By Dr. Olusegun B. Abejide

Nigeria stands today at one of the most consequential moments in its democratic history. Every election presents voters with a choice, but some elections determine not only who governs but also the direction a nation will take for generations. In my view, the upcoming presidential election is a defining moment.

I have carefully observed Nigeria’s political and economic development over many years. Having studied governance, leadership, public administration, Healthcare, and economic development, I have concluded that, while some may find it controversial, I sincerely believe recent developments support it. In my assessment, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has initiated the most ambitious program of structural economic reform undertaken by any Nigerian leader since independence. While many citizens continue to experience genuine economic hardship, I believe those hardships must be understood within the context of long-term reform rather than viewed only through the lens of present discomfort.

Nigeria today appears divided into two broad groups. The first consists of millions of ordinary citizens who understandably judge government primarily by the immediate condition of their daily lives. Rising prices, increased transportation costs, and the overall cost of living naturally shape their opinions.

The second group consists of those who attempt to evaluate government not only by present difficulties but also by the structural direction in which the country is moving. I count myself among this latter group. While I fully recognize the suffering many Nigerians currently endure, I also believe that some reforms produce their greatest benefits only after a difficult period of adjustment.

This conviction led me to participate in a major public debate attended by thousands and watched online by many more. Supporters and critics of President Tinubu passionately defended their respective positions. After listening carefully to both sides, I was invited to explain why I remained convinced that the President’s economic direction deserved public support. Rather than beginning with statistics or economic terminology, I chose to tell a simple story. I asked the audience to imagine two fathers.

Both men were respected members of their community. Both loved their wives. Both cared deeply for their children. Both had stable employment that allowed them to maintain a comfortable middle-class lifestyle. Their children attended good schools, their families enjoyed social respect, and neither lacked the necessities of life. Then disaster struck.

A severe economic crisis destroyed their livelihoods. Suddenly, both families found themselves struggling to survive. School fees could no longer be paid. Daily meals became uncertain. The social status they had once enjoyed disappeared almost overnight. They entered what I call “the test of time”—that difficult period when adversity reveals character more clearly than prosperity ever can. Faced with identical circumstances, the two fathers made very different decisions.

The first father decided that desperation justified dishonesty. Under the cover of darkness, he began stealing agricultural produce from neighboring farms. Night after night, he returned home carrying food for his family. Soon he began selling part of the stolen produce, generating enough income to pay school fees and gradually restore the family’s former standard of living (subsidies).
His wife saw the money returning and chose not to ask difficult questions. The immediate comfort of her children mattered more than the source of their improved circumstances. The children themselves celebrated their return to school, completely unaware that their father’s apparent success rested upon criminal conduct.

To outsiders, the family appeared to have recovered remarkably quickly.
The second father chose an entirely different path. Having spent his entire working life in white-collar employment, he knew almost nothing about farming. Yet he decided that honest labor, however difficult, offered the only foundation upon which lasting prosperity could be built.

The early months were painful.
His family continued to struggle. His children remained out of school because there was no harvest to sell. His wife endured the embarrassment of continued hardship while watching other families appear to recover more quickly. There were moments when giving up would have seemed entirely reasonable. But the family remained united. Eventually, the harvest came.

The crops matured. Buyers arrived. Income slowly returned. School fees were paid. Food became plentiful once again. The family’s dignity was restored—not through shortcuts or deception, but through honest work and patient perseverance. More importantly, everyone in the community understood exactly how the family had rebuilt its life. Their recovery rested upon integrity rather than concealment. When I finished telling this story, I explained to my audience that the two fathers represented two fundamentally different approaches to leadership and economic recovery.

In my view, Nigeria’s history since independence has too often reflected the first father’s approach. Successive administrations, whether civilian or military, frequently adopted policies that provided immediate political comfort while postponing deeper structural problems. Measures such as prolonged fuel subsidies, despite their popularity, offered short-term relief while creating mounting fiscal pressures that later governments would eventually have to confront. These policies often made citizens feel temporarily protected, but they also delayed difficult reforms and, in my opinion, contributed to long-term economic distortions.

By contrast, I believe President Tinubu has chosen the second father’s path.
His administration has implemented reforms that have imposed undeniable short-term hardship on millions of Nigerians. Those hardships should not be dismissed or minimized. However, I believe these reforms are intended to address structural weaknesses that accumulated over decades. Like the farmer who first endured months of labor before seeing a harvest, structural economic reforms rarely produce immediate comfort. Instead, they demand patience before their benefits become fully visible.

Supporters of the administration point to signs that they believe demonstrate progress, including improvements in macroeconomic indicators and favorable assessments from several international institutions regarding aspects of Nigeria’s reform program. Critics argue that many Nigerians continue to struggle with the cost of living and question whether the reforms will ultimately deliver broad-based prosperity. Both perspectives are part of the national conversation.
My own conclusion is clear.

History often remembers leaders not for avoiding hardship but for confronting difficult problems that others postponed. Whether one agrees with every policy of President Tinubu or not, I believe his administration has attempted to address structural economic challenges that previous governments were unwilling or unable to resolve. For that reason, I support his bid for a second term.

The choice before Nigerians, as I see it, is not simply between political parties or personalities. It is between two philosophies of governance. One seeks immediate comfort even if deeper problems remain unresolved. The other accepts temporary sacrifice in pursuit of long-term national renewal. Just as the two fathers made different decisions when confronted by crisis, nations also choose how they will respond when tested.

In the end, every generation must decide whether it prefers the comfort of shortcuts or the enduring rewards of honest reconstruction. I believe Nigeria stands at precisely that crossroads today.

Dear readers, we really need your support to keep on serving you with authoritative, truthful, and juicy stories everyday. For your support, please reach out to the editor @gavelinternational66@gmail.com