Reviewing Acemoglu and Robinson’s “Why Nations Fail”

“Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power,Prosperity, and Poverty”, authored by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson, is a compendium of historical facts and figures, synthesized with developmental economic analysis that crossed centuries, to boldly answer the question: Why Nations fail? The seminal book, published in 2012 by Crown Business, United States of America, is a product of 15 years rigorous research that examined geography, culture, ignorance, and institution as hypothetical causes of poverty, or prosperity, as the case may be. Daron and James, unapologetically, dismissed geography, culture, and ignorance as absolute explainers of poverty and prosperity. In the 529-page book, economic and political institutions –inclusive and extractive– are posited as the absolute causes. The inclusive institutions ensure equitable economic and political rights for citizens, engender creative destruction, and subsequently, engineer prosperity. On the opposite, extractive institutions concentrate commonwealth and public treasury in the hands of few political elites and their business allies. 

European Colonization Factor for African Extractive Institutions

Sweeping through history, “Why Nations Fail” chronicles events and its associated critical junctures that shaped most Africa nations’ extractive economic and political institutions. These poverty-generating institutions are subsequently maintained by successive African leaders because they serve their corrupt and greedy whims, also. Daron and Robinson referenced the 1885 Berlin Conference, themed “Scramble for Africa”, as the strategic front that hatched the European desire to politically disintegrate Africa, install absolutist order to extract economic gains, at the detriment of the citizenry. To achieve this, war –facilitating sales of guns and arms, dictatorship, and dual economy (as propounded by Lewis Arthur, is a theory that supports disparate and opposite economic and political configuration for the privileged and less-privileged within the same geographical space. This is the experience in South Africa of different economic experience by the White and the Black) are adopted instrumentalities, according to Daron and Robinson. This unfortunate epoch –colonialism– was responsible for Africa’s miss of the industrial revolution phase –the phase that firstly and fundamentally pushed world on the path of prosperity. Though unintentionally, Daron and Robinson reawaken the Pan-African revolutionary spirit of Walter Rodney, immortalized on the pages of “How Europe Underdeveloped Africa”, through their graphic account of European invasion of Africa.

The Critical Junctures

Unlike most Africa nations, countries that were hitherto absolutist and with extractive economic and political institutions later experienced critical junctures that redirected their economic paths, “Why Nations Fail” recalls. It cited the French Army and Napoleon in France, the fall of the Ottoman Empire during the Frist World War, the Black Death Revolution of England, the 1830 Okubo Toshinmichi of Japanese Samurai, amongst others, as typical radical junctures that birthed a new and modern respective societies of economic prosperity. Daron and Robinson acknowledged that, even though majority was bloody revolutions, there were records of not-too-violent political system changes like the overthrown of Maoism in China, and the economic rise of Singapore and South Korea through subtle political leadership change.

Labels Do Not Matter

Historical accounts of sociopolitical and economic epochs of nations narrated by Daron and Robinson in “Why Nations Fail” revealed that ideological labels of economic persuasion –capitalist and socialists –do not matter. As the book showed, there is equal tendency for both capitalist and socialist economies to become extractive, and thus result in economic retrogression. “Why Nations Fail” buttresses this with experiences from “the rise of Robber Barons and their monopoly trusts in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries”, and submitted that “Markets, left to their own devices, can be ceased to be inclusive, becoming increasingly dominated by economically and politically powerful”.

In the same light, the much-taunted Lenin’s Bolshevik revolution, the Laurent Kabila and Mobutu of Congo, the Derg Marxists of Ethiopia, the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia, Mugabe of Zimbabwe, and Karimov of Uzbekistan, according to “Why Nations Fail”, are examples of supposed equality-assured economic architectures –based on the popular Marxian rhetoric that were used for their power grabs –that became brutally reprehensive, and supported elites’ control of the public treasury. This, has it finally showed, caused the unsustainability of the few recorded economic growth, and eventual degeneration into economic abyss.

Nevertheless, Daron and Robinson’s preference of market economy is unmistakable, as instructive with: “Inclusive economic institutions require not just markets, but inclusive markets that create a level playing field and economic opportunities for the majority of the people. Widespread monopoly, backed by political power of the elite contradicts this.”  Daron and Robinson believe a market economy with no cartel, cabal, and crony gang that subvert state apparatus and institution for the advantage of few business elites and political collaborators is the only path to sustainable economic growth and human development.

In the end

Without mincing words, “Why Nations Fail” brilliantly cut a space for itself through the sheer hard work of the duo of Daron and Robinson. The book can be safely placed side-by-side, though with different theme and research objective, with Paul Collier’s “The Bottom Billion”, and Dambisa Moyo’s “Dead Aid”, in the collection of seminal books on developmental economics.

Disruptive Political Engineering: My Thoughts on the Emerging Youth-based Political Parties, By Semiu A. Akanmu

During our conversation at the formal inauguration of Oyo state branch of Movement Against Corruption and Injustice (MACI), commending Barr. Bankole Solomon's initiative, I remarked that "his is a disruption to the elitist face of human rights activism". MACI is directly relating with the masses using the language they understand, and its activities are self-funded. I submitted, in a later Facebook update, that "it is by similar disruption that we can change our political process and landscape". 

Just as Uber and AirnB, and many other technology products, have disrupted the traditional and conventional approaches to social services (Uber disrupted transportation, and AirnB disrupted hospitality), there must be a disruption in our political engineering process before the desired result can be achieved. The present process is one of profiteering, political patronage, and nepotism, oiled by prebendal political culture. This current system must be torn and rebuilt. 

The failed Buhari experiment has further cleared any illusion of hope from PDP, APC, among others; their political architecture and the products they will continuously be delivering. What we can have from this present crop of political groups (not parties, of course) are tokens in the garb of SURE-P, N-Power, while the children of the elites and power brokers will continue enjoying preferential treatment and access to public vault. 

None of the present power actors will deliver inclusive political institutions that will devolve power, equitably distribute political rights, and ensure fiscal federalism. None of them will engineer prosperity through inclusive economic institutions where accessing loan facility will not be exclusive privilege of the legal rogues called Senators, while genuine enterprises are killed with obnoxious interest rates. 

It is against this backdrop that I vehemently believe that there must be disruption -a non-conventional, anti-status quo, anti-traditional approach -in our political engineering. It is on this basis I am giving Tope Fasua's Abundant Nigeria Renewal Party (ANRP) and Onyeka Nwelue's Progress Party (PP) a benefit of attention, as possibly the long-awaited disruption. 

 However, the basis of this mobilization must disregard age stratification, and transcend our justifiable anger against the Buhari's government. Also, we must deeply understand the "long walk to freedom", in Nelson Mandela's words. There must be a creative disruption in our current political engineering process, a redefinition of our political culture, a remodel of our political architecture. This is the only path to real democracy and economic prosperity. 

But in toeing this path, age is never a unifying force; the propeller must go beyond Buhari's failure; and lastly, we must acknowledge the thorns on this long walk to freedom. These are what I summarised as (a) Age, (b) Beyond Buhari-induced anger, and (c) Our Long Walk to Freedom -gathering my thoughts.

Political parties are formed on the basis of ideals, policy direction and sociopolitical and economic ideology. Never on age. It is ageist to dismiss older Nigerians in this revolutionary cause, and petty to think the young ones are exclusive demography of progressive elements, thus have the magic wand. Even though we might leverage on the larger population of the youths, for political advantage, our political agenda must not deride the elders, nor must it wear arrogant apron. As a cultured Yoruba, I know too well that "the source of Yoruba civilization (Ile-Ife) was founded by the wisdom of both the old and young".

Again, even though our punctured hope by the hitherto saint and anti-corruption czar, Buhari, is enough to invoke anger that will fell Jericho's wall, this emergence of a political disruption must go beyond Buhari-induced anger. We must transform the agony to organised movement that will permeate all strata of the society. We must understand that our desired Nigeria is by structural and systemic change, not by replacing who wears the tag of "C in C".

Lastly, this journey is a long walk to freedom. Wrestling power from the organised elite group armed with all state apparatus, and deep pocket, will not be a walk in the park. It is a journey for the strong-willed, not faint-hearted. Its yield is not low hanging and will certainly take time.

All the same, we have started. I have registered for ANRP!
 

You can also register here!!

The Struggle between National Interest and Ethnicised Politics, By Semiu A. Akanmu

 In Nigeria, at convocation of every national discourse, at every agitation of causes for national growth and development, ethnicised politics is always a default virus. It corrupts the reasoning of the citizenry; it diverts attention from core issues of national interest to mundanities and banalities; it changes the supposed narrative of pan-Nigeria conversation to one where practitioners of ethnicised politics are more interested in the “Fulani” of the herdsmen than the killings, and as an antithesis, one where accused ethnic affiliates sweat profusely in defence of their ethnicity more than condemning the criminality. The triumph of ethnicity over security in the last conversation that trailed the murderous activities of herdsmen, in Nigeria, is unfortunate.

In this, our Press is the first culprit. Agenda-setting theory in political communication explains the strength of the Press in tele-guiding the populace on what to talk and think about. One can imagine what the conversation would have been if “Nigerian herdsmen kill four, injure two” is the screaming headline with no highlight of the needless ethnic affiliation of the criminals. The sore losers of the last election, irrespective of their ethnic affiliations, were also catalysts that aided the agenda of the fifth columnists. It was an intentional narrativist colouration to paint President Buhari, being a Fulani, as an accomplice and abettor in the crime perpetrated by the herdsmen –using the brush of ethnicised politics. In between, there were sincere outbursts from Nigerians who were scandalized by habitual sluggishness to national emergencies that this administration is known for.

Let us be clear: “Fulani” herdsmen do not kill host communities, mostly farmers, or destroy their crops and plantations, because they are Fulani. They do so, quite unfortunately, because they are herdsmen. It is, traditionally, a struggle for economic survival between two asymbiotic “professions”. From the Massai and Pokot people of Kenya, Turkana in Uganda, and the Fulani in North and West Africa, the pastoralists’ struggle for survival have always been with havoc unleashed on farmers, and crops mangled.

With proliferation of fire arms through our loose borders, self-defence against cattle rustlers, herdsmen are now armed, and as a consequence, the fights that were earlier fought with bow and arrow are now fought with AK47. In all, the Fulani affiliation of the Nigerian herdsmen is a non-entity in solving the crisis; it is a non-variable in understanding the historical tension; it is not an alibi against stemming their criminal activities, prosecuting and punishing the perpetrators. It is just for a purpose: Ethnicised politics to further highlight our fault lines. This, predictably, shifted a discussion of national interest, supposedly to centre on proactive countermeasures against continuous experience of such killings, to ethnic characterisation of the victims and the culprits, and culpability of the Nigeria state.

We are yet to hear the last of herdsmen-farmer friction. Hashtags and “Boycott Beef” campaign will not solve it either. With the ravaging consequences of climate change, desertification of the Northern Nigeria, movement of herdsmen to Southern Nigeria is inevitable. Without discounting the fact that the Nigeria police must keep eyes on the criminals among the herdsmen, a state-backed grazing architecture will significantly stem the herdsmen-farmer dagger-to-heart, and present our country as one that has exited the 17^th century.

This, therefore, rationally necessitates deeper engagement with the proposed National grazing reserve bill. There are possibly contentious provisions in the bill; there could be nerve-straining clauses, especially for a country of mutual suspicion among its components regions. Nevertheless, it is a step better than no step. If we de-ethnicise national debate around this bill, we will surely actualize one that promotes national interest by solving the herdsmen-farmer crisis that is gradually replacing the depleting Boko Haram menace.