*Photo: President Bola Tinubu
Introduction
On the occasion of its 65th anniversary of independence, a familiar debate resurfaces in Nigeria. One narrative, often shared with a mix of pragmatic optimism and defensive pride, highlights the tangible changes that have occurred since 1960. It argues that with more universities, modern cities like Abuja rising from forests, and a generation of global achievers, Nigeria is unequivocally better off. This perspective measures progress against the nation’s own past, a simple, linear comparison. It correctly asserts that the Nigeria of 2025 is not the same as the “bush” of 1960. However, this is a dangerously low and profoundly misleading benchmark. While a nation should indeed advance beyond its past, the accurate, unsparing measure of its performance lies in a comparison against its potential and, crucially, against its peers.
This article directly refutes the illusion of satisfactory progress. It argues that when measured against the cohort of nations that stood at a similar or even less advantageous starting line in 1960, Nigeria’s story is not one of progress, but of colossal underachievement and relative decline. Nations like South Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia, once contemporaries of Nigeria in development, have since surged forward, transforming into paragons of economic dynamism and social stability. This analysis will dissect the stark divergence in these national trajectories. It will move beyond the superficial metrics of absolute gains to explore the core reasons for this gap: the presence of visionary, disciplined leadership in competitor nations versus its catastrophic absence in Nigeria. We will examine what these nations did right, where Nigeria went disastrously wrong, and conclude that the nation’s current state is not a matter of destiny, but a direct consequence of a multi-generational failure of governance.
The Fallacy of the 1960 Benchmark: Mistaking Motion for Progress
The argument that Nigeria has made commendable progress since independence, as detailed in a viral document on Facebook and WhatsApp titled “I Asked My Dad This Question: Why Are We Like This 65years After?”, is built on a foundation of undeniable but ultimately superficial facts. It is true that the University of Ibadan, established in 1948, has been joined by over 170 others. Cities like Abuja and the Lekki Peninsula have indeed undergone significant development. It is true that Nigerian professionals, particularly doctors, have excelled abroad, and that the nation has produced world-class talents in arts and sports. However, celebrating these achievements as evidence of successful national development is like a student boasting of having more textbooks than their grandfather while consistently failing their exams. The metrics are hollow without a qualitative and comparative context.
Let us interrogate these points. The explosion in the number of universities has been accompanied by a catastrophic decline in educational quality. Not a single Nigerian university consistently ranks among the world’s top 500, and employers routinely complain about the unpreparedness of graduates. The existence of “170 universities” is a metric of quantity, not a testament to a thriving intellectual environment. Similarly, celebrating the 6,000 Nigerian doctors in one American association is not a sign of progress; it is a damning indictment of a system that fails to retain its most critical human capital. It is a celebration of brain drain, a symptom of a nation unable to provide its best and brightest with the opportunity to build at home.
The development of exclusive, high-end real estate in Abuja and Lekki stands in grotesque contrast to the sprawling, unserviced slums where the majority of urban Nigerians live. This is not national development; it is the physical manifestation of extreme inequality. And while winning a World Cup or an Olympic gold medal provides moments of fleeting national pride, these achievements in sports and entertainment often serve as a “bread and circuses” distraction from fundamental failures in governance, infrastructure, and economic management. They are the exceptions that highlight the rule of systemic dysfunction.
The fundamental flaw in this “we are better than 1960” argument is its complete lack of ambition and external perspective. It ignores the crucial question: “Are we where we should be?” To answer this, we must turn our gaze outward and compare Nigeria’s journey not with its own nascent past, but with the nations that ran the same race.
The Starting Line: A World of Promise in 1960
To understand the depth of Nigeria’s underperformance, we must first appreciate the strength of its starting position. In 1960, Nigeria was not a backwater but a nation brimming with internationally recognized potential. Its economy was one of the most promising in the developing world, anchored by a robust agricultural sector that made it a global leader in palm oil, cocoa, and groundnut exports. Its GDP per capita was comparable to or higher than that of many of its peers. The institutions bequeathed by the British, including a meritocratic civil service, an independent judiciary, and a respected educational system, provided a solid framework for a modern state.
Nigeria’s contemporaries faced far more daunting challenges. South Korea was an impoverished, war-ravaged nation, utterly dependent on foreign aid, with few natural resources to its name. Malaysia was a smaller nation grappling with deep-seated ethnic tensions between its Malay, Chinese, and Indian populations. Singapore was a tiny, resource-barren island that had just been ejected from the Malaysian federation, its viability as a sovereign state in serious doubt. Indonesia and Brazil were battling hyperinflation and political instability.
By almost every objective measure, Nigeria was better positioned. It possessed the human capital, resources, and institutional foundation to build a prosperous and influential nation. The development economists of the era widely predicted that Nigeria would be a leader in Africa’s post-colonial take-off. That this spectacular promise curdled into a cautionary tale is the central tragedy of its 65-year history.
The Great Divergence: The Data Doesn’t Lie
The most brutal and objective assessment of Nigeria’s journey comes from the cold, complex data. In summary, I compared Nigeria’s economic trajectory with that of its peers from 1960 to 2025. It illustrates a story not just of different growth rates, but of entirely different realities being created over the course of six decades.
To truly grasp the magnitude of Nigeria’s sixty-five-year journey, examining the raw economic data is not only instructive but also startling. In 1960, Nigeria was firmly in the league of promising emerging nations. With a GDP per capita of approximately $92, it stood shoulder to shoulder with countries like Thailand ($98) and was significantly ahead of struggling Indonesia ($56). Nigeria’s economic footing was comparable to that of a war-torn South Korea ($158) and within the same developmental sphere as nations like Malaysia ($290) and Singapore ($428). At that starting line, the race for prosperity was wide open, with Nigeria well-positioned among the front-runners.
Fast-forward to 2025, and the story is one of catastrophic divergence. The peers that once stood beside Nigeria have surged ahead, creating a chasm in wealth and living standards. Nigeria’s GDP per capita has grown to an estimated $2,550—a figure that represents modest absolute growth but marks a staggering relative decline.
Consider the economic miracles. South Korea, starting from a similar base, orchestrated a transformation that propelled its per capita income to $36,500. Even more remarkably, Singapore, the small port city with no natural resources, engineered its rise to a staggering $88,000 per capita, becoming one of the wealthiest nations on Earth. These nations did not just grow; they fundamentally redefined their economic destinies.
The comparison with other resource-rich nations is equally stark. Malaysia, which also started with a commodity-based economy, successfully diversified and industrialized, achieving a per capita income of $13,500. Indonesia, once poorer than Nigeria, has overcome its challenges to reach a per capita income of $5,200, driven by a robust and growing manufacturing sector. Even Saudi Arabia, while still reliant on oil, leveraged its wealth to build world-class infrastructure, achieving a per capita income of $32,000, and is now aggressively pursuing economic diversification.
This data paints an undeniable picture. The journey from 1960 to 2025 has seen Nigeria’s peers make strategic choices that led to exponential growth and national prosperity. Meanwhile, Nigeria remains trapped in a low-productivity, resource-dependent model, left far behind by the very nations it once called its equals.
Note: Data for 1960 is based on historical estimates from sources like the Maddison Project Database and the World Bank, converted to current USD for broad comparison. The 2025 figures are based on recent projections from the IMF and the World Bank. Figures are approximate and intended to illustrate trajectories.
The numbers reeled out above tell a devastating story. While Nigeria’s GDP per capita grew roughly 27-fold, South Korea’s grew over 230-fold. Singapore’s skyrocketed by more than 200-fold. These are not mere statistical differences; they represent a chasm in human experience. It is the difference between a life of constant struggle for basics and a life of modern comfort and opportunity. It is the difference between a nation with crumbling infrastructure and nations with world-class airports, high-speed rail, and ubiquitous internet. The data demonstrates, without sentiment, that Nigeria did not just grow slower; it was comprehensively left behind.
The Secrets of Success: What Nigeria’s Peers Did Right
The divergent paths were not accidental. They were the result of deliberate, strategic, and often ruthless choices made by the leaders of these nations. While each country’s story is unique, common themes of visionary leadership, human capital investment, and economic discipline emerge.
The Gospel of the Developmental State: South Korea and Singapore
The most dramatic transformations occurred in South Korea and Singapore, both of which were guided by the principles of a “developmental state.” Their leaders, Park Chung-hee and Lee Kuan Yew, were authoritarian figures, but they were not mere plunderers. They were nation-builders obsessed with a single goal: economic survival and prosperity. Their leadership was defined by long-term vision, meritocracy, and brutal pragmatism. They established elite, powerful economic planning boards staffed with the best minds, insulated from political interference.
Their core strategy was twofold. First, they embarked on a fanatical drive to develop human capital. Education was treated as a national security issue. They invested massively in primary, secondary, and, crucially, technical and vocational education to create a skilled and disciplined workforce. Second, they pursued an aggressive Export-Oriented Industrialization (EOI) strategy. They protected and subsidized nascent industries (the chaebols in Korea) but with a critical condition: they had to become globally competitive and export their goods. This discipline of the global market forced them to innovate and achieve world-class quality. They built global giants like Samsung, Hyundai, and LG from the ashes of war. Singapore, with no hinterland, made itself indispensable to the world through finance, logistics, and high-tech manufacturing.
Taming the Resource Curse: Malaysia and Indonesia
Malaysia and Indonesia provide a more direct and damning comparison for Nigeria, as they, too, were blessed (or cursed) with natural resources. Their success lay in their conscious and strategic effort to avoid the Dutch Disease that crippled Nigeria. Leaders like Malaysia’s Mahathir Mohamad, with his “Vision 2020,” understood that commodity prices were volatile and that true wealth lay in value addition and diversification.
They used the revenues from their oil, tin, and palm oil not just for consumption and white-elephant projects, but as seed capital to systematically build a robust manufacturing sector. Malaysia became a world leader in semiconductor assembly and electronics. Indonesia built a diverse industrial base. They actively courted Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) into these new sectors by creating stable policies, investing in infrastructure, and ensuring a degree of political stability. They saw their natural resources as a temporary advantage to be leveraged for a more sustainable future, a lesson Nigeria spectacularly failed to learn.
The Anatomy of Nigeria’s Failure: Why the Giant Stumbled
Nigeria’s failure to keep pace is not due to a lack of resources, intellect, or opportunity. It is a direct and tragic consequence of a multi-generational failure of leadership and the weak, extractive institutions that this failure spawned.
- The Resource Curse and Oil Dependency
The discovery of oil in the late 1950s seemed like a blessing. By the 1970s, oil had become the dominant source of Nigeria’s export earnings. However, instead of using oil revenues to diversify the economy, successive governments relied almost entirely on crude oil exports. Agriculture, once Nigeria’s backbone, collapsed. By the 1980s, Nigeria had shifted from being a net food exporter to a net food importer. This overdependence exposed the economy to oil price shocks and undermined industrialization.
By contrast, Malaysia also discovered oil but deliberately diversified into palm oil, electronics, and later manufacturing. Saudi Arabia, equally oil-dependent, invested in education, infrastructure, and long-term diversification through initiatives like Vision 2030. Nigeria squandered its oil wealth through corruption, mismanagement, and overconsumption.
- The Catastrophic Failure of Lack of Visionary Leadership
This is the central cause. While Lee Kuan Yew was thinking about how to make Singapore a first-world nation in one generation, Nigerian leaders were, and still are, primarily focused on the next election and the distribution of oil rents. The early promise shown by leaders like Obafemi Awolowo in the Western Region, who used cocoa revenues to fund free education and build lasting infrastructure, was an anomaly. After the first republic and the subsequent military coups, the concept of long-term, pan-national development planning was largely abandoned. Governance became a transactional affair focused on patronage, ethnic balancing, and personal enrichment. There was no overarching national vision, no “Nigerian Dream” to galvanize the population towards a common productive goal.
- Succumbing to the Resource Curse
Unlike Malaysia, Nigeria did not tame the resource curse; it embraced it. The oil boom of the 1970s marked a fatal turning point for the nation. It decimated agriculture, fostered a culture of laziness and entitlement, and created an unaccountable government. Because the state’s revenues came from oil wells rather than from taxing a productive population, the government had little incentive to build broad-based economic growth. The link between the government and the governed was severed. The “national cake” mentality took hold, where the primary purpose of politics became the struggle to control and share oil revenue, rather than creating new wealth.
- The Corrosion of Institutions
Decades of military rule played a crucial role in destroying Nigeria’s promising early institutions. The meritocratic civil service was politicized and bloated. The judiciary was intimidated and corrupted. The military itself, meant to protect the nation, became the primary instrument of state plunder. While South Korea’s military leadership was “developmental,” Nigeria’s was almost purely extractive. This culture of impunity and corruption became deeply entrenched and has sadly persisted even in the democratic era. Without strong, independent institutions to enforce the rule of law, protect property rights, and ensure policy stability, sustainable economic development is impossible.
- Education and Human Capital Deficit
While Nigeria expanded access to education, the quality deteriorated. Strikes, underfunding, and brain drain crippled universities. Millions of children remain out of school, especially in the north. South Korea, by contrast, made universal education its cornerstone. Its literacy rate soared, feeding its high-tech economy. Malaysia and Singapore followed suit, linking education directly to industrial growth.
- Overpopulation Without Productivity
Nigeria’s population exploded from 45 million in 1960 to over 220 million in 2025. While this could have been a demographic dividend, weak policies turned it into a burden. Infrastructure, jobs, and social services lagged far behind population growth. Poverty and unemployment remain widespread. In contrast, countries like Thailand and Indonesia harnessed their populations by developing manufacturing industries that absorbed large amounts of labor.
- Ethnic and Religious Divisions
Nigeria’s federal system, instead of uniting, has often deepened divisions. Resource allocation is frequently politicized, and ethnic balancing typically takes precedence over merit. This has stifled meritocracy and fueled conflict. Malaysia faced similar ethnic tensions but managed them with deliberate affirmative policies while still pursuing economic growth.
- Leadership Recklessness and Corruption
Transparency International consistently ranks Nigeria among the most corrupt countries in the world. Oil revenues, instead of being used to build infrastructure, often disappeared into private pockets. By contrast, Singapore established one of the world’s strictest anti-corruption regimes. South Korea prosecuted leaders for graft. Malaysia implemented policies to ensure ethnic inclusivity while promoting investment. Nigeria’s institutional weakness turned its wealth into a curse rather than a blessing.
Conclusion
Sixty-five years after independence, the verdict is clear. While Nigeria has undoubtedly changed since 1960, the narrative of progress is a comforting illusion that masks a harsh reality of squandered potential and relative decline. The nation’s failure to match, let alone surpass, the achievements of its peers is a direct indictment of a catastrophic and sustained failure of leadership. The success of South Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, and others provides an irrefutable blueprint: development is not a mystery. It is the outcome of visionary leadership, a relentless focus on human capital, disciplined economic planning, and the construction of strong, meritocratic institutions.
Where the country is today is a result of our choices and not a destiny. Nigeria’s story is proof that natural resources can be a curse without the right leadership, and that a large population is a liability, not a dividend, if it is uneducated and unproductive. The time for making excuses or taking comfort in flawed benchmarks is over. The path to redemption requires a fundamental and painful break from the past. It demands a new political class committed to patriotism over kleptocracy, long-term vision over short-term gratification, and national unity over divisive politics. Nigeria’s past is a lesson in failure, but it does not have to be a life sentence. The potential that was so evident in 1960 still exists within its people. The critical question for the next chapter of its history is whether a leadership worthy of that potential will finally emerge.
Prof. Sarumi is the Chief Strategic Officer, LMS DT Consulting, Faculty, Prowess University, US, and ICLED Business School, and writes from Lagos, Nigeria. He is also a consultant in TVET and indigenous education systems, affiliated with the Global Adaptive Apprenticeship Model (GAAM) research consortium. Tel. 234 803 304 1421, Email: leadershipmgtservice@gmail.com