Misunderstood Giant

Nigeria, like some of the world’s largest companies, might benefit from splitting into smaller, more agile nations. Historically, large corporations such as IBM, AT&T, and Microsoft have resisted calls to break up, believing that size equates to strength. However, evidence shows that these companies might have thrived more if they had embraced division.

In Nigeria's case, the argument for division can be drawn from these corporate examples. When a country becomes too large and diverse, it faces immense challenges in governance, resource allocation, and representation. These issues can stifle development and create inefficiencies, much like what happens in overly large companies.

Consider the benefits of division:

1. Better Governance: Smaller countries can govern more effectively. Decision-making becomes quicker and more relevant to the specific needs of the populace.
2. Improved Representation: Citizens receive better representation in government. Smaller political units allow for voices to be heard more clearly and actions to be more responsive.
3. Economic Growth: Each new country can tailor economic policies to its unique strengths and needs. This localized approach can spur innovation and growth more effectively than a one-size-fits-all strategy.

Large companies often try to maintain their dominance for the short-term benefits it offers to senior management. However, this comes at the cost of long-term resilience and productivity. Similarly, a united but overly large Nigeria might offer short-term stability but struggles with long-term sustainable development.

The resilience and utility that come from agility and effective service to citizens far outweigh the temporary gains of maintaining a large, unwieldy nation. Just as giant corporations lose their innovative edge and focus when they become too big, countries can suffer from similar issues.

A division can lead to vibrant, competitive regions that are more dynamic and better suited to addressing local challenges. Just as Google’s monopoly has led to decisions that don’t necessarily benefit users or team members, Nigeria’s size can lead to policies that don’t serve all regions effectively.

In essence, having smaller, more focused countries can create a more productive and vibrant environment. Just as adversarial interoperability benefits markets, smaller nations within the former Nigeria could thrive by focusing on their unique needs and opportunities.

Thus, while the idea of breaking up Nigeria may seem radical, history shows us that sometimes, smaller is indeed better.