TOTTENHAM Hotspur captain Son Heung-min and the club’s head coach Ange Postecoglou have won the main English Premier League awards for September.

While Son has been voted September Player of the Month, Postecoglou secured the Manager of the Month prize.

Korea forward Son scored six goals in four matches in September as Spurs defeated Burnley, Sheffield United and Liverpool, and drew with Arsenal, to continue their unbeaten start to the season.

He netted a hat-trick at Turf Moor, a brace in the north London derby, and the opening goal in Spurs’ first victory over Liverpool since 2017.

Son’s award is the second for Tottenham players this season after James Maddison won August’s prize.

Son has now won the award four times in his career, matching Alan Shearer, Thierry Henry, Dennis Bergkamp, Frank Lampard, Paul Scholes, Mohamed Salah, Marcus Rashford, Bruno Fernandes and Jamie Vardy.

Son topped a seven-man shortlist after votes on the EA SPORTS website were combined with those of a panel of football experts.

He beat the likes of Manchester City forward Julian Alvarez, Liverpool’s Mohamed Salah and West Ham’s Jarrod Bowen to the award.

On his part, Postecoglou has made Premier League history by winning September 2023 Manager of the Month award.

The Australian is the first manager to win the award in each of his first two months in the competition, having also claimed August’s prize, the first coach from his country to ever win it.

The last manager to win the first two awards of any season was Jurgen Klopp, in 2019/2020, when Liverpool went on to lift the Premier League trophy.

Postecoglou beat fellow nominees Arsenal’s Mikel Arteta, Aston Villa’s Unai Emery, Newcastle United’s Eddie Howe and Klopp after votes from the public were combined with those of a panel of football experts.

Manchester United’s Bruno Fernandes won the Goal of the Month award for his strike against Burnley in the clash his side won 1-0.

[https://ntm.ng]

The Debt Management Office (DMO) has reopened subscription offers for 10year, 15year and 30year FGN bonds for April 2029, June 2033, June 2038 and June 2053 at 14.55%, 14.70%, 15.45% and 15.70% respectively.

This announcement was made in a statement on the DMO’s official website. The auction date is October 16^th while the settlement date is October 18^th.

The statement reads,

• “Under the Debt Management Office (Establishment) Act 2003 and the Local Loans (Registered Stock and Securities) Act, CAP. L17, LFN 2004 DEBT MANAGEMENT OFFICE on behalf of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF NIGERIA Offers for Subscription and is authorized to receive applications for the Federal Government of Nigeria saving bonds”

Interest Rates and Tenure:

The federal government hopes to raise N90bn for two 10-year bonds at interest rates of 14.55% and 14.70% respectively.

For the 15-year and 30-year tenure bonds, the interest rate is 15.45% and 15.70% respectively.

Units of Subscription:

The DMO outlines the units of subscription as

• “N1,000 per unit, subject to a minimum subscription of N5,000, and subsequent multiples of N1,000, with a maximum subscription limit of N50,001,000.”

Interested investors are encouraged to contact stock brokerage firms listed as authorized agents by the Debt Management Office (DMO) and the bonds are traded on the NGX (Nigerian Exchange Group).

It is important to note that FGN bonds are fully backed by the federal government of Nigeria.

The DMO encouraged interested investors to contact Primary Dealer Market Makers (PDMMs) such as First Bank, Access Bank, United Bank for Africa Plc, Zenith Bank Plc, etc.

[Nairametrics]

Governor Ahmed Aliyu of Sokoto State has said he inherited an empty treasury and no single note was handed over to him by his predecessor, former Governor Aminu Tambuwal

Aliyu was responding to the deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Benjamin Kanu, who asked how the Governor was able to execute 100 projects in his first 100 days in office during a condolence visit to the state on Thursday.

Aliyu, who spoke through his deputy, Engineer Idris Gobir, said it was just a sacrifice as there was nothing in the treasury when they took over about five months ago.

“We inherited an empty Treasury and nothing to show, not a single paper was handed over to us.

“We made sacrifice to change the narrative of the state and we have succeeded in changing it within the last 100 days,” he said.

He described the relationship between the state government and the legislature as cordial, saying they were groomed by the current leader of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the state, Senator Aliyu Magatakarda Wamakko.

Aliyu, however, thanked the leadership of the green chamber who sent a powerful delegation to condole the government and people of the state over the demise of their colleague and member, representing Isa-Sabon Birni Federal Constituency, Jelani Danbuga.

He described the late lawmaker as patriotic and a complete gentleman.

Earlier, Kanu said they were amused by the number of projects so far executed by the state government, noting that it was a thing of joy to see leadership at the state level was making a positive impact on the lives of the people.

He stated that they were in Sokoto to commiserate with the people of the state over the death of their colleague who believed in the unity and progress of the country.

[DailyTrust]

The Area Police Command in Otukpo Benue State, have rescued a suspected kidnapper arrested by youths and vigilantes in Oglewu District of Ohimini LGA of Benue State.

According to the information gathered so far, the youths and local vigilante from Oglewu captured a man who owned up to being a kidnapper around Okwungaga Hill and agreed to take the youths to hide out.

He was, however, rescued and taken away by the Police while the mob was still interrogating him.

The youths have now commenced a protest in the area, demanding that the police release the suspect to them.

They have blocked the Otukpo- Enugu Highway in Otukpo, insisting that the police release the arrested kidnapper for jungle justice.

Bun fires have been lit around the area while vehicular traffic on the busy highway has been obstructed.

[DailyPost]

The Federal Capital Territory Police Command has revealed that about 62 cases of alleged disappearance of manhood have been reported across the territory.

The FCT Commissioner of Police, Haruna Garba made the development known while addressing newsmen at the command’s headquarters on Friday.

Garba further revealed that of the 62 cases reported to the command, 51 suspects have been arrested and charged to court for misinformation and causing breach of peace in the FCT.

According to the police, the 51 suspects wrongly accused others of causing their manhood to disappear, leading to mob actions taken against the victims (those accused).

The CP, however, called on residents of the territory to always cooperate with security operatives in a bid to ensure that the city is free of crimes.

Garba said, “The first case of male organ disappearance was first recorded in Gwagwalada on 21/09/2023. It has spread all over FCT where as of today we had a total of 62 cases reported.

“Fifty-one suspects were charged to court for giving false information and inciting public disturbance. To this end, I want to reiterate my commitment and willingness to always work with you (residents of FCT) to defeat crime in all its forms in the Federal Capital Territory.”

[Punch]

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has pulled the Federal Capital Territory Administration (FCTA) out of the Treasury Single Account (TSA).

The announcement was made today (Friday) by the FCT Minister, Nyesom Wike, during a press conference in Abuja.

Naija News understands that the new order FCT Administration would have to utilize the territory’s Internally Generated Revenue IGR for the development of the nation’s capital.

Wike confirmed this during the press conference, adding that the President has approved the creation of the FCT Civil Service Commission to allow for staff career progression.

He revealed that the President also approved the establishment of the Woman Affairs secretariat, which would be commissioned next week.

The minister expressed sadness, however, that the nonexistence of the CSC has made it impossible for directors in the FCTA to attain the position of Permanent Secretary.

A former minister, Alhaji Bello Maitama Yusuf is dead.

Yusuf, a former senator from 1999-2007 died in the early hours of Friday in Kano at the age of 76.

A family friend of the deceased, Alhaji Hussaini Dalhatu, who confirmed the death, said that the funeral prayer of the Sardauna Dutse would take place after Jumu’at prayer at the Emir of Kano’s palace.

Bello Maitama Yusuf, born in Gwaram, Jigawa State in 1947, was minister of interior in 1981 and minister of commerce in 1982.

His death is coming on the heel of the demise of the member representing Isa/Sabon Birni federal constituency of Sokoto State in the House of Representatives, Abdulkadir Jelani Danbuga.

WITHIN NIGERIA recalls that the federal lawmaker died around 12:30am in the wee hours of Thursday after a brief illness.

The late Danbuga, elected on the platform of the All Progressives Congress (APC), was said to have been admitted in the hospital around Tuesday noon.

“His remains would be taken to the National Mosque for the bathing ritual after which it would be flown to Sokoto for burial around 11am,” Almustapha said.

Hon. Danbuga is survived by two wives, many children, and grandchildren.

THE human slaughter going on in Israel and Palestine are horrendous. In the first five days of the conflict, over 2,500 human beings were slaughtered. That is 500 per day. The Israelis tried to find their feet with many taking shelter in bunkers while the Palestinians whose food, fuel, water and electricity supplies have been cut off, have plenty supply of bombs from the skies.

Such a time of mass suffering and sorrow calls for empathy and demands of all to work for peace. Tragically, this is the time chosen by some political and religious leaders to take sides in the conflict and pour petrol in the raging fires. 

The Bible proclaimed in Mathew 5:9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.” It is a declaration that anybody who wants to be Christ-like must work for the peaceful resolution of conflicts whenever they occur. The peacemaker is the one working to reconcile human beings with others and with God. It is an emphasis that He we serve is “The God of peace” (Romans15:33). While men like Pope Francis mourned the many killed and prayed for their families, and the Christian Association of Nigeria, CAN, took a similar line for peace, men of God like Dr. Enoch Adeboye who leads the Redeemed Christian Church of God, RCCG, took sides, praying for one of the sides in the conflict to triumph.

Adeboye with a PhD in Mathematics said he and his followers are praying for the victory of their ”Beloved Brothers in Israel”. What gibberish is this? Who are his beloved brothers in Israel; the 73.6 per cent that are Jewish, the 18.1 per cent that are Muslims, 1.9 per cent that are Christians or the 1.6 per cent Druze? Who told him that Israelites are Christians or that it is a Christian State? Adeboye prayed that: “The Almighty God, the only one of Israel will give you absolute victory and give you permanent peace from now…” Can there be permanent peace anywhere? In all these, I am ashamed that Adeboye did not consider the Palestinians or rather, does not think they and their children are human beings. 

With thousands dying and many more injured, Adeboye said: “We are praying we will get very, very good results very soon…” What good results can he be praying for? The annihilation of the Palestinians? Can the mass slaughter of human beings over land and politics bring ”good results”? Adeboye needs to ask for forgiveness and pray for peace for all humans impacted by this unnecessary conflict, be they Israelis or Palestinians.

He should also realise that as the General Overseer of the RCCG, his words carry weight, therefore, he needs to weigh  before uttering them. These were times that call for statesmen who can work for a quick ceasefire, bring both sides to the table and fashion out a programme to end the 80-year conflict. Tragically, what we find mainly are leaders whose primary objectives are taking sides and stocking the fires.

When renewed hostilities broke out on September 7, 2023, the first reaction of President Joe Biden was not how to bring the conflict which is eight decades old, to an end, but how to further prolong it. He assured Israel of rock solid support and military supplies. An old man like him ought to have learnt the good lessons of one of his predecessors, President Bill Clinton for whom the eruption of fresh conflicts between the two sides meant that there was little or no time to resolve the conflict. That was why he convened the 2000 Camp David Peace negotiations.

One of the men stoking the fires is American Republican politician, David Bog whose mainly false claims “Five times Palestinians rejected Israel’s olive branch –Time to rethink?” have gone viral. He purports to be a researcher but  his main book ‘Standing With Israel’ has been found to be quite unreliable.  In a review of the book in the Journal of Church and State, Nikolas  K. Gvosdev wrote that the book: “suffers from the fact that its author wants to make definitive statements on a variety of issues while ignoring inconvenient details.”

In the said video, Bog claims that Israel has offered the Palestinians a state of their own five times and that five times have the Palestinians turned it down. He claimed the first time was in 1936 when Arabs rebelled against the British colonialists who had seized the areas from the Ottoman Empire. If the areas were colonised by the British, and there was no Jewish state, how could the Jews have been in a position to offer the Palestinians a state of their own?

The second instance he claimed, was in 1947 when the United Nations suggested a two-state solution. In other words, such an offer came either from the UN or the British colonial masters, certainly not from Israel. Any one conversant with the history of the Middle East knows that at that time, Jewish immigrants who came from Europe and were trying to set up a Jewish State, were involved in armed conflicts against their Palestinian neigbours and the British colonialists. One of the most infamous acts of this group was the July 22, 1946 bombing of the King David Hotel in which 91 died, including 25 Britons, 41 Arabs and 17 Jews. The bombing was by the Irgun terror group led by Menachem Begin who became the Prime Minister of Israel from 1977 to 1983.

 At the time of the bombing, the hotel’s southern wing housed the headquarters of the British Colonial administration. The bombing was part of the attempt by the Jewish group to force the British out. So how could Israel have offered the Palestinians a state and how could the latter have declined the offer? He said that after the 1967 war, the Arab states ruled out negotiations with Israel. How does this tantamount to an offer and rejection of statehood by Palestinians.

Bog claimed the fourth time was the Camp David Accord. Anyone can google this. There was no agreement at Camp David so there could have been neither an offer nor rejection of statehood. The only Bog claim that is correct is that in 2008, Israel offered the Palestinians statehood, but their leader Mahmoud Abass declined on the basis that he should be given the chance to study the map produced by Israel before accepting the offer. This to me was a sensible demand.

It is not surprising that Iran supports Hamas. Can this be a justification for Britain, which created the problems in the Middle East, to support Israel? Children, women, the elderly are dying in this conflict; the immediate task of humanity is to stop the slaughter.

President Bola Tinubu has approved the appointment of new Chief Executive Officers, CEOs, of several agencies and parastatals under the Federal Ministry of Industry, Trade and Investment.

A statement issued by the Special Adviser to the President on Media and Publicity, Ajuri Ngelale on Saturday said the appointments were in line with his resolve to base Nigeria’s economic revival on the foundation of trade expansion through small, medium and large scale industry facilitation in the country.

The new CEOs are : Hussaini Ishaq Magaji, SAN, Corporate Affairs Commission, CAC, Afiz Ogun Oluwatoyin, Industrial Training Fund (ITF), Kamar Bakrin, National Sugar Development Council (NSDC) and
Olufemi Ogunyemi, Nigeria Export Processing Zone Authority (NEPZA).

Others are, Nigeria Export Promotion Council (NEPC) — Nonye Ayeni, Nigeria Investment Promotion Commission (NIPC) — Aisha Rimi, Oil & Gas Free Zone Authority (OGFZA) — Bamanga Usman Jada, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Agency of Nigeria (SMEDAN) — Charles Odii.

The President also appointed Ifeanyi Chukwunonso Okeke as CEO Standards Organisation of Nigeria (SON), Rabiu Olowo, Financial Reporting Council of Nigeria (FRCN), Anthony Atuche, CFA,
Nigeria Commodities Exchange (NCE);

“Veronica Safiya Ndanusa, Lagos International Trade Fair Complex (LITFCMB), Lucia Shittu, Tafawa Balewa Square Management Board (TBSMB) and Oluwemimo Joseph Osanipin, National Automotive Design and Development Council (NADDC).

The statement further said, “In view of the Renewed Hope Agenda of his administration, President Bola Tinubu expects all new appointees in this critical sector to optimally deliver in accordance with new key performance indicating benchmarks as established by the Federal Ministry of Industry, Trade and Investment.

“By this directive of the President, all of the above listed appointments take immediate effect.”

[Vanguard]

The ex -Governor of Ekiti state, Dr. John Oluwakayode Fayemi, from Isan Ekiti has admitted what we knew all along, that liberal democracy is not working in this country.

He has previously served as governor of Ekiti state between 2010 and 2014 and also served as Minister of Solid Minerals Development under President Muhammadu Buhari GCFR from November 11, 2015 to May 30, 2018 before he resigned to contest for a second term as Governor of Ekiti state. He handed over as governor to his chosen successor, Mr. Abiodun Abayomi Oyebanji(55) on October 16 last year.

 At present, he is a lecturer at Kings College, University of London, his former school. After completing his studies at the Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile Ife, he joined THE GUARDIAN newspaper, before venturing into academics and later into politics.

On Tuesday September 5, this year, he made the admission on liberal democracy while delivering a key note address at a national dialogue organised to celebrate the 60th birthday of Prof Udenta Udenta, founding national secretary of Alliance for Democracy (AD).

While speaking at the event, the ex-governor criticised the “winner-takes-all” nature of Nigeria’s democracy stating that the nation’s current challenges could not be effectively addressed without adopting proportional representation, where election rewards are distributed among contestants based on their share of the vote.

“Today, I read former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s interview in The Cable saying our liberal democracy is not working and we need to revisit it, and I agree with him. We must move from the political alternatives. I think we are almost on a dead end of that.”

“What we need is alternative politics, and my own notion of alternative politics is that you can’t have 35 per cent of the vote and take 100 per cent. It won’t work! We must look at proportional representation so that the party that is said to have won 21 per cent of the votes will have 21 per cent of the government. Adversary politics bring division and enmity,” he said.

On a personal note, while I was working in Ibadan secretariat in the Ministry of Works and transport, Western state, his father’s office was opposite mine, the then Ministry of Information. When I switched to Journalism in early 1972, while working in the Nigerian Tribune, I used to visit his father, who took me like a junior brother.

His father was then working under Chief Festus Oladipo Shadare from Akure, who was then the Chief Information Officer in Western state. His dad’s colleagues at that time included my late friend, Femi Olurin from Ilaro in Ogun state, Chief Adewole Atandeyi (84), from Akure who retired as Chief Information officer in Ondo state, Mr. John Fademi (82) from Ijebu Ijesha in the present day Osun state and others.

General Yakubu Gowon (88) GCFR appointed Brigadier General Christopher Oluwole Rotimi(88), governor of Western state on April 1, 1971, likewise Brigadier Rotimi appointed Chief Samuel Kolawole Babalola(1931-2020) from Ipoti Ekiti as Commissioner for Health.

Dr. Fayemi’s father, Chief John Fadeyi Fayemi served as Information Officer under late Chief S.K Babalola. Dr Fayemi’s parents were then living at Agodi in Ibadan.

 Chief Fayemi retired as a zonal information officer when Ekiti state was created. He died in 2009 at 86, just before his son became governor.

My keen interest in Dr. Fayemi grew when he went into politics in this republic and fortunate enough he has had his own share in serving the people, both at the national level and the state level. No one can predict his political future. What he has said deserved some commentary. The question I will like to ask, is who gave us this liberal democracy we are practicing?

Out of office, if these two men (Dr. Kayode Fayemi and former President Olusegun Obasanjo) are today questioning the validity of our liberal democracy, we should be worried. Afterwards empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resisting solely on a prior reasoning, intuition, or revelation. Empiricism, often used by natural scientists, says that “knowledge is based on experience” and that knowledge is tentative and probabilistic, subject to continued revision and falsification”. Empirical research, including experiments and validated measurement tools, guides the scientific method.

It is often said that it is those who wears the shoes that know where the shoes pinches.

If former President Obasanjo, who was part of the Supreme Military Council that imposed on us this Presidential System of government is part of those complaining today about liberal democracy, we have to note that something is wrong. You may not like the messenger but you must examine the message.

Except for the President, the governors, legislators and their aides including Ministers and Commissioners and probably friends, no one is benefitting from the liberal democracy. The people are getting impoverished everyday. It is no exaggeration that there is extreme poverty in the land irrespective of who is leading us. I wonder why we are sticking to this type of democracy that is not yielding results and making us more miserable. Is there no alternative? And why must we recite every script on liberal democracy? Can’t we adopt another system of government that will be beneficial to us all? We have to admit that the liberal democracy is not working in our interest at all.

 Nigerians are of the few people in the world who have never had a say in how they are being governed. What has happened in Nigeria and what is presently happening is enough to bring a revolution in other parts of the world. Everything has been imposed on us.

There are other alternatives to liberal democracy. We have Noocracy- a democracy in which only the wise and competent are allowed to stand and vote, Sociocracy- a democratic system of governance based on consent decision making, circle organization, subsidiarity and double-linked representation, New Democracy- Maoist concept based on Mao Zedong’s “Bloc of Four Classes theory in post-revolutionary China, Market democracy– another name for democratic capitalism, an economic ideology based on a tripartite arrangement of a market-based economy based predominantly on economic incentives through free markets, a democratic polity and a liberal moral-cultural system which encourages pluralism.

Others are Participatory democracy – involves more lay citizen participation in decision making and offers greater political representation than traditional representative democracy, e.g., wider control of proxies given to representatives by those who get directly involved and actually participate, Semi-direct democracy – representative democracy with instruments, elements, and/or features of  direct democracy and Grassroots democracy – emphasizes trust in small decentralized units at the municipal government level, possibly using urban secession to establish the formal legal authority to make decisions made at this local level binding.

Let us look at what liberal democracy means. According to Wikipedia, “Liberal democracy, substantive democracy or western democracy is a form of government that combines the structure of a representative democracy with the principles of liberal political philosophy. It is characterized by elections between multiple distinct political parties, a separation of powers into different branches of government, the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society, a market economy with private property, universal suffrage, and the equal protection of human rights, civil rights,  civil liberties and political freedoms for all people. To define the system in practice, liberal democracies often draw upon a constitution, either codified or uncodified, to delineate the powers of government and enshrine the social contract. The purpose of a constitution is often seen as a limit on the authority of the government. A liberal democracy may take various and mixed constitutional forms: it may be a constitutional monarchy (Australia, Belgium, Canada, Japan, Norway, Spain, the United Kingdom) or a republic (France, India, Ireland, the United States). It may have a parliamentary system (Australia, Canada, India, Ireland, the United Kingdom), a presidential system (Indonesia, the United States), or a semi-presidential system (France). Liberal democracies are contrasted with illiberal democracies and with dictatorships.

Liberal democracy traces its origins—and its name—to the Age of Enlightenment. The conventional views supporting monarchies and aristocracies were challenged at first by a relatively small group of Enlightenment intellectuals, who believed that human affairs should be guided by reason and principles of liberty and equality. They argued that all people are created equal and therefore political authority cannot be justified on the basis of noble blood, a supposed privileged connection to God or any other characteristic that is alleged to make one person superior to others. They further argued that governments exist to serve the people—not vice versa—and that laws should apply to those who govern as well as to the governed (a concept known as rule of law). Some of these ideas began to be expressed in England in the 17th century. By the late 18th century, leading philosophers such as John Locke had published works that spread around the European continent and beyond. These ideas and beliefs influenced the American Revolution and the French Revolution. After a period of expansion in the second half of the 20th century, liberal democracy became a prevalent political system in the world.

Liberal democracy emphasizes the separation of powers, an independent judiciary, and a system of checks and balances between branches of government. Multi-party systems with at least two persistent, viable political parties are characteristic of liberal democracies. In Europe, liberal democracies are likely to emphasize the importance of the state being a Rechtsstaat, i.e. a state that follows the principle of rule of law. Governmental authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance with written, publicly disclosed laws adopted and enforced in accordance with established procedure. Many democracies use federalism, also known as vertical separation of powers, in order to prevent abuse and increase public input by dividing governing powers between municipal, provincial and national governments (e.g. Germany, where the federal government assumes the main legislative responsibilities and the federated Länder assume many executive tasks). The characteristics of liberal democracies are associated with increased political stability, lower corruption, better management of resources, and better health indicators such as life expectancy and infant mortality.

John Locke was the first to develop a liberal philosophy as he coherently described the elementary principles of the liberal movement, such as the right to private property and the consent of the governed. The Agreement of the People (1647), a manifesto for political change proposed by the Levellers during the English Civil War, called for freedom of religion, frequent convening of Parliament and equality under the law

Liberal democracy traces its origins—and its name—to the European 18th-century, also known as the Age of Enlightenment. At the time, the vast majority of European states were monarchies, with political power held either by the monarch or the aristocracy. The possibility of democracy had not been a seriously considered political theory since classical antiquity and the widely held belief was that democracies would be inherently unstable and chaotic in their policies due to the changing whims of the people. It was further believed that democracy was contrary to human nature, as human beings were seen to be inherently evil, violent and in need of a strong leader to restrain their destructive impulses. Many European monarchs held that their power had been ordained by God and that questioning their right to rule was tantamount to blasphemy.

These conventional views were challenged at first by a relatively small group of Enlightenment intellectuals, who believed that human affairs should be guided by reason and principles of liberty and equality. They argued that all people are created equal and therefore political authority cannot be justified on the basis of noble blood, a supposed privileged connection to God or any other characteristic that is alleged to make one person superior to others. They further argued that governments exist to serve the people—not vice versa—and that laws should apply to those who govern as well as to the governed (a concept known as rule of law).

Some of these ideas began to be expressed in England in the 17th century. There was renewed interest in Magna Carta, and passage of the Petition of Right in 1628 and Habeas Corpus Act in 1679 established certain liberties for subjects. The idea of a political party took form with groups debating rights to political representation during the Putney Debates of 1647. After the English Civil Wars (1642–1651) and the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the Bill of Rights was enacted in 1689, which codified certain rights and liberties. The Bill set out the requirement for regular elections, rules for freedom of speech in Parliament and limited the power of the monarch, ensuring that, unlike almost all of Europe at the time, royal absolutism would not prevail. This led to significant social change in Britain in terms of the position of individuals in society and the growing power of Parliament in relation to the monarch.

By the late 18th century, leading philosophers of the day had published works that spread around the European continent and beyond. One of the most influential of these philosophers was English empiricist John Locke, who refuted monarchical absolutism in his Two Treatises of Government. According to Locke, individuals entered into a social contract with a state, surrendering some of their liberties in exchange for the protection of their natural rights. Locke advanced that governments were only legitimate if they maintained the consent of the governed and that citizens had the right to instigate a rebellion against their government if that government acted against their interests. These ideas and beliefs influenced the American Revolution and the French Revolution, which gave birth to the philosophy of liberalism and instituted forms of government that attempted to put the principles of the Enlightenment philosophers into practice.

When the first prototypical liberal democracies were founded, the liberals themselves were viewed as an extreme and rather dangerous fringe group that threatened international peace and stability. The conservative monarchists who opposed liberalism and democracy saw themselves as defenders of traditional values and the natural order of things and their criticism of democracy seemed vindicated when Napoleon Bonaparte took control of the young French Republic, reorganized it into the first French Empire and proceeded to conquer most of Europe. Napoleon was eventually defeated and the Holy Alliance was formed in Europe to prevent any further spread of liberalism or democracy.

However, liberal democratic ideals soon became widespread among the general population and over the 19th century traditional monarchy was forced on a continuous defensive and withdrawal. The Dominions of the British Empire became laboratories for liberal democracy from the mid 19th century onward. In Canada, responsible government began in the 1840s and in Australia and New Zealand, parliamentary government elected by male suffrage and secret ballot was established from the 1850s and female suffrage achieved from the 1890s.

Reforms and revolutions helped move most European countries towards liberal democracy. Liberalism ceased being a fringe opinion and joined the political mainstream. At the same time, a number of non-liberal ideologies developed that took the concept of liberal democracy and made it their own. The political spectrum changed; traditional monarchy became more and more a fringe view and liberal democracy became more and more mainstream. By the end of the 19th century, liberal democracy was no longer only a liberal idea, but an idea supported by many different ideologies. After World War I and especially after World War II, liberal democracy achieved a dominant position among theories of government and is now endorsed by the vast majority of the political spectrum.

Although liberal democracy was originally put forward by Enlightenment liberals, the relationship between democracy and liberalism has been controversial since the beginning and was problematized in the 20th century. In his book Freedom and Equality in a Liberal Democratic State, Jasper Doomen posited that freedom and equality are necessary for a liberal democracy. In his book The End of History and the Last Man, Francis Fukuyama says that since the French Revolution, liberal democracy has repeatedly proven to be a fundamentally better system (ethically, politically, economically) than any of the alternatives, and that democracy will become more and more prevalent in the long term, although it may suffer temporary setbacks. The research institute Freedom House today simply defines liberal democracy as an electoral democracy also protecting civil liberties”.

When the colonialists arrived in our land years ago, they brought the bible and this thing called liberal democracy. We never resisted. They took away our tradition and stripped us naked. We retained the Bible but the colonialists have abandoned the Bible for us.

 We married the parliamentary system of democracy until the ARMY terminated it January 15, 1966. The military then imposed the Presidential System of government on us, we did not resist it. The military on their own terminated it on December 31, 1983 and they restored it on May 29, 1999. Since then, we have been fumbling and wobbling with this system of government.

I am happy Dr. Fayemi described our democracy as “winner takes all democracy”. We all know what a winner takes all, entails.

In the Middle East, what is being practiced is no more democracy but autocratic pragmatism. They are no longer following the rules and dictates of the so called western democracy.

In an article published by the British magazine, THE ECONIMIST, in its September 15 to 22 edition, it was quoted as saying “If you thought the Middle East was stagnant, think again. The gulf economies are among the richest and most vibrant on the planet, helped by a Brent crude oil price that rose back to over $90 per barrel this week. A $3.5 trillion fossil-fuel bonanza is being spent on everything from home-grown artificial intelligence models and shiny new cities in the desert, to filling the coffers of giant sovereign-wealth funds that roam the world’s capital market looking for ideals.

As for the cash flows in, the chaos shows signs of receding, thanks to the biggest burst of diplomacy for decades. Saudi Arabia and Iran have negotiated détente in a rivalry that has lasted since the Iranian revolution in 1979. Civil wars in Syria and Yemen are killing fewer people, as their sponsors seek de-escalation. Following the Abraham accords between Israel and some Arab governments, Saudi Arabia is considering recognizing the Jewish state, 75 years after its creation. The region’s global clout is rising— four countries are about to join the BRICS club of non-aligned powers that want a less Western-dominated world.

As our briefing explains, these shifts begin a new chapter in the Middle East marked by fresh opportunities and new dangers. The region’s leaders are testing ideas that have caught on in much of the world, including embracing autocratic pragmatism as a substitute for democracy, and multipolar diplomacy instead of the post-1945 American-led order. The Middle East is also a place where threats that will menace the world in the 2030s may play out early, including nuclear proliferation, extreme weather and even greater inequality, as weak countries fall further behind.

Many occupants of the White House have left office wishing they could forget all about the Middle East. But whether you run a super-power or a small business, it matters as much as ever. Although it has only 6% of the world’s people, it has a chokehold on the global economy. As the lowest-cost oil producer, its share of crude exports is 46% and rising. Its share of exports of liquefied natural gas, in great demand since Russia’s pipelines to Europe shut down, is 30% and going up, too. Thanks to its location, 30% of all container trade and 16% of air cargo passes through the region. With $3trillion of assets, its sovereign-wealth funds are among the world’s largest. Its wars and disorder often spill across borders; its refugees affect politics as far away as Europe.

The past two decades have been miserable in the Middle East. Democratic project ended in failure and bloodshed, in Iraq after the American-led invasion of 2003 and in several countries after the Arab spring in 2011. Islamic State sought to kill its way to creating a caliphate, while in Syria Bashar al-Assad doused his own people in chlorine and nerve agents.

Yet now, as the fighting ebbs, three big changes are visible. First, the region is having to take more responsibility for its own security, as America’s appetite to intervene militarily has evaporated. Alongside this, trade patterns have become multipolar: the IMF reckons 26% of Middle Eastern goods exports exports to China and India, almost double the level in 2000 and roughly twice the share headed for America and Europe. Recently, the geopolitical alignment has led to a desire to de-escalate conflicts.

Second, the energy transition creates an urgent need to escape the familiar patterns of oil booms and busts. Instead there is a powerful incentive for the Gulf to lift fossil-fuel production in the next decade before demand dwindles permanently, and spend the proceeds on diversifying local economies.

The final shift is a weariness in public opinion. Political experiments, whether democratic or islamist, are tarnished. Instead, people across the Middle East yearn for economic opportunity. Forget Canada or Sweden: polls show the country young Arabs  admire most is the UAE, with its stability and thriving economy under iron-fisted dynastic rule. At the same time, less Western involvement in security and trade also means less pressure for human rights or democracy”.

There is a Yoruba adage that says “no one will tell the blind that the market is over until he or she hears no sound”. This liberal democracy is ruining us.