Skip to main content

ON BUHARI, NEW YORK TMES WROTE

Four months after seizing power, Nigeria’s military leaders appear to be suffering an erosion of popular support. Last Dec. 31, Maj. Gen. Mohammed Buhari led a group of young officers in a coup against the civilian Government of President Shehu Shagari, saying the takeover was necessary to save Nigeria, Africa’s richest and most populous nation, from economic collapse. The military intervention appeared at the time to enjoy enthusiastic support from a broad range of Nigeria’s population.
Many intellectuals argued that the corruption and incompetence of the Shagari administration had made drastic action both necessary and inevitable. Traders, merchants and people in the streets welcomed the soldiers and looked forward to a quick improvement in their standard of living.
Growing Disappointment
Recently, however, there seems to be growing disappointment with both the military Government’s approach and pace.
Since coming to power, this Government has not found a single problem, said Dr. Olu Onagoruwa, a prominent lawyer and a longtime opponent of the Shagari administration. But it has managed to alienate the judiciary, the press, labor and students – all the groups that supported it just a few months ago. Critics of the military Government point out that it has yet to present its budget. Loan negotiations with the International Monetary Fund continue but Western economists say that Nigeria and the I.M.F. appear to be further apart now than during the final days of the Shagari administration.
Early indications that General Buhari would agree to devalue Nigeria’s currency, liberalize trade and reduce domestic petroleum subsidies have so far not materialized. Prices Have Climbed, In addition, prices for food and other essential. commodities, which fell in the first weeks after the coup largely because of the presence of soldiers in the marketplaces, have now returned to or exceeded their levels before the coup. Unemployment has been rising, and many of the imported raw materials and spare parts needed to keep factories running have been lacking. Critics note further that political activity and even debate have been banned and some students organizations have been outlawed. There has been a clampdown on Nigeria’s press, and the country’s traditionally independent judiciary. has also seen its role sharply diminished.
At the moment we’re looking at a clear movement toward authoritarian dictatorship, said Stanley N. Macebuh, executive editor of The Guardian, an independent newspaper that had often taken the Shagari administration to task. It’s a trend that disturbs a lot of people, not least those who welcomed the change of government.
Spokesmen for the military leadership maintain that they know what they are doing and refuse to be rushed. They deny the charges of inaction, saying that steps has been taken. Trials Being Prepared
The Government, they say, has put much energy into investigating the corruption of the Shagari administration and in preparing tribunals to try the accused, close to 500 of whom are now under detention.Officials say about 2,000 illegal aliens have been ejected from the country and several thousand people have been detained in a crackdown on suspected criminals and Moslem extremists.
They say Nigeria’s bloated bureaucracy has been streamlined through the dismissal of thousands of officials and civil servants. Three weeks ago an agreement was reached in London on converting a part of Nigeria’s uninsured trade debts into loans.
The Government’s critics respond that the economic initiatives treat symptoms rather than causes and aid the larger issue of how to restructure Nigeria’s economy.
A Western diplomat said General Buhari ”could have accomplished so much if he had moved quickly and boldly in the early days when his popularity was still so high and when he could have credibly blamed everything on Shagari.”
New York Times, 1984.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

FUNCTIONS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

Function of the Holy Spirit. This list of the 70 Functions of the Holy Spirit come from her research. He leads and directs. (Matthew 4:1; Mark 1:12; Luke 2:27; 4:1; Acts 8:29; Romans 8:14) The Holy Spirit speaks – in, to and through. (Matthew 10:20; Acts 1:16; 2:4; 13:2; 28:25; Hebrews 3:7) He gives power to cast out devils. (Matthew 12:28) He releases power. (Luke 4:14) The Holy Spirit anoints. (Luke 4:18; Acts 10:38) The Holy Spirit “comes upon” or “falls on”. (Matthew 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 2:25; 3:22; 4:18; John 1:32,33; Acts 10:44; 11:15) He baptizes and fills. (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 1:15,41,67; 3:16, 4:1; John 1:33; Acts 1:4-5; 2:4; 4:8,31; 6:3,5; 7:55; 10:47; 11:24; 13:9,52; 1 Corinthians 12:12) He gives new birth. (John 3:5,8) He leads into worship. (John 4:23) He flows like a river from the spirit man. (John 7:38-39) He ministers truth. (John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13) He dwells in people. (John 14:

SETTING A DIRECTION VS PLANNING AND BUDGETING

Since the function of leadership is to produce change, setting the direction of that change is fundamental to leadership. Setting direction is never the same as planning or even long-term planning, although people often confuse the two. Planning is a management process, deductive in nature and designed to produce orderly results, not change. Setting a direction is more inductive. Leaders gather a broad range of data and look for patterns, relationships, and linkages that help explain things. What’s more, the direction-setting aspect of leadership does not produce plans; it creates vision and strategies. These describe a business, technology, or corporate culture in terms of what it should become over the long term and articulate a feasible way of achieving this goal. Most discussions of vision have a tendency to degenerate into the mystical. The implication is that a vision is something mysterious that mere mortals, even talented ones, could never hope to have. But developing

ALIGNING PEOPLE VS ORGANIZING AND STAFFING

A central feature of modern organizations is interdependence, where no one has complete autonomy, where most employees are tied to many others by their work, technology, management systems, and hierarchy. These linkages present a special challenge when organizations attempt to change. Unless many individuals line up and move together in the same direction, people will tend to fall all over one another. To executives who are overeducated in management and undereducated in leadership, the idea of getting people moving in the same direction appears to be an organizational problem. What executives need to do, however, is not organize people but align them. Managers “organize” to create human systems that can implement plans as precisely and efficiently as possible. Typically, this requires a number of potentially complex decisions. A company must choose a structure of jobs and reporting relationships, staff it with individuals suited to the jobs, provide training for those who need it,