. As a particular example, Gary Hamel, a Professor of Strategy (and one of my favourites) notes that it was the beliefs of Frederick Winslow Taylor, a Quaker that led him to seek ways of improving workplace practices and led to his path breaking work in developing the principles of scientific management.
Indeed history suggests a connection between the so-called Protestant work ethic (with its principles of honesty, fair-dealing, hard work, trust and integrity) and the industrial revolution in Europe. As many employers of labour in Nigeria (frustrated by the poor ethics and values of employees) would recognise, it would have been impossible to have an industrial revolution without values which encouraged honesty, productivity, diligence, a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay etc-the value system embedded in the Protestant work ethic. So why is the Christian faith not having a similar impact on Nigerian and indeed African society? Why do we have so many Christian Churches of the Orthodox, African, Evangelical, white-garment and Pentecostal varieties and yet there is so much corruption in the land? How come the Churches don’t even talk about these things? Are we like the pre-reformation Catholic Church in Europe, “selling indulgences” to the corrupt and so unable to criticise them?
Jesus himself said in Mathew 5: 13-16 that the Church is supposed to be the salt of the earth and light of the world, and warned against the salt losing its savour or the light being put under a bushel. He specifically entreated the Church to “Let your light so shine before men…” and warned against a Church that loses it impact and becomes good for nothing, “except to be cast out, and trodden under foot of men”. Can we say today that the Church in Nigeria in spite of the large number of people attending Churches is having the kind of impact a pinch of salt has on a whole pot of soup? Are we like the Quakers and Puritans redefining moral and ethical standards or is the Church in fact complicit in them? Christianity is an agent of personal and societal transformation. That was the message Christ preached, and that was the example of the early Church. The Nigerian Church must rediscover this essence.
The Mind of Christ
It is usual for this column at this time of the year to reflect on issues of faith and spirituality. Society these days is defined by entertainment and consumerism, so the essence of seasons like Easter, Christmas, Valentines Day etc are forgotten and instead the celebrations are recast purely in terms of fun, entertainment, marketing, and sales. Having being so re-defined, the nature of the activities that dominate such seasons often become the exact anti-thesis of their original essence. So this column from its inception has always dedicated its pages around Easter and Christmas as well as at other times to the essence of such seasons.
Jesus was defined by his humility and lowliness, traits which contemporary society regards as negative. The slogan today is “if you’ve got it, flaunt it”. Jesus Christ was born in a manger. His father was a carpenter. He identified with the poor and lowly and in spite of the power and authority which he possessed, he remained humble and meek. Leaders today, whether in temporal offices with secular powers or even more surprisingly leaders in explicitly spiritual contexts (with the exception of a few) are unable to imitate this characteristic of Christ. Leaders prefer the vanity, pride and arrogance of power. They are to be served rather than to serve others, and they are to be exalted.
One of the most important attributes of Jesus was his compassion and love. In fact it can be argued that this was Christ’s most important trait. It was the reason he healed them; it was because of his compassion that he restored their eyesight, lifted up the lame, raised the dead, and ultimately it was because of his love and compassion for man that he went to the cross and gave up his life in order that we may have a hope of salvation. Love and compassion are scarce commodities in society today, regrettably even in the Church. It is the absence of compassion for fellow citizens that makes a public officer to embezzle funds meant for provision of education and health facilities, and generally feeds the corruption that is destroying our society. It is the lack of love that make people kill their fellow men in a orgy of violence and destruction after elections are held. It is the absence of compassion for their fellow men that leads to wars, poverty, hatred and prejudice, terrorism and other evils that afflict the world today.
Yet in spite of his humility and compassion, Christ was not weak and sycophantic. He was bold and courageous, and had inner strength and conviction. He told the powerful religious people of his time-the Pharisees and Sadducees, and the Sanhedrin, the rich and powerful people, the truth. He chased the commercial people out of the temple and repeatedly condemned the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. And he had the courage to endure beatings and scourging and eventually death at the cross, when he could have simply denied the accusations of the leaders of the Jews in search of self-preservation.
Jesus had a deep intellect and wisdom. When I reflect on some of the sayings and parables of Christ, I marvel at the depth of philosophy, knowledge and wisdom embedded in his mind. When Satan tempted him, he responded with knowledge and wisdom. The poetry and blessings in his beatitudes did not proceed from a shallow and ordinary mind. He thoroughly studied the writings of the prophets contained in the Old Testament such that at critical moments he quoted from the scriptures. At the age of twelve, he was found in the Temple sitting in the midst of the teachers, listening and asking questions, and amazing them with his understanding. And the Bible records that he increased in wisdom and stature and favour with God and men. Today knowledge is despised, and materialism is exalted. We celebrate the fact that people do not like to read or study, and so give them music and pictures. And when we seek wisdom today, we do not seek the type founded in the word of God and the mind and manner of Christ, but we exalt a type of worldly wisdom founded on manipulation, sycophancy and self-interest.
Christ was not interested in the kingdoms of the world, which Satan offered him. He preferred instead the eternal kingdom which was assured to him in heaven. He did not seek human power and material riches. The reverse is often the case today, as people say, “na heaven I go chop” and instead sell their souls to the devil. That is the only reason people embrace evil just to acquire wealth and power. That is why we have deadly armed robbers who kill for a few thousand Naira, and why political aspirants can hire killers to eliminate their opponents. He was always focused on the end which was his love for man, and his determination to do the will of his father.
Christ was sacrificial, always giving of himself. He gave of his time and virtue. He gave of his kingdom and ultimately he gave his life. He was not always taking of others as is common today. His attitude was not exploitative and covetous. He washed the feet of his disciples. He stayed awake praying even when they could not travail with him. He never feasted on the weaknesses of the people, but always sought to build them up. Even though they called him master, he never acted as one. He was a servant-leader.
Jesus was defined by his humility and lowliness, traits which contemporary society regards as negative. The slogan today is “if you’ve got it, flaunt it”. Jesus Christ was born in a manger. His father was a carpenter. He identified with the poor and lowly and in spite of the power and authority which he possessed, he remained humble and meek. Leaders today, whether in temporal offices with secular powers or even more surprisingly leaders in explicitly spiritual contexts (with the exception of a few) are unable to imitate this characteristic of Christ. Leaders prefer the vanity, pride and arrogance of power. They are to be served rather than to serve others, and they are to be exalted.
One of the most important attributes of Jesus was his compassion and love. In fact it can be argued that this was Christ’s most important trait. It was the reason he healed them; it was because of his compassion that he restored their eyesight, lifted up the lame, raised the dead, and ultimately it was because of his love and compassion for man that he went to the cross and gave up his life in order that we may have a hope of salvation. Love and compassion are scarce commodities in society today, regrettably even in the Church. It is the absence of compassion for fellow citizens that makes a public officer to embezzle funds meant for provision of education and health facilities, and generally feeds the corruption that is destroying our society. It is the lack of love that make people kill their fellow men in a orgy of violence and destruction after elections are held. It is the absence of compassion for their fellow men that leads to wars, poverty, hatred and prejudice, terrorism and other evils that afflict the world today.
Yet in spite of his humility and compassion, Christ was not weak and sycophantic. He was bold and courageous, and had inner strength and conviction. He told the powerful religious people of his time-the Pharisees and Sadducees, and the Sanhedrin, the rich and powerful people, the truth. He chased the commercial people out of the temple and repeatedly condemned the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. And he had the courage to endure beatings and scourging and eventually death at the cross, when he could have simply denied the accusations of the leaders of the Jews in search of self-preservation.
Jesus had a deep intellect and wisdom. When I reflect on some of the sayings and parables of Christ, I marvel at the depth of philosophy, knowledge and wisdom embedded in his mind. When Satan tempted him, he responded with knowledge and wisdom. The poetry and blessings in his beatitudes did not proceed from a shallow and ordinary mind. He thoroughly studied the writings of the prophets contained in the Old Testament such that at critical moments he quoted from the scriptures. At the age of twelve, he was found in the Temple sitting in the midst of the teachers, listening and asking questions, and amazing them with his understanding. And the Bible records that he increased in wisdom and stature and favour with God and men. Today knowledge is despised, and materialism is exalted. We celebrate the fact that people do not like to read or study, and so give them music and pictures. And when we seek wisdom today, we do not seek the type founded in the word of God and the mind and manner of Christ, but we exalt a type of worldly wisdom founded on manipulation, sycophancy and self-interest.
Christ was not interested in the kingdoms of the world, which Satan offered him. He preferred instead the eternal kingdom which was assured to him in heaven. He did not seek human power and material riches. The reverse is often the case today, as people say, “na heaven I go chop” and instead sell their souls to the devil. That is the only reason people embrace evil just to acquire wealth and power. That is why we have deadly armed robbers who kill for a few thousand Naira, and why political aspirants can hire killers to eliminate their opponents. He was always focused on the end which was his love for man, and his determination to do the will of his father.
Christ was sacrificial, always giving of himself. He gave of his time and virtue. He gave of his kingdom and ultimately he gave his life. He was not always taking of others as is common today. His attitude was not exploitative and covetous. He washed the feet of his disciples. He stayed awake praying even when they could not travail with him. He never feasted on the weaknesses of the people, but always sought to build them up. Even though they called him master, he never acted as one. He was a servant-leader.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Strategy Lessons from Barack Obama (2)
Be calm and focused on your strategy. Be passionate but not emotional: Success in strategy requires intense focus, passion and commitment. But the line between passion and emotions is very thin. Don’t cross that line. Barack Obama never crossed the line. John McCain crossed it virtually every day of the campaign. He got angry, appearing irritated and insulted that Obama had the audacity to contest against him. In the debates, he couldn’t bare to look directly at Obama. The problem is anger and other disruptive emotions get in the way of your reasoning and lead to mistakes, and not surprisingly McCain moved from one error to another, acquiring a reputation as being erratic. Note however that genuine positive emotions (such as Hillary’s tearful moment) may sometimes help.
Execution is everything!: Barack Obama built an overwhelming and tight execution capacity and worked it very tightly through the primaries to the general election. Plans are nothing, if you can’t execute them. You must have a very effective and disciplined organisation that ensures you carry out your plans before your competitor. He raised money easily, had foot soldiers all over the US, even in republican strongholds and built a system that delivered the voters.
Use Technology: Obama’s campaign reminds businesses that technology can be a real source of competitive advantage, and not just a cost centre, or fanciful machines. The campaign used the internet better than any other campaign, used social networking sites such as facebook and myspace, kept an impressive database of supporters with whom it communicated seamlessly and raised vast sums of money through the internet, leaving experienced politicians versed in “manual” face-to-face politics wondering what hit them. Don’t just buy fashionable technology. Use it to overwhelm your opposition.
Charisma and Intellect combined with sound strategy and excellent communication skills make you an unbeatable brand: It is not accidental that the most important leaders in business and politics are charismatic and communicate well. J.F Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Kwame Nkrumah, Martin Luther King Jnr, Murtala Muhammed, Tony Blair are all “good looking” and speak well. For businesses, your brand is your looks, and your brand projection and external communication represents your ability to speak well. Nurture your “looks” and “speech” and your business will thrive. But note that this people didn’t just speak well, they had the intellect and depth to go with it. So build your brand on substance, not hype (like Sarah Palin).
Don’t fight today’s or tomorrow’s wars using yesterday’s strategies: Successful generals always make the mistake of using their old successful tactics and strategies anytime they are confronted with a new foe, ultimately to their peril. The war front and the competitive market place are always changing. No matter how successful you have been in the past, carefully observe in what way the terrain has changed and adapt or even overhaul your strategy accordingly. The Republican Party has been very successful against the democrats, beating Al Gore and John Kerry with a much weaker candidate-George W Bush. But they did not recognise that Americans were tired of war, and were worried about the economy. These ultimately cost them victory. Obama on the other hand, suspected that Americans wanted a new direction, with less partisanship, and issue-oriented campaigns, and crafted an appropriate strategy.
When the industry leader is over-confident and complacent, it may be time to move against him: The “industry leaders” in America were tired and arrogant, a very bad combination. The Republicans as a party, and the political elite-the Bushes, McCains, Clintons, and Kennedys no longer had the fire in their belly that had propelled them to the top. They now had a sense of entitlement, as if the world was obligated to them. Well the world owes you nothing! The market owes you nothing! You succeed or fail on your current performance, not historical record. Obama had that fire and challenged the tired incumbents. It is the same in business. Success often changes the successful and presents an opportunity to the ambitious. Seize that opportunity.
Don’t fight dirty, but don’t ignore your opponent’s underhand tactics: Barack Obama learnt important lessons from Al Gore, John Kerry and even Michael Dukakis. The republicans used “swift boat politics” to destroy Kerry’s record as a war hero; they rigged out Al Gore in Florida; and they turned Dukakis’ intellect against him making him look like a Harvard academic rather than a political leader. Guess what they used all three against Obama, but none of them worked because Obama prepared against all those tactics. He responded to every Jeremiah Wright or William Ayers accusation; he aggressively brought out black, Latino and young voters in the battleground states and encouraged early voting to preclude a Florida scenario; and he was careful not to validate republican accusations of being ‘professorial’.
Build a loyal and committed team: Barack Obama reminds us of the invaluable benefit of having a loyal and committed team. The Obama campaign was a very loyal powerhouse, with no leaks and everyone absolutely committed to the team’s success. Victory was not just a credit to Obama, it was about Michelle Obama, David Plouffe, David Axelrod, Robert Gibbs, Paul Harstad, Susan Rice, Gregory Craig, Rahm Emmanuel, Valerie Jarret and other members of the tight Chicago team that Obama assembled working together towards a common goal. Obama had his back covered. Many people are surrounded by their enemies. To succeed in any enterprise, ensure you are surrounded by the right people.
Execution is everything!: Barack Obama built an overwhelming and tight execution capacity and worked it very tightly through the primaries to the general election. Plans are nothing, if you can’t execute them. You must have a very effective and disciplined organisation that ensures you carry out your plans before your competitor. He raised money easily, had foot soldiers all over the US, even in republican strongholds and built a system that delivered the voters.
Use Technology: Obama’s campaign reminds businesses that technology can be a real source of competitive advantage, and not just a cost centre, or fanciful machines. The campaign used the internet better than any other campaign, used social networking sites such as facebook and myspace, kept an impressive database of supporters with whom it communicated seamlessly and raised vast sums of money through the internet, leaving experienced politicians versed in “manual” face-to-face politics wondering what hit them. Don’t just buy fashionable technology. Use it to overwhelm your opposition.
Charisma and Intellect combined with sound strategy and excellent communication skills make you an unbeatable brand: It is not accidental that the most important leaders in business and politics are charismatic and communicate well. J.F Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Kwame Nkrumah, Martin Luther King Jnr, Murtala Muhammed, Tony Blair are all “good looking” and speak well. For businesses, your brand is your looks, and your brand projection and external communication represents your ability to speak well. Nurture your “looks” and “speech” and your business will thrive. But note that this people didn’t just speak well, they had the intellect and depth to go with it. So build your brand on substance, not hype (like Sarah Palin).
Don’t fight today’s or tomorrow’s wars using yesterday’s strategies: Successful generals always make the mistake of using their old successful tactics and strategies anytime they are confronted with a new foe, ultimately to their peril. The war front and the competitive market place are always changing. No matter how successful you have been in the past, carefully observe in what way the terrain has changed and adapt or even overhaul your strategy accordingly. The Republican Party has been very successful against the democrats, beating Al Gore and John Kerry with a much weaker candidate-George W Bush. But they did not recognise that Americans were tired of war, and were worried about the economy. These ultimately cost them victory. Obama on the other hand, suspected that Americans wanted a new direction, with less partisanship, and issue-oriented campaigns, and crafted an appropriate strategy.
When the industry leader is over-confident and complacent, it may be time to move against him: The “industry leaders” in America were tired and arrogant, a very bad combination. The Republicans as a party, and the political elite-the Bushes, McCains, Clintons, and Kennedys no longer had the fire in their belly that had propelled them to the top. They now had a sense of entitlement, as if the world was obligated to them. Well the world owes you nothing! The market owes you nothing! You succeed or fail on your current performance, not historical record. Obama had that fire and challenged the tired incumbents. It is the same in business. Success often changes the successful and presents an opportunity to the ambitious. Seize that opportunity.
Don’t fight dirty, but don’t ignore your opponent’s underhand tactics: Barack Obama learnt important lessons from Al Gore, John Kerry and even Michael Dukakis. The republicans used “swift boat politics” to destroy Kerry’s record as a war hero; they rigged out Al Gore in Florida; and they turned Dukakis’ intellect against him making him look like a Harvard academic rather than a political leader. Guess what they used all three against Obama, but none of them worked because Obama prepared against all those tactics. He responded to every Jeremiah Wright or William Ayers accusation; he aggressively brought out black, Latino and young voters in the battleground states and encouraged early voting to preclude a Florida scenario; and he was careful not to validate republican accusations of being ‘professorial’.
Build a loyal and committed team: Barack Obama reminds us of the invaluable benefit of having a loyal and committed team. The Obama campaign was a very loyal powerhouse, with no leaks and everyone absolutely committed to the team’s success. Victory was not just a credit to Obama, it was about Michelle Obama, David Plouffe, David Axelrod, Robert Gibbs, Paul Harstad, Susan Rice, Gregory Craig, Rahm Emmanuel, Valerie Jarret and other members of the tight Chicago team that Obama assembled working together towards a common goal. Obama had his back covered. Many people are surrounded by their enemies. To succeed in any enterprise, ensure you are surrounded by the right people.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Strategy Lessons from Barack Obama (1)
The strategist may be concerned and may derive conceptual lessons and applications from national development strategies, military and war strategy, politics, sports, love and friendship, personal success and even from spiritual warfare and the Bible. I have for instance written on these pages “Strategy Lessons from football” which was an attempt to distil lessons business managers could learn from soccer. I have also written “The Ultimate Strategist”-that of course is the Almighty God, who alone ultimately grants success to any human venture-“except the Lord builds, they labour in vain who build the house”.
Today we focus on politics and specifically Barack Obama’s astounding victory in the November 4, 2008 US presidential elections. It was an improbable victory. It looked like a long shot. Obama sought a political objective that was unprecedented, perhaps revolutionary. Yet in the end, his victory was total and complete, even redefining the US political map and changing probably for ever the course of political and social development in America and the rest of the world. Surely there must be some lessons business managers and strategists can learn from Barack Obama. In this article, we attempt to identify some of those lessons.
Don’t accept Industry Orthodoxy: If Obama had accepted the accepted orthodoxy in the political “industry”, he would have believed that he needed to build up a decent Senate legislative record before he could countenance a run for the White House. He would also have been told that an African-American could not hope to win the US presidency, especially a first-generation one with a Kenyan father, and a Muslim background. Obama did not believe any of this believing that industry conditions are dynamic, not static, and that individual market participants are not helpless concerning them. In short, he sought and succeeded in shaping his industry, rather than accepting received wisdom.
There is no reason why you can’t aim for industry leadership: Related to the above point, Obama felt he was as entitled as any one else to become US president. That would have been presumptuous considering the giants like Hillary Clinton (a former first lady with the powerful Clinton machinery behind her) within his party, and a war hero and distinguished long serving Senator like John McCain who he faced in the general election. Any conventional “manager” may have been sensible to discount the possibility of victory in such a lop-sided contest. But not Obama, and his audacity of hope. The concept of strategic intent is similar. Successful companies set audacious, stretch goals, and put strategy, passion and commitment behind them, and many times, they succeed.
Look beyond current industry boundaries: Barack Obama may not have won either the democratic primary or the general election if he didn’t attract new voters into the equation. So he aggressively courted young, first time voters and encouraged many to vote for the very first time. Business strategists must similarly think beyond current consumers and markets. Where are the “blue oceans”? Who are the consumers of the future? How can your firm change the market boundaries to your advantage?
When there is a winning idea, resources and capital will always be available: Many firms and entrepreneurs blame the shortcomings of their businesses on the lack of finance. Obama suggests otherwise. There is no conceivable reason why anyone could have expected Obama to raise more money than Hillary or McCain. But markets recognise good ideas. If your idea is a winning one, capital will become available.
A nimble, creative and resourceful new entrant can outmanoeuvre the big, unwieldy, resource-rich dinosaur: At the end of the day, creativity and innovation will defeat a bigger player, who has no new ideas. John McCain brought nothing new into the general elections except the scare tactics that had been used successfully against John Kerry and Al Gore. The voters facing economic crisis had been inured against those but McCain’s strategists did not recognise the need for a new strategy. Same with Hillary-she assumed it was about experience, but the market wanted change, and it was too late before she realised.
Find the right strategy, and stick to it!: Barack Obama had only one message throughout the democratic primaries and the general election-change! While John McCain kept on trying every tactic in the book, Obama stuck to his single message-change we can believe in, change we need, change has come to Washington!
Take the battle to your opponent’s territory: Barack Obama in the last days of the campaign forced McCain to continue to defend states that were historically assumed to be safe republican territory, and in the end won several of them. He succeeded in forcing McCain on the defensive, even spending scare campaign resources in his home state of Arizona. Of course McCain could not dare near any democratic stronghold-Chicago, New York, Massachusetts etc, but was on the defensive in Ohio, Indiana, etc. Don’t be continuously defending your markets, let the competitor be busy defending his while you consolidate your own markets.
Today we focus on politics and specifically Barack Obama’s astounding victory in the November 4, 2008 US presidential elections. It was an improbable victory. It looked like a long shot. Obama sought a political objective that was unprecedented, perhaps revolutionary. Yet in the end, his victory was total and complete, even redefining the US political map and changing probably for ever the course of political and social development in America and the rest of the world. Surely there must be some lessons business managers and strategists can learn from Barack Obama. In this article, we attempt to identify some of those lessons.
Don’t accept Industry Orthodoxy: If Obama had accepted the accepted orthodoxy in the political “industry”, he would have believed that he needed to build up a decent Senate legislative record before he could countenance a run for the White House. He would also have been told that an African-American could not hope to win the US presidency, especially a first-generation one with a Kenyan father, and a Muslim background. Obama did not believe any of this believing that industry conditions are dynamic, not static, and that individual market participants are not helpless concerning them. In short, he sought and succeeded in shaping his industry, rather than accepting received wisdom.
There is no reason why you can’t aim for industry leadership: Related to the above point, Obama felt he was as entitled as any one else to become US president. That would have been presumptuous considering the giants like Hillary Clinton (a former first lady with the powerful Clinton machinery behind her) within his party, and a war hero and distinguished long serving Senator like John McCain who he faced in the general election. Any conventional “manager” may have been sensible to discount the possibility of victory in such a lop-sided contest. But not Obama, and his audacity of hope. The concept of strategic intent is similar. Successful companies set audacious, stretch goals, and put strategy, passion and commitment behind them, and many times, they succeed.
Look beyond current industry boundaries: Barack Obama may not have won either the democratic primary or the general election if he didn’t attract new voters into the equation. So he aggressively courted young, first time voters and encouraged many to vote for the very first time. Business strategists must similarly think beyond current consumers and markets. Where are the “blue oceans”? Who are the consumers of the future? How can your firm change the market boundaries to your advantage?
When there is a winning idea, resources and capital will always be available: Many firms and entrepreneurs blame the shortcomings of their businesses on the lack of finance. Obama suggests otherwise. There is no conceivable reason why anyone could have expected Obama to raise more money than Hillary or McCain. But markets recognise good ideas. If your idea is a winning one, capital will become available.
A nimble, creative and resourceful new entrant can outmanoeuvre the big, unwieldy, resource-rich dinosaur: At the end of the day, creativity and innovation will defeat a bigger player, who has no new ideas. John McCain brought nothing new into the general elections except the scare tactics that had been used successfully against John Kerry and Al Gore. The voters facing economic crisis had been inured against those but McCain’s strategists did not recognise the need for a new strategy. Same with Hillary-she assumed it was about experience, but the market wanted change, and it was too late before she realised.
Find the right strategy, and stick to it!: Barack Obama had only one message throughout the democratic primaries and the general election-change! While John McCain kept on trying every tactic in the book, Obama stuck to his single message-change we can believe in, change we need, change has come to Washington!
Take the battle to your opponent’s territory: Barack Obama in the last days of the campaign forced McCain to continue to defend states that were historically assumed to be safe republican territory, and in the end won several of them. He succeeded in forcing McCain on the defensive, even spending scare campaign resources in his home state of Arizona. Of course McCain could not dare near any democratic stronghold-Chicago, New York, Massachusetts etc, but was on the defensive in Ohio, Indiana, etc. Don’t be continuously defending your markets, let the competitor be busy defending his while you consolidate your own markets.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
American Definitions
Long time followers of this space will be aware that we occasionally update our book of definitions to reflect the real meaning of words and phrases in current usage. Sometimes our definitions are different from the conventional meanings as per the English language dictionaries but be assured that we capture the true essence of all we define.
Hockey Mums: Good looking, white American women who do not read newspapers, and who think Africa is a country. They may run for high national office without once discussing economic issues, foreign, defence or national security or indeed anything of substance.
Cultural Conservatives: Racists. People who are deeply suspicious of any one or any ideas that reflects a background or viewpoint different from theirs.
Socialist: George W Bush! He has nationalised banks, he’s spending unprecedented sums on economic stimulus packages and bail-out packages for failed businesses.
Fiscal Conservatives: Republicans, until they get into the White House! After entering the White House, they reduce taxes for the rich, expend the national budget fighting wars and helping the military-industrial complex, pile up huge fiscal deficits and increase the national debt to unprecedented levels.
Trickle-Down Economics: A principle crafted by Ronald Reagan and faithfully practiced by George W Bush that says that if you make the rich richer, the poor will get inspired to stop being lazy and work harder to get themselves out of their self-imposed poverty.
Primaries: The system by which political parties in the US choose their candidates for general elections. It is a transparent mechanism that allows any interested party member to indicate interest in any office and persuade fellow members to choose him as the party’s candidate. If he succeeds in persuading them, be becomes the candidate and can go on to win (or lose) the election. (Note-the word has a different meaning in Nigeria, where it means a process whereby a few party chieftains select the candidate and impose him or her on the helpless party members. If the members are stubborn, they may simply cancel the primaries and announce the candidate of their choice, who may not even have been a candidate in the primaries.)
Undecided Voters: People who knew they should vote for Obama, but were looking for a reason (other than his race) not to do so. Fortunately Obama gave them no alibi, so they voted for him.
Swing States: The few states that decide who wins the elections in America. Also means states with a lot of undecided voters.
Sarah Palin: A pitbull who wears lipstick and can see Russia from her home in Alaska.
Maverick: One maverick is good, but two? Another word for erratic, tactical and unpredictable. The older you get, the more “mavericky” you become. (Note-if you are a hockey mum, pitbull or Alaskan, it is also a word you can use to explain away any question you don’t understand-just say mavericky, mavericky, mackericky….ad infinitum, until the interviewer gets tired)
George W Bush: The lame-duck Vice-President of the US. He acts as President when Dick Cheney is undergoing another heart by-pass surgery. He was elected to office as a Republican, but before and during the last elections, he became an independent! Notice that John McCain criticised him and the Republicans avoided him like a plague. Having being silently expelled from the Republican Party, he was not allowed to attend a single campaign event for the McCain-Palin ticket.
Cindy McCain: The rich, glass-eyed, ice cold lady who lost to Michelle Obama.
Michelle Obama: She went to Princeton and Harvard, and is now very proud of the United States of America. Who wouldn’t be!
Hillary Clinton: The person who democrats would have nominated for Presidency if they were rational and sensible. But being Democrats, as usual they acted irrationally and chose a single-term, Kenyan-born, black American Senator from Illinois with a strange name, a middle name of Hussein and a very thin CV to Republican glee. Fortunately after eight years of George W Bush, Americans would have voted for even Hosni Mubarak if he was the alternative to the Republican Party! And God sent the ten plagues-stock market collapses, sub-prime mortgage crisis, bank failures, credit crunch, automakers potential bankruptcy, global energy crisis, global food crisis, rising unemployment figures, mortgage foreclosures and global warming to convince Americans to let his people become President.
Barack Obama: President-elect of the United States!!! The historical product of the dalliance between a Kenyan intellectual (who later returned to Kenya and as you might expect died of depression and alcoholism) and a white American idealist. Against all odds, he went to Columbia and Harvard and has now proven to all that if you have a child with an American passport, better leave him or her in America! Worst case the child will become Tiger Woods, or Shaquille O’Neal. Thank God they did not take him back to Kenya-he may have been shot during a students’ demonstration at University of Nairobi, by a policeman asking for bribe or during the post-election violence involving his Luo tribe. Alternatively he may have died of malaria, AIDS or tuberculosis. Or hunger. If all fails, the witches and wizards who killed his father would have turned their attention to him.
Hockey Mums: Good looking, white American women who do not read newspapers, and who think Africa is a country. They may run for high national office without once discussing economic issues, foreign, defence or national security or indeed anything of substance.
Cultural Conservatives: Racists. People who are deeply suspicious of any one or any ideas that reflects a background or viewpoint different from theirs.
Socialist: George W Bush! He has nationalised banks, he’s spending unprecedented sums on economic stimulus packages and bail-out packages for failed businesses.
Fiscal Conservatives: Republicans, until they get into the White House! After entering the White House, they reduce taxes for the rich, expend the national budget fighting wars and helping the military-industrial complex, pile up huge fiscal deficits and increase the national debt to unprecedented levels.
Trickle-Down Economics: A principle crafted by Ronald Reagan and faithfully practiced by George W Bush that says that if you make the rich richer, the poor will get inspired to stop being lazy and work harder to get themselves out of their self-imposed poverty.
Primaries: The system by which political parties in the US choose their candidates for general elections. It is a transparent mechanism that allows any interested party member to indicate interest in any office and persuade fellow members to choose him as the party’s candidate. If he succeeds in persuading them, be becomes the candidate and can go on to win (or lose) the election. (Note-the word has a different meaning in Nigeria, where it means a process whereby a few party chieftains select the candidate and impose him or her on the helpless party members. If the members are stubborn, they may simply cancel the primaries and announce the candidate of their choice, who may not even have been a candidate in the primaries.)
Undecided Voters: People who knew they should vote for Obama, but were looking for a reason (other than his race) not to do so. Fortunately Obama gave them no alibi, so they voted for him.
Swing States: The few states that decide who wins the elections in America. Also means states with a lot of undecided voters.
Sarah Palin: A pitbull who wears lipstick and can see Russia from her home in Alaska.
Maverick: One maverick is good, but two? Another word for erratic, tactical and unpredictable. The older you get, the more “mavericky” you become. (Note-if you are a hockey mum, pitbull or Alaskan, it is also a word you can use to explain away any question you don’t understand-just say mavericky, mavericky, mackericky….ad infinitum, until the interviewer gets tired)
George W Bush: The lame-duck Vice-President of the US. He acts as President when Dick Cheney is undergoing another heart by-pass surgery. He was elected to office as a Republican, but before and during the last elections, he became an independent! Notice that John McCain criticised him and the Republicans avoided him like a plague. Having being silently expelled from the Republican Party, he was not allowed to attend a single campaign event for the McCain-Palin ticket.
Cindy McCain: The rich, glass-eyed, ice cold lady who lost to Michelle Obama.
Michelle Obama: She went to Princeton and Harvard, and is now very proud of the United States of America. Who wouldn’t be!
Hillary Clinton: The person who democrats would have nominated for Presidency if they were rational and sensible. But being Democrats, as usual they acted irrationally and chose a single-term, Kenyan-born, black American Senator from Illinois with a strange name, a middle name of Hussein and a very thin CV to Republican glee. Fortunately after eight years of George W Bush, Americans would have voted for even Hosni Mubarak if he was the alternative to the Republican Party! And God sent the ten plagues-stock market collapses, sub-prime mortgage crisis, bank failures, credit crunch, automakers potential bankruptcy, global energy crisis, global food crisis, rising unemployment figures, mortgage foreclosures and global warming to convince Americans to let his people become President.
Barack Obama: President-elect of the United States!!! The historical product of the dalliance between a Kenyan intellectual (who later returned to Kenya and as you might expect died of depression and alcoholism) and a white American idealist. Against all odds, he went to Columbia and Harvard and has now proven to all that if you have a child with an American passport, better leave him or her in America! Worst case the child will become Tiger Woods, or Shaquille O’Neal. Thank God they did not take him back to Kenya-he may have been shot during a students’ demonstration at University of Nairobi, by a policeman asking for bribe or during the post-election violence involving his Luo tribe. Alternatively he may have died of malaria, AIDS or tuberculosis. Or hunger. If all fails, the witches and wizards who killed his father would have turned their attention to him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)