- By Bamidele Ademola-Olateju
Serious nations are not built by applause lines, they are built by leaders willing to confront hard truths, absorb political pressure, and make choices whose benefits may only become clear with time. History is unequivocal on this point. Throughout the world, administrations that are most celebrated in hindsight, were often the most criticised in their early years. From Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, to India’s 1991 economic reforms, from post-war Europe, to modern Asian economies, structural change has always come dressed in discomfort. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration belongs to this tradition of difficult but necessary governance.
When President Tinubu assumed office, Nigeria was not merely facing cyclical challenges; it was grappling with deeply embedded structural distortions. For decades, successive governments postponed reform, choosing political ease over economic logic. Subsidies, exchange rate manipulation, fiscal opacity and consumption-driven growth became the norm. The bill for that avoidance eventually came due. President Tinubu’s removal of fuel subsidy was the most visible and controversial decision of the administration’s early days.
Yet history offers clarity here; no country has ever sustainably developed by subsidising inefficiency and smuggling at the expense of education, healthcare and infrastructure. Nigeria’s fuel subsidy regime had long ceased to serve the poor. It enriched a narrow network of importers and middlemen while bleeding public finances dry. Ending it was not cruelty; it was correction. Every reforming economy has faced a similar reckoning, and none escaped it by pretending the problem did not exist.
The foreign exchange reform followed the same historical logic. Multiple exchange rates created a system where access, not productivity, determined success. Arbitrage thrived, investment hesitated, and confidence eroded. By moving toward a unified and more transparent exchange rate regime, the Tinubu administration chose realism over illusion. History again provides perspective: economies that grow do not fix prices by decree; they create systems that reward value creation and discipline rent-seeking. These decisions were not made in isolation, they were made within a difficult global context marked by inflationary pressures, geopolitical tensions, and tightening financial conditions. Nigeria did not invent these headwinds, but it had to respond to them.
Read Also: INEC begins preparation for 2027, reaffirms commitment to electoral integrity
Leadership is never exercised in ideal conditions, it is tested precisely when conditions are harsh. Beyond macroeconomic reform, the administration has demonstrated a clear understanding of how nations actually grow. Infrastructure remains central to its development strategy, not as political ornamentation but as economic necessity. Roads, rail lines, ports and power systems are the unglamorous foundations upon which industrialisation rests. No serious student of history disputes this. From Britain’s rail expansion to China’s logistics revolution, infrastructure has always preceded prosperity, not followed it.
Equally important is the recalibration of social policy. Rather than broad, untargeted spending that often collapses into waste, the government has begun shifting toward more focused interventions. The student loan scheme, targeted social assistance and renewed engagement with subnational governments reflect lessons learned globally; effective social policy supports mobility and productivity, not dependency and spectacle. Critics often frame reform periods as evidence of failure. History suggests the opposite. Reform is disruptive by nature. It exposes inefficiencies, resets expectations, and forces adjustment. The early years of reform are rarely comfortable because they dismantle old arrangements before new benefits fully materialise. Countries that abandoned reform midway often found themselves worse off, trapped between broken systems, and unrealised alternatives.
As Nigeria looks ahead to the 2027 presidential elections, the question before voters should not be whether reform was painless. That question has never had an affirmative answer anywhere in the world. The real question is whether the direction is right. Early signs suggest an economy being repositioned for competitiveness rather than consumption, for productivity rather than patronage. Fiscal discipline is improving. Revenue conversations are becoming more honest. Investment signals, while cautious, are responding to policy clarity. These are not overnight achievements. They are the early markers of structural repair.
President Tinubu’s political history also matters in this context. He is not an accidental reformer. His record in Lagos State demonstrated an understanding of institution-building, revenue reform and long-term planning. Lagos did not become Nigeria’s economic nerve centre and the fifth largest economy in Africa by chance; it became so through sustained, sometimes unpopular, policy choices. That same philosophy now informs governance at the national level.
Elections are snapshots in time. Nations, however, are long projects. The Tinubu administration has chosen to govern with an eye on history rather than headlines. That choice carries risk, but it also carries promise. If the reform momentum is sustained, 2027 will not merely be an electoral contest; it will be a referendum on whether Nigeria is finally prepared to endure short-term pain for long-term gain. History is clear: countries that succeed do not avoid hard choices. They make them, defend them, and stay the course. Nigeria now stands at that familiar crossroads.
The Tinubu administration has chosen a path history tends to reward. When President Franklin Roosevelt chose a similar path of reform, Americans felt the pain at the outset. By the end of his first term, they began to experience changes in economic outlook, but the economy had hardly rebounded. Nevertheless, Americans decided to give him a second term to complete the reforms. He was even given a third term to consolidate on the gains, especially as the World War II loomed in the horizon. That is why, today, Roosevelt is still the only American President to serve more than two terms.
•Ademola-Olateju, a former Ondo Commissioner for Information, is Director of New Media and Corporate Services for All Progressives Congress (APC).
