By Ibrahim BUNU
ibrahimbunu2520@gmaol.com
“There are two kinds of people in the world: the ‘can’t do’ and the ‘can do’. The ‘can’t do’ are always trying to outsmart the ‘can do’.”
There is a powerful truth hidden inside this seemingly simple statement:
“There are two kinds of people in the world: can’t do and can do. The can’t do are trying to outsmart the can do.”
At first glance, it sounds like motivational rhetoric.
It is much more than that.
It is a statement about human psychology, leadership, politics, institutions, innovation and national development.
The “can’t do” person looks at a difficult problem and begins with the limitations.
The “can do” person looks at exactly the same problem and begins with the possibilities.
The “can’t do” says:
“It has never been done.”
The “can do” asks:
“Why can’t we be the ones to do it?”
The “can’t do” says:
“There is no money.”
The “can do” asks:
“What can we accomplish with the resources available, and what additional resources can we mobilise?”
The “can’t do” says:
“The system is too complicated.”
The “can do” says:
“Then let us change the system.”
And perhaps most importantly, the “can’t do” person sometimes becomes extremely clever—not at solving the problem, but at explaining why the problem cannot be solved.
That is where the quotation becomes politically significant.
1. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IMPOSSIBILITY AND DIFFICULTY
One of the greatest intellectual mistakes in public life is confusing difficult with impossible.
Something can be extraordinarily difficult without being impossible.
Building a railway across difficult terrain is difficult.
Providing electricity to millions of people is difficult.
Reforming taxation is difficult.
Defeating terrorism is difficult.
Rebuilding an economy after years of structural weakness is difficult.
Reforming an inefficient bureaucracy is difficult.
But difficulty is not impossibility.
The history of civilisation is essentially the history of people who looked at something described as impossible and asked a different question:
“What would it take to make it possible?”
That question changes everything.
1. HISTORY BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE WHO REFUSED TO ACCEPT “IMPOSSIBLE”
Consider some of history’s great transformations.
The American Civil Rights Movement
For generations, racial segregation in the United States appeared deeply entrenched.
Millions of people had been conditioned to believe that the existing order was permanent.
But people such as Martin Luther King Jr. refused to accept that injustice was an immutable fact of life.
The important point is not merely that King had a dream.
The important point is that people converted the dream into organisation, protest, legislation, political pressure and institutional change.
The lesson is simple:
A vision without execution remains a speech.
1. JAPAN’S TRANSFORMATION: WHEN A NATION DECIDED TO CATCH UP
In the nineteenth century, Japan confronted a terrifying strategic reality.
Western powers possessed industrial, military and technological capabilities that Japan could not match.
Japan could have concluded:
“We are behind. There is nothing we can do.”
Instead, the Meiji leadership embarked upon a massive programme of institutional, educational, military and industrial transformation.
Japan did not become powerful because somebody shouted motivational slogans.
It became powerful because the country systematically changed its institutions.
That is the difference between political rhetoric and political execution.
1. DENG XIAOPING: THE POWER OF PRACTICAL THINKING
One of the most consequential examples is Deng Xiaoping.
Whatever one’s ideological opinion about China’s political system, the economic transformation initiated under Deng demonstrates an important principle.
Deng moved away from rigid ideological thinking and placed greater emphasis on experimentation, productivity and practical results.
The philosophy was essentially:
Does it work? If it works, expand it.
This is the mentality of the “can do”.
It does not mean believing that everything will succeed.
It means being willing to experiment, measure, correct and try again.
That is a much more sophisticated form of optimism.
1. THE “CAN DO” MINDSET IS NOT BLIND OPTIMISM
This distinction is important.
A “can do” person is not someone who says:
“Everything will be fine.”
That can be dangerous.
A serious “can do” thinker says:
“The problem is real. The obstacles are real. The risks are real. Now, what can we actually do about them?”
That is not optimism without evidence.
It is problem-solving under constraints.
The difference is enormous.
1. THE “CAN’T DO” PERSON CAN BECOME VERY INTELLIGENT AT EXCUSES
This is where the original quotation becomes particularly sharp.
Sometimes the “can’t do” individual is not unintelligent.
In fact, the person may be extremely intelligent.
But the intelligence is directed toward justification rather than execution.
They become experts in explaining:
* why the project will fail;
* why the policy cannot work;
* why the country is too complicated;
* why the budget is insufficient;
* why the opposition cannot win;
* why the government cannot succeed;
* why the electorate cannot change;
* why reform is impossible;
* why the previous administration is responsible;
* why the next administration will also fail.
Eventually, the person becomes so good at identifying obstacles that identifying obstacles becomes the substitute for solving them.
That is the danger.
1. THE POLITICAL VERSION OF “CAN’T DO”
Politics provides perhaps the clearest example.
Every four years, political parties enter the marketplace of ideas.
They tell citizens:
“The country is failing.”
Fine.
That may be true in some areas.
They say:
“The government has failed.”
That may also be true in some areas.
They say:
“The economy is hurting.”
Millions of Nigerians already know this from their household budgets.
They say:
“Security remains a major problem.”
Nigerians do not need politicians to tell them that.
They say:
“Unemployment is a problem.”
Again, citizens know.
The real question is:
WHAT WILL YOU DO DIFFERENTLY?
That is where political opposition often becomes intellectually weak.
It is easy to describe a problem.
It is much harder to construct a credible solution.
1. APPLYING THIS TO PRESIDENT BOLA AHMED TINUBU
The current Nigerian political environment provides an interesting case study.
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu inherited an economy carrying substantial structural problems and has implemented controversial reforms, including fuel-subsidy removal and major changes to the foreign-exchange regime.
Those policies have produced significant pain and controversy.
There is no intellectual justification for pretending otherwise.
Nigerians have experienced inflationary pressure, high living costs and considerable economic hardship.
The Tinubu administration therefore deserves rigorous scrutiny.
But there is another side to the analytical equation.
A government should not be judged only by whether it encountered difficulty.
It should also be judged by:
What did it attempt?
What did it change?
What has improved?
What has deteriorated?
What remains unfinished?
What measurable outcomes have emerged?
That is the correct framework.
Not:
“Tinubu is perfect.”
And not:
“Tinubu has destroyed everything.”
Both statements are intellectually lazy.
1. THE GOVERNMENT MUST ALSO BE CAREFUL NOT TO BECOME THE “CAN’T DO” GOVERNMENT
This argument cuts both ways.
The quotation cannot be used as a weapon against opposition politicians while excusing government failures.
If President Tinubu says Nigeria can be transformed, then the administration must demonstrate that belief through measurable outcomes.
A government cannot continuously say:
“We inherited problems.”
Eventually Nigerians will respond:
“We know. What are you doing about them?”
Inheritance explains the starting point.
It does not permanently excuse the destination.
That is why performance matters.
1. THE TINUBU QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER NIGERIA HAS PROBLEMS
Nigeria obviously has problems.
The real question is:
Is the administration solving them faster than they are reproducing themselves?
That is the serious question.
For example, on security, recent operations demonstrate that the state is capable of achieving significant results. In August 2026, Nigerian security forces reportedly rescued more than 300 hostages in a major coordinated operation, while the administration has also approved substantial increases in military pay aimed at improving troop welfare. (The Guardian)
But those successes do not mean the security crisis has disappeared.
Nigeria continues to face terrorism, banditry, kidnapping and other forms of violent insecurity.
Therefore:
A successful operation is evidence of capacity. It is not evidence that the entire problem has been solved.
That distinction is essential.
1. NOW LET US TURN TO THE OPPOSITION
This is where the quotation becomes particularly relevant to Nigerian politics.
Nigeria’s opposition parties have legitimate constitutional responsibilities.
Their job is not to praise the government.
Their job is to scrutinise it.
They should expose corruption.
They should question spending.
They should challenge bad policies.
They should propose alternatives.
They should mobilise citizens.
They should provide an alternative government.
That is democracy.
But opposition politics becomes weak when criticism becomes the entire political programme.
1. “TINUBU WILL BE DEFEATED” IS NOT A STRATEGY
Ahead of 2027, opposition groups have increasingly discussed coalition politics and the possibility of presenting a single presidential candidate against the APC and President Tinubu. An opposition summit in Ibadan in April 2026, for example, produced calls for opposition cooperation and a single presidential candidate. (Nigerian Democratic Report -)
That is politically understandable.
But coalition is not the same thing as strategy.
A group of politicians agreeing that:
“Tinubu must go”
does not automatically answer:
“Who replaces him?”
And more importantly:
“Why should Nigerians trust the replacement?”
That is the question opposition parties must answer.
1. THE OPPOSITION’S BIGGEST ENEMY MAY NOT BE TINUBU
This is perhaps the most uncomfortable observation.
An opposition party can spend three years attacking the incumbent and still lose.
Why?
Because elections are not simply referendums against governments.
They are also selection processes for alternatives.
A voter may dislike the government and still distrust the opposition.
That distinction explains many elections around the world.
The opposition must therefore answer five questions:
Who are you?
What do you believe?
What will you change?
How will you pay for it?
Why should Nigerians believe you can execute it?
Without convincing answers, political criticism becomes noise.
1. THE SAME RHETORIC EVERY FOUR YEARS
Nigeria has experienced a recurring electoral pattern.
A party enters opposition.
It describes the country as collapsing.
It promises salvation.
It attacks the incumbent.
It mobilises anger.
It campaigns.
It loses or wins.
Then the political cycle eventually begins again.
The problem is that Nigerians are increasingly sophisticated.
They are asking:
“What is your alternative?”
If you say electricity is bad, tell us how you will fix the electricity market.
If you say unemployment is high, tell us how you will create productive employment.
If you say inflation is unacceptable, explain how you will stabilise prices without destroying production.
If you say insecurity is unacceptable, explain your intelligence, policing, military and judicial strategy.
If you say corruption is destroying Nigeria, tell us how you will reform procurement, budgeting, auditing and enforcement.
If you say poverty is unacceptable, explain how your policies will increase household incomes.
That is politics beyond slogans.
1. THE OPPOSITION MUST STOP CONFUSING NEGATIVITY WITH POLITICAL INTELLIGENCE
There is a strange phenomenon in political communication.
Some politicians believe that if the government is criticised sufficiently, the opposition automatically becomes credible.
It does not.
Imagine a football team whose entire strategy is:
“The other team is bad.”
That team has not yet explained how it will score.
Political parties sometimes make the same mistake.
They spend enormous amounts of energy describing the failures of their opponents while spending very little explaining their own architecture for government.
That is the ultimate “can’t do” trap.
1. THE MOST DANGEROUS OPPOSITION IS THE ONE THAT CAN ONLY SAY “NO”
A mature democracy requires opposition.
But democracy also requires constructive opposition.
The strongest opposition politician should be capable of saying:
“This policy is wrong, and here is our better policy.”
Not merely:
“This policy is wrong.”
There is a huge intellectual difference.
The first is leadership.
The second is commentary.
1. THE FIVE-WHY TEST FOR NIGERIAN POLITICS
Let us apply a simple five-question test.
WHY 1: Why is Nigeria struggling?
Because of multiple structural problems: weak institutions, low productivity, infrastructure deficits, insecurity, poor human-capital outcomes, fiscal pressures and governance failures.
WHY 2: Why have these problems persisted?
Because successive administrations have often treated symptoms rather than transforming underlying systems.
WHY 3: Why have systems not been transformed?
Because reform produces short-term political pain while benefits often take years to materialise.
WHY 4: Why do politicians avoid painful reforms?
Because elections operate on four-year cycles while structural reforms often require decades.
**WHY 5: Why does this matter?
Because Nigeria needs leaders who can survive the political consequences of doing what is necessary rather than leaders who merely do what is popular.
That is the real battle between:
CAN’T DO POLITICS
and
CAN DO POLITICS.
1. TINUBU’S REFORMS SHOULD THEREFORE BE JUDGED BY OUTCOMES
There is a legitimate argument that some of Tinubu’s reforms were economically necessary.
There is also a legitimate argument that the implementation imposed severe costs on ordinary Nigerians.
Both propositions can be true simultaneously.
A serious analyst should therefore avoid the simplistic binary.
The correct questions are:
Did the reforms address genuine structural distortions?
Were they implemented efficiently?
Were vulnerable citizens adequately protected?
Are investment and productivity responding?
Are incomes catching up?
Is inflation coming under control?
Are institutions becoming stronger?
Are Nigerians actually experiencing improved living standards?
That is how a government should be evaluated.
1. THE OPPOSITION SHOULD BE ASKED THE SAME QUESTIONS
Suppose the opposition wins in 2027.
What happens on Day One?
What happens in the first 100 days?
What happens after one year?
Will subsidies return?
If so, how will they be funded?
Will the exchange-rate regime be reversed?
If so, how?
How will the government increase electricity generation?
How will it reform the police?
How will it defeat terrorism?
How will it reduce the cost of governance?
How will it restructure federal institutions?
How will it attract investment?
How will it reform education?
How will it increase agricultural productivity?
How will it reduce debt-service pressure?
How will it create millions of productive jobs?
These are not unfair questions.
They are the minimum questions any serious presidential contender should be prepared to answer.
1. HISTORY PUNISHES PEOPLE WHO ONLY COMPLAIN ABOUT THE PRESENT
Consider Franklin D. Roosevelt.
The United States was experiencing an extraordinary economic crisis during the Great Depression.
Roosevelt did not campaign merely by saying:
“The economy is terrible.”
Everybody knew.
The political challenge was to construct a programme of intervention.
Similarly, Winston Churchill did not defeat the Nazi threat through speeches alone.
The speeches mattered.
But behind the speeches were mobilisation, industrial production, military planning, alliances, intelligence and logistics.
That is the crucial distinction.
Words can mobilise people. Systems win wars.
1. NELSON MANDELA AND THE POLITICS OF POSSIBILITY
Nelson Mandela represents another dimension.
South Africa’s transformation was not merely about removing apartheid.
The much harder question was:
What kind of country comes after apartheid?
That required institution-building, reconciliation and political compromise.
Again, the lesson is that destroying an old structure is easier than constructing a functioning new one.
Nigeria’s opposition should understand this.
Defeating Tinubu is one objective. Governing Nigeria is an entirely different challenge.
1. THE “CAN DO” LEADER UNDERSTANDS THAT FAILURE IS PART OF EXECUTION
One of the greatest misconceptions about successful people is that they succeed because they never fail.
The opposite is often closer to the truth.
They succeed because they are capable of:
trying → failing → learning → adjusting → trying again.
The “can’t do” mindset sees failure as proof that the original attempt should never have been made.
The “can do” mindset sees failure as information.
That distinction is fundamental to innovation.
1. NIGERIA NEEDS LESS POLITICAL THEATRE AND MORE POLITICAL ENGINEERING
Nigeria does not suffer from a shortage of political speeches.
Nigeria has speeches.
Nigeria has press conferences.
Nigeria has rallies.
Nigeria has television debates.
Nigeria has hashtags.
Nigeria has social-media influencers.
Nigeria has political slogans.
What Nigeria desperately needs is execution capacity.
A government that can formulate policy.
A civil service that can implement it.
Institutions that can monitor it.
Courts that can enforce contracts.
Security agencies that can protect citizens.
Legislatures that can legislate intelligently.
Political parties that can produce competent candidates.
And citizens who can distinguish propaganda from performance.
1. THE REAL TEST OF THE 2027 ELECTION
The 2027 election should not merely become:
“Are you for Tinubu?”
versus
“Are you against Tinubu?”
That is too shallow for a country of more than 200 million people.
The real question should be:
Who has the most credible plan to build a more productive, secure, prosperous and institutionally stronger Nigeria?
Tinubu should be required to defend his record.
The opposition should be required to defend its alternatives.
Nobody should receive a blank cheque.
1. THE GOVERNMENT MUST NOT USE “CAN DO” AS AN EXCUSE FOR FAILURE
There is another important warning.
“Can do” does not mean:
“Believe everything the government tells you.”
Citizens must remain sceptical.
A government can announce 100 projects and complete only 20.
A minister can make 50 promises and deliver five.
A politician can call himself a reformer while producing little reform.
Therefore, the citizen’s responsibility is to ask for evidence.
Where is the project?
Where is the money?
Where is the result?
What changed?
Who benefited?
What is the measurable outcome?
This is not negativity.
This is democracy.
1. THE BEST POLITICAL CULTURE COMBINES AMBITION WITH ACCOUNTABILITY
The ideal Nigerian political culture should therefore contain two forces.
The “CAN DO” spirit
It says:
“Nigeria can be fixed.”
And:
The “SHOW ME” spirit
It says:
“Then demonstrate it.”
That combination is powerful.
Because optimism without accountability becomes propaganda.
And criticism without constructive alternatives becomes cynicism.
Nigeria needs neither propaganda nor cynicism.
Nigeria needs performance.
1. THE OPPOSITION HAS A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY
If opposition parties genuinely believe the Tinubu administration has failed, they should welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that they can do better.
They should publish detailed programmes.
Not slogans.
Not hashtags.
Not insults.
Not personality cults.
Programmes.
They should tell Nigerians:
This is our economic policy.
This is our security doctrine.
This is our energy strategy.
This is our education plan.
This is our agricultural transformation plan.
This is how we will reform the civil service.
This is how we will reduce waste.
This is how we will fight corruption.
This is how we will increase productivity.
This is how we will measure success.
Then Nigerians can judge.
That is how mature democracy works.
1. THE MOST POWERFUL POLITICAL MESSAGE IS NOT “THEY FAILED”
The most powerful political message is:
“They tried this. Here is what went wrong. Here is what we learned. Here is what we will do differently. Here is the evidence that our approach can work.”
That is how you move from opposition to government.
That is how you move from criticism to leadership.
That is how you move from “can’t do” to “can do.”
1. THE FINAL LESSON
The quotation with which we began contains a warning for everybody—not just opposition politicians.
The “can’t do” mentality is seductive because it requires very little responsibility.
If you believe something cannot be done, you never have to risk failing while trying.
If you believe Nigeria cannot be fixed, you never have to explain how you would fix it.
If you believe every government is destined to fail, you never have to produce a superior government.
If you believe every reform is impossible, you never have to design one.
But the “can do” person accepts a more difficult burden.
They must attempt.
They must execute.
They must take responsibility.
They must measure results.
They must admit mistakes.
They must correct course.
And they must ultimately stand before history and say:
“I tried to build something.”
CONCLUSION: NIGERIA NEEDS BUILDERS, NOT JUST CRITICS
President Tinubu should not be judged by the eloquence of his speeches.
He should be judged by the measurable results of his administration.
Likewise, Nigeria’s opposition should not be judged merely by how effectively it criticises Tinubu.
It should be judged by whether it can convince Nigerians that it possesses the competence, discipline, unity, credibility and practical programme required to govern the country.
This is where the “can do” philosophy becomes bigger than Tinubu.
It becomes bigger than APC.
It becomes bigger than PDP.
It becomes bigger than ADC.
It becomes bigger than Labour Party.
It becomes bigger than every individual politician.
It becomes a question about Nigeria itself.
For too long, we have rewarded politicians for telling us what is wrong.
We should begin rewarding politicians who can explain what they will do about what is wrong.
We should stop confusing criticism with competence.
We should stop confusing opposition with leadership.
We should stop confusing promises with plans.
And we should stop confusing plans with results.
The greatest danger to Nigeria is not merely that some people say:
“It cannot be done.”
The greater danger is when those who say “it can be done” are unable to demonstrate how.
Therefore, the standard must be higher.
To President Tinubu, the question is:
Show Nigerians what your reforms are producing.
To the opposition, the question is:
Show Nigerians what you would do differently.
To every political party, the question is:
Show us your plan.
And to every Nigerian voter, the question is:
Do not vote merely for the person who tells you that the other person failed. Vote for the person who can credibly demonstrate that he or she can do better.
Because ultimately, nations are not transformed by those who are most talented at explaining why something cannot work.
They are transformed by people willing to confront the obstacles, accept responsibility, experiment intelligently, learn from failure and keep building.
That is the difference between “CAN’T DO” and “CAN DO.”
And perhaps the most important political lesson of all is this:
The “can’t do” person wants to win the argument. The “can do” person wants to solve the problem.
Nigeria needs more problem-solvers.
Nigeria needs fewer excuse-makers.
Nigeria needs builders.
Nigeria needs leaders who can turn possibility into performance.
The future will ultimately belong—not to those who complain most loudly about the difficulty of the task—but to those who have the courage, competence and discipline to do the difficult work.
