Bola A. Akinterinwa
The conduct and management of political governance has remained a very critical issue in international relations, especially as it relates to global peace and security. In the Middle East, the conflict has a recidivist character. The hope of a Palestinian Homeland, in spite of the increasing number of recognitions of the State of Palestine, is still more of a dream, because of countries that do not want a State of Palestine but give the impression of commitment to it. Besides. Africa is serving as the new theatre for Russo- and Sino-US proxy wars. In fact, global governance has been largely fraught with covering the eyes of the world with tainted cotton wood. Hence, what role do intellectuals play in political governance?
Vie Internationale normally covers officious, official, and citizen diplomacy. In the last two editions, we explicated the Intellection and Global Governance: A Festschrift for Tunde Adeniran, published to mark the 80th Birthday Anniversary of Prof. Tunde Adeniran. We drew attention to the various perspectives of discussants at the “Colloquium on Future of Africa” also organized in his honour. The conditionality for a brighter future for Africa was explicated, with emphasis on the essence of intellection.
Additionally, on Saturday, 27th September, 2025, I was interviewed by two analytical, broadcast journalists with the ChannelsTv, Kelly Egiga and Bukola Coker, during their Morning Brief segment on UNGA at 80. During the discussion, I was asked for my opinion on the extent to which Nigeria was well prepared for the international responsibilities of a would-be Permanent Member of the United Nations Security Council. My position was that Nigeria was and still is, more than well prepared. On the question of absence of President Ahmed Tinubu (PBAT) from UNGA 80 and Nigeria’s delegation being led by Vice President Shettima, my explanation was that it might have been more about strategic calculation, that Donald Trump seriously thinks after action and never before action, and that there was no reason to suggest that PBAT is not more intelligent than Donald Trump. This opinion has generated unexpected greater public interest. The Vie Internationale of today therefore avails itself of the opportunity to reaffirm that Donald Trump is intellectually inferior to PBAT based on attitudinal intellection towards political governance.
PBAT as Intellectually better: The Reactions
The first point of controversy was my response to the national concerns that PBAT should have been at the UNGA 80 rather than have him represented by the Vice President. Put differently, as to why PBAT might have not shown physical presence at the UNGA, I offered a first hypothesis that it might have been a resultant of strategic calculation. Secondly, and perhaps more significantly, I said Donald Trump is an unpredictable President, who more often than not, only thinks after action and hardly before action. Avoiding such an individual is an illustration of intelligence, of greater smartness. I posited that Donald Trump was and is in the position to thoroughly embarrass PBAT, especially if the Americans recall that he might have offended their system. And true enough, Nigeria has been showing an independentist posturing in her foreign relations and growing capacity to effectively respond to international challenges.
This is not what Donald Trump wants. He only wants a compliant and dependent leader with whom to conduct his transactional diplomacy. You may wish to recall here that the United States of Donald Trump proposed to Nigeria to accept Venezuelans that were unwanted on the soil of the United States and PBAT’s administration decently and sovereignly declined that offer in her own self-enlightened interests. The Nigerian reaction is nothing more than an act of arrogance in the eyes of Donald Trump. This is one major reason that informed my opinion that Donald Trump could recklessly embarrass PBAT, and thus bring unnecessary taint on the Government and good people of Nigeria. As such, in the context of this hypothesis, avoiding Donald Trump is a very good strategic calculation. It shows that PBAT is a smart president.
Whatever Donald Trump might have had in mind, PBAT has avoided the type of embarrassment meted out to the Ukrainian leader and the Liberian President. Imagine, for example, President Trump asking the Liberian leader questions on how he managed to be speaking English language well. This is insult at its crescendo for African leaders and Liberians in particular. It is against this background that there have been several reactions, all of which I found most interesting, especially the arguments that considered that I must be crazy to have considered PBAT as intelligent not to talk about his being more intelligent than Donald Trump. Some even brought a theoretical thrust to say that my opinion cannot be scientifically tenable. They too never tested their own opinion beyond relying on theoretical postulations to make generic conclusions. Several thought-provoking arguments were made.
In his estimation of Dr. Olatunji Olateju’s reaction to my opinion, Dr. (alias Citizen) Bolaji Akinyemi wrote an article published online and entitled “Trump vs Tinubu: Armed with Different Hoes, Ploughing Different Fields.” He rightly quoted me as saying that ‘Donald Trump is not in any way better than Ahmed Tinubu,’ and that PBAT ‘is as intelligent, if not more intelligent’ than Donald Trump. While not agreeing or disagreeing with Professor Akinterinwa and Dr. Olateju, Citizen Akinyemi made it clear that his intervention was to ‘settle the matter against the background of our reality.’ In this regard, he provided an exegesis of the influence of PBAT in West Africa and Africa, underscoring the preparedness of Nigeria to provide regional leadership and serve as continental voice.
As good as this leadership role might be, he observed that ‘the domestic house PBAT leads ‘is in disrepair. Spiraling inflation, food insecurity, and mass poverty erode Nigeria’s bargaining power. It is difficult to speak boldly for Africa when one cannot guarantee safety, electricity, and food security at home.’ These are the pillars for assessing the intellectual acumen of PBAT. In the same vein, Citizen Akinyemi tried to define or determine the extent of intelligence of Donald Trump using the yardstick of political governance. As he put it, ‘as President of the United States, the world’s largest economy and most powerful military, every policy move reverberated across continents. Whether pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord, browbeating NATO allies into higher defense spending, or launching trade wars with China, Trump’s shifted global balances.
Perhaps more interestingly, Citizen Akinyemi has it that ‘critics will argue that his foreign policy was erratic, transactional, and often reckless. Yet even recklessness in Washington carries more weight than caution in Abuja. The simple structural reality is this: America sets the global agenda, Nigeria struggles to be heard outside Africa. It is therefore a mismatch to place Trump and Tinubu side by side on the global stage.’ This is a good opinion that does not have any logical relevance to the definition of the word ‘intelligence.’ Does this quotation explain why Donald Trump is more intelligent or better than PBAT? The operational words are ‘better’ and ‘intelligent.’ Even when Citizen Akinyemi admitted that both PBAT and Donald Trump are ‘eccentric political survivors’ and ‘polarizing figures,’ he still submitted rightly that ‘personality is not governance.’ This is precisely the foundational point that Dr. Olateju did not bother to reckon with in his own postulation.
In Dr. Olateju’s estimation, entitled ‘Trump vs Tinubu: Unpacking Prof. Akinterinwa’s Controversial Comparison,’ noted on September 29, 2025 in his Political Panorama with Ola Olateju, that ‘leadership is not a personality contest. It is judged by measurable outcomes, such as jobs, stability, economic growth, human rights, and global influence. Without clarifying the yardstick, such sweeping declarations collapse into rhetoric.’ More disturbingly, he said ‘a major flaw in Professor Akinterinwa’s analysis claimed to be done contextually, lies in equating the Nigerian presidency with the American’s. The United States sits atop a $30 trillion economy and wields unmatched global influence. Nigeria, by contrast, operates within a GDP just crossing the hundreds of billions. To argue that the leaders of both nations stand shoulder-to-shoulder without acknowledging the vast difference in resources and state capacity is to compare apples with oranges. And worst still, Dr. Olateju argued that ‘by focusing only on Tinubu’s ‘strategic caution while ignoring the painful domestic realities is selective. Nigerians continue to battle spiraling inflation, biting poverty…’ Is it this situational reality on the ground that defines the level of intelligence of both leaders?
Theories of governance are to guide reflections. They are not per se truths in themselves. They assist in the business of intellection, in understanding political governance. If efforts have been taken to educate the public about the theories of intelligence rather than of political governance, the kettle of fish would have been different and the postulations would have been eligible for further analytical purposes. For instance, the theory of general intelligence, as told by the British scientist, Charles Spearman, says intelligence is a single, general mental ability that underlies performance on all cognitive tasks. On the contrary, Psychologist Louis Leon Thurstone says intelligence is a collection of distinct mental abilities and not simply a single ability, hence we talk about theory of multiple intelligences’
In fact, Howard Gardner strengthened the theory of multiple intelligences by identifying nine types of intelligences: linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, inter-personal, intrapersonal, naturalistic, and existential. Robert Sternberg typologises intelligence into three main types: analytical intelligence involving academic ability; creative intelligence, involving the adaptation of acquired knowledge to generate fresh ideas, and practical intelligence, involving shaping of daily environmental conditionings. Additionally, Alfred Binet also theorized about ‘mental age as a measure of intelligence based on the average abilities of children within a certain age group.’ Regardless of the type of typology being considered, and regardless of the analytical method of evaluating intelligence – psychometric approach, information processing approach, and cognitive developmental approach – it is the factor of individuality that is more at stake. Governance issues should therefore not be confused with personality attitude towards the issues.
When it is argued that ‘Tinubu is as intelligent if not more intelligent than Trump,’ it simply means that the foregoing factors are what should normally be first considered, because intelligence is innate. It is about ability and capacity.
PBAT and Trump’s Sagacity: The Comparative Definienda
When any good analyst, commentator, or scholar wants to comment on an issue, or criticise it is always incumbent on whoever is engaging in the critique to first put himself correctly in the same shoes of analysis for reasons of objectivity of purpose and scientificity. This is why it is always requested of analysts to always provide a methodology and a framework for analysis. A systemic framework may not respond well to a behavioural analysis. More disturbingly, any framework of analysis that is predicated on a wrong diagnosis of what an issue is all about cannot have any scientific evaluation. Consequently, since we are talking about and comparing two people, it is basically the behavioural methodological approach that appears to me to be appropriate for a comparative analysis.
In other words, what is the nature of character and personality? What is the character of Tinubu in comparison to Trump? What is their individual personality at the nuclear family level, at the national domestic level, and at the international relations level?
Using the affinities of their countries to judge their attitude and character can only be useful and relevant in terms of intellectual capacity to solve domestic and international questions. Determination of capacity is about intelligence quotient. An intelligent person is one that has the capacity to adapt to unprepared for new situations, partly relying on acquired experience. Abstract thinking is a definiendum of intelligence. So is mental adaptability which should not be confused with the size of the economy, the bigness of the population or the territorial size. It cannot but be unacceptable to consider that, because Donald is controlling a bigger economy, or he is the president of a country bigger than Nigeria, or he is the president of the most powerful country in the world, he is therefore intelligent or more intelligent than PBAT.
It cannot but also be an unfortunate exegesis to so conclude. Intelligence, explained on a comparative analytical basis must not be largely predicated on environmental conditionings, even if they are useful. It is how an individual thinks, how he or she responds, not at all on basis of the system or what the institutions stipulate, but on the extent of one’s understanding, interpretation, and individual position on given matters that define an intelligent person. Whoever is seeking mediation of a conflict on the basis of objectivity of purpose must not have any partisan interest. The rule of mediation in international law is very clear on this. It is a truism that Israel is the strongest ally of the United States in the mediation of the Middle East crisis. Donald Trump has been aiding and abetting Israel’s genocide in Gaza. The United States wants to make a Riviera out of Gaza. Israel wants to completely wipe out Hamas and extend Israeli territory there. Is this a good reasoning? Is it logical? Intelligence requires thinking rationally and making logical conclusions. Does Donald Trump think rationally? Does he ever make logical deductions?
The intelligent leaders of the world had been meeting within the UNGA COPs (Conference of Participants) and have agreed that the whole world is challenged by climate change. Donald Trump argued that there is nothing like climate change. The business experiences of Donald Trump, in terms of knowledge application, are not enough to enable him understand current developments in the world. Without any whiff of doubt, Americans do know that their global influence has been seriously weakened by emerging global powers like China. China is currently giving the United States a dog fight in their trade relations. US trade harassment, especially in terms of trade tariffs, have always been met with reciprocity. The world of unipolarity of the United States now belongs to the dustbin of history with the growing centres of power in the world.
And true enough, Russia is making a point that glasnosts and perestroika needs a revisit. Russia of Putin wants to rebuild the old Soviet Union. Russia’s special military intervention in Ukraine is to tell the United States and its other NATO allies that the management of global affairs cannot be the exclusive preserve of the United States and its allies. To what extent have the EU and American sanctions deterred Russia from acting the way it wanted in Russia? Israel and the US are against the recognition of the State of Palestine by their western allies. The recognition has taken place. The US has on different occasions used her right of veto to neutralize all efforts to condemn Israel’s atrocities in Palestine but the civilized world has refused to go along with the Israelo-American mentality. This is a clear pointer to weakening of American power in the world.
As a face-saving grace, the United States of Donald Trump came up with the policy of ‘America First.’ There is absolutely nothing wrong with ‘America First’ as a policy. Why should any government seek to promote the interests of other countries first to its own detriment and survival? As good as the policy may be, the truth is that it lacks intellectual finesse because it implies that, at the plurilateral and multilateral levels of negotiations, any decision or consideration that will not be consistent with the national interest of the United States will not be acceptable. It also implies that all other countries of the world must accept the dependency syndrome that Africa, in particular, has been vehemently militating against. When Donald Trump came up with the idea of MAGA (Make America Great Again, he appears to be acting more intelligently than ever before. This is because making America great again necessarily implies that there was the time America was great but its status of greatness had been lost, and thus warranting the need to restore the greatness. This translates MAGA as a commitment and technique of pursuing the policy of America First.
Most unfortunately, Donald Trump is trying to make America to re-strategise, on the one hand, while also acting against the re-strategy, on the other hand. One cannot be talking about attitudinal intelligence in this case. How can an American president refuse to sustain US earlier commitment as a Permanent Member of the United Nations Security Council that has the mandate to prevent the successive generations from a new scourge of war? Can it be rightly argued in this case that the act of promoting belligerency is an element of intelligence?
What have been the cost implications of US withdrawal of membership from the UNESCO or from the World of Climate Change? Have the vacuums created not been occupied by others? Or has the vacuum created prevented the continued existence of the organization? The attitudinal behavior of Donald Trump has attracted more than ever before more anti-America people. There is no disputing the fact that American people are justifiably proud. They want to have every American identity in every product. Their vehicles have special specifications. Look at the bumpers and the heaviness of their vehicles. While the whole world uses 220 voltage appliances, it is 110 voltage that is in use in America. There is beauty in all these, but political governance under Donald Trump is driving their customers and old friends elsewhere. Everyone is waiting to understand how the US wants to successfully remain an island unto itself and at the same time expects to control the world with its various military commands in various regions of the world.
Dr. Olateju reportedly argued that Professor Akinterinwa did not explain the sectoral areas that PBAT can be said to be better than Donald Trump. I think the answer is a truism. If the issue is about who is more intelligent, the area of concern cannot but be in the area of mental ability, mental reasoning, mental behavior, mental impact, mental perceptions, etc. CoronaVirusPro, raised several examples on September 27, 2025. It said Trump is a convicted criminal while PBAT is not; Trump has a long history of financial misappropriation and bankruptcy while PBAT has an outstanding record in financial management. PBAT adores women and had never been found guilty for any sex-related offense while Trump is a convicted offender. PBAT is a better orator who delivers top notch, sensible and facts backed by data. Trump just spews anything that comes into his head. These points are valid definienda of intellectual and intellection attitude. Who says that the observations of CoronaVirus Pro are not correct? Do they not bother on intelligence? There are several arguments in favour of Donald Trump but which have nothing to do with his level of intelligence. They are contained in the nairaland.com and other social media platforms. The same is true of PBAT supporters. FarahAideed says ‘Trump doesn’t collect salary, Tinubu collects and is even looking for increments.’ More important, Trump ‘met the US GDP at 26 trillion dollars and in one year reduced it to 3.9%. Tinubu met Nigerian GDP at 380bn and in one year took it to $188bn.’ In the same vein, Trump met unemployment at 4% and in one year reduced it to 3.9% while Tinubu worsened unemployment in Nigeria.’ True enough, these are hard facts. However, is the economic progress a resultant from Trump’s intelligence? What is the intellectual contribution of Trump to the progress being generally referred to? Whatever is the case, the attitude of the United States in international relations is nothing more than showing a bold face to cover up its declining power. Trump is managing a country where institutions of governance are already strong in comparison to Nigeria where the institutions are, at best, very weak. Trump is pursuing an agenda of white America only. PBAT’s agenda is making Nigeria strategically autonomous, which is a reflection of a high level of intelligence.
