by Kolapo Olapoju

Popular UK magazine, The Economist, believes that the presidential candidate of the All Progressives Congress, Maj. Gen. Muhammadu Buhari (retd.), is more capable to lead Nigeria, moving forward.

The influential magazine published an editorial in its current edition, titled: “Former dictator is a better choice than a failed president”, where it stated that Nigeria was unfortunate to have both Buhari and Jonathan as the two main challengers for the presidency.

However, according to the publication, Buhari is a much better choice than President Goodluck Jonathan of the Peoples Democratic Party, largely because of his huge failure and the mismanagement of the economy of the country by his party since it took over in 1999.

The magazine said Nigeria became Africa’s largest economy due to the will of the people, and not exactly because of good leadership, adding that Jonathan was highly incompetent, owing to his failure to address the issue of insecurity in the country.

It also criticised Jonathan for refusing to condole his people when over 1,000 people were killed during an attack on Baga, but was quick to commiserate with the French after the Charlie Hedbo attack.

It said: “Start with Mr. Jonathan, whose party 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 $20bn had been stolen, his reward was to be sacked.”

“He has shown little enthusiasm for tackling insecurity, 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.”

While describing Buhari, the magazine said he’s an incorruptible and honest leader, who had “blood on his hands.”

It asserted that the APC candidate was guilty of human rights violations and failed to properly manage the economy properly when he served as military head of state, between December 1983 and August 1985.

The editorial said: “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 Buhari. Jonathan risks presiding over Nigeria’s bloody fragmentation. If Buhari can save Nigeria, history might even be kind to him.”

Kolapo Olapoju