The submission by Gbenga Hashim-Olawepo on Channels Politics Today, that an economy which once had five cars, then none, and now has one is a “failure”; is not only unfair; it is analytically careless. It reduces a complex economic cycle into a crude metaphor and then presents that reduction as insight. Serious economic assessment does not operate on snapshots; it interrogates direction, structure, and sustainability.
There is no attempt here to whitewash the past. The APC-led government in the years preceding 2023 clearly mismanaged the economy. That is acknowledged. But governance is not an exercise in permanent indictment; it is about arresting decline and restoring functionality. The relevant question is whether the present administration has initiated a credible recovery framework. On that score, the evidence points in one direction: recovery has begun. It may not yet satisfy the impatience of critics, but it is unfolding in a positive and deliberate manner.
To insist that recovery must immediately mirror pre-decline conditions is to misunderstand how economies heal. Early recovery is rarely spectacular; it is structural, often uncomfortable, and frequently invisible to those who look only for instant results. Dismissing early gains because they are incremental is not rigorous analysis; it is intellectual impatience.
Equally unconvincing is the casual portrayal of the information technology sector as a “low-hanging fruit,” as though economic transformation is achieved by mere sectoral enthusiasm. The IT sector does not exist in isolation. It is a product of stable macroeconomic policy, reliable power, skilled labour, regulatory clarity, and investor confidence. To elevate it as a shortcut solution, detached from these fundamentals, reflects a misunderstanding of both technology and development.
Most revealing, however, is the posture of critique without proposition. To continually disregard measurable economic improvements in order to sustain opposition politics, while offering no clear articulation of what would be done differently if entrusted with power, is not evidence of leadership capacity. Criticism without an alternative is not strategy; it is avoidance.
National discourse deserves better than clever metaphors and recycled dissatisfaction. It demands clarity, honesty, and an appreciation of process. Anything short of that may score political points, but it does not advance understanding, nor does it qualify as serious leadership thought.
About Author
