ChinemeOkpan:


A bit extremist but makes sense.

Nigerians are waking up now, they are embracing change. It is good to see Nigerians putting pressure on the incumbent government for a change.

arsetalks:
what an irony? People like you judge him on his past but still think he will be a sissy to the western world.

If he wasn't a sissy to them in the past, why will he be now?

Collynzo9:
Let them stop deceiving themselves, Buhari wasn't just a dictator, he was also a failed head of state.
What problem can Buhari beat his chest and say he solved in his tenure?
Their criticism of Mr. President is heavily centered around boko haram, how is Buhari (who insisted that Boko haram members should be pampered like ND militants and that killing them is anti-north) supposed to be the solution?

barcanista:
Jonathan's incompetence has gone global

anonimi:


[s]you mean the old pensioner from time imoriver [/s]

pld4reel:


Oh my Days . you mean a magazine with an average weekly circulation of 1.5 million ??

tbaba1234:
The least awful
A former dictator is a better choice than a failed president

SOMETIMES there are no good options. Nigeria goes to the polls on February 14th to elect the next president, who will face problems so large—from rampant corruption to a jihadist insurgency—that they could break the country apart, with dire consequences for Nigerians and the world.

And yet, as Africa’s biggest economy stages its most important election since the restoration of civilian rule in 1999, and perhaps since the civil war four decades ago, Nigerians must pick between the incumbent, Goodluck Jonathan, who has proved an utter failure, and the opposition leader, Muhammadu Buhari, a former military dictator with blood on his hands (see article). The candidates stand as symbols of a broken political system that makes all Nigeria’s problems even more intractable.

Start with Mr Jonathan, whose People’s Democratic Party (PDP) has run the country since 1999 and who stumbled into the presidency on the death of his predecessor in 2010. The PDP’s reign has been a sorry one. Mr Jonathan has shown little willingness to tackle endemic corruption. When the governor of the central bank reported that $20 billion had been stolen, his reward was to be sacked.

Worse, on Mr Jonathan’s watch much of the north of the country has been in flames. About 18,000 people have died in political violence in recent years, thousands of them in January in several brutal attacks by Boko Haram, a jihadist group that claims to have established its “caliphate” in territory as large as Belgium. Another 1.5m people have fled their homes. The insurgency is far from Mr Jonathan’s southern political heartland and afflicts people more likely to vote for the opposition. He has shown little enthusiasm for tackling it, and even less competence. Quick to offer condolences to France after the attack on Charlie Hedbo, Mr Jonathan waited almost two weeks before speaking up about a Boko Haram attack that killed hundreds, perhaps thousands, of his compatriots.

The single bright spot of his rule has been Nigeria’s economy, one of the world’s fastest-growing. Yet that is largely despite the government rather than because of it, and falling oil prices will temper the boom. The prosperity has not been broadly shared: under Mr Jonathan poverty has increased. Nigerians typically die eight years younger than their poorer neighbours in nearby Ghana.

Goodbye Jonathan
Voters have ample cause to send Mr Jonathan packing. In a country where power has often changed through the barrel of a gun, the opposition All Progressives Congress has a real chance of winning through the ballot box. Yet its candidate, Mr Buhari, is an ex-general who, three decades ago, came to power in a coup. His rule was nasty, brutish and mercifully short. Declaring a “war against indiscipline”, he ordered whip-wielding soldiers to ensure that Nigerians formed orderly queues. His economics, known as Buharism, was destructive. Instead of letting the currency depreciate in the face of a trade deficit, he tried to fix prices and ban “unnecessary” imports. He expelled 700,000 migrants in the delusion that this would create jobs for Nigerians. He banned political meetings and free speech. He detained thousands, used secret tribunals and executed people for crimes that were not capital offences.

Should a former dictator with such a record be offered another chance? Surprisingly, many Nigerians think he should. One reason is that, in a country where ministers routinely wear wristwatches worth many times their annual salary, Mr Buhari is a sandal-wearing ascetic with a record of fighting corruption. Few nowadays question his commitment to democracy or expect him to turn autocratic: he has repeatedly stood for election and accepted the outcome when he lost. He would probably do a better job of running the country, and in particular of tackling Boko Haram. As a northerner and Muslim, he will have greater legitimacy among villagers whose help he will need to isolate the insurgents. As a military man, he is more likely to win the respect of a demoralised army.

We are relieved not to have a vote in this election. But were we offered one we would—with a heavy heart—choose Mr Buhari. Mr Jonathan risks presiding over Nigeria’s bloody fragmentation. If Mr Buhari can save Nigeria, history might even be kind to him.

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21642168-former-dictator-better-choice-failed-president-least-awful

tbaba1234:

A former dictator is a better choice than a failed president

We are relieved not to have a vote in this election. But were we offered one we would—with a heavy heart—choose Mr Buhari. Mr Jonathan risks presiding over Nigeria’s bloody fragmentation. If Mr Buhari can save Nigeria, history might even be kind to him.

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21642168-former-dictator-better-choice-failed-president-least-awful

tbaba1234:


The Economist now has paid circulation of 1.6m a week — more than Bloomberg’s Businessweek, which has nearly 1m, although significantly less than Time, which has 5m.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ea4f2f50-8166-11e4-b956-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3QuF55mfA

WOCKHARDI:
In simple logic, when the major premise is false, every other deduction is automatically false.
How can the ECONOMIST say...... ....' Goodluck Jonathan, who has proved an utter failure........... ' now convince me that it is not biased. Who are you to pronounce such verdict if you are not mischievous.
Please allow the people on ground to choose between the two contestants instead of sounding as if you are paid to make this write up.
JONATHAN IS NOT A FAILURE BUT SOME PEOPLE ARE DETERMINED TO MAKE HIM LOOK LIKE ONE.
We know his achievements.

JUser:


Don't mind them. A large part of our country is about to go and the over 200 Chibok girls are still missing and somebody is here canvasing for GEJ. I don't mind withdrawing my support for Buhari after his first term if he refuses to perform. Lets just regain our country first.. Jonathan wont do it, even if you give him another 20 years.

iiichidodo:
We could as well take the British paper's attention as we would take the condemnation of gay ban in Nigeria by the west with a pinch of salt....The ordinary voter don't read The Economist,they prefer watching Superstory with Goodluck campaign ads and jingos in between.

MORNDEW:

You see ur reasoning? Now i know u know d truth bt chose to be mad.

Sagamite:


Everywhere in the sane, developed world (where this cretin and his wife like to visit), he is regarded as incompetent and a failure but you see some fuuktards on NL screaming "GEJ till 5198".

Democracy is madness. Many people that are allowed to vote should be shot in the head instead.

www.nairaland.com/attachments/2094374_worldsverdictongej2_jpeg8a5dc86f3de8e976cc7521a58708901f

Collynzo9:
Let them stop deceiving themselves, Buhari wasn't just a dictator, he was also a failed head of state.
What problem can Buhari beat his chest and say he solved in his tenure?
Their criticism of Mr. President is heavily centered around boko haram, how is Buhari (who insisted that Boko haram members should be pampered like ND militants and that killing them is anti-north) supposed to be the solution?

nke001:



Tbaba! Who did you sold your impartiality mind to?

Balanced piece ko, balanced pieces ni.




MeanWhile

Your English is as bad as that of the clueless one "How much did Jim Nwobodo stole".


www.buhariproduceyourcertificate.com

modhream:

Yes,we have heard.
Now,what say you about this piece from the economist?.Were they bribed to write this too?.

WOCKHARDI:
In simple logic, when the major premise is false, every other deduction is automatically false.
How can the ECONOMIST say...... ....' Goodluck Jonathan, who has proved an utter failure........... ' now convince me that it is not biased. Who are you to pronounce such verdict if you are not mischievous.
Please allow the people on ground to choose between the two contestants instead of sounding as if you are paid to make this write up.
JONATHAN IS NOT A FAILURE BUT SOME PEOPLE ARE DETERMINED TO MAKE HIM LOOK LIKE ONE.
We know his achievements.

ElekeNtioba:
its unfortunate that Economist has bought into a carefully setup strategy by Buhari camp using boko haram. So because of an islamist insurgency in the north we should elect a northen muslim....brilliant!

This is what buhari wanted all along...to be elected on the platform that he only can end d insurgency. An insurgency dat became full-blown just after d post-election violence of 2011.

By parading himself as d saviour of Nigeria, Buhari is knowingly blackmailing fearful Nigerians to elect him over an insurgency he was in-/directly involved in igniting.

Economist magazine do not know d complexity of Nigeria's polity. They have no idea of d Northern elites' obssession with power and how far they are willing to sacrifice their people to achieve it. They have no clue of how GEJ has managed to thwart all their plans to still keep the country together.

The only response we can give dis uninformed article is an overwhelmingly support for Jonathan at d polls.