The End of an Era: From London to Tehran to Abuja

“A bad system will beat a good person every time.” — W. Edwards Deming

Part One: Starmer’s Reckoning

For nearly a year, I have predicted that Keir Starmer’s tenure as Prime Minister would end by the summer of 2026. That prediction has now come to pass. Following Andy Burnham’s resounding victory in the Makerfield by-election on June 19—where he secured 54.8% of the vote and nearly doubled Labour’s majority—Starmer is expected to announce his departure as soon as Monday, when this article is published.

The Greater Manchester mayor’s return to Parliament has cleared the path for a leadership challenge that Starmer’s own party no longer believes he can survive.

Starmer’s unpopularity is historic. YouGov polling shows only 19 percent of British people hold a positive opinion of the Prime Minister, and he ranks as the ninth most popular Labour politician. His net approval rating stands at -42, making him the most unpopular Prime Minister in British history. Labour’s heavy losses in local elections in May laid bare the depth of public dissatisfaction. Even among Labour’s own supporters, 48% believe the party has done worse than expected in government. Business Secretary Peter Kyle acknowledged Starmer is reflecting on “the political challenges that he faces in this moment”. The question is no longer whether Starmer will go, but when.

Part Two: Trump’s Iranian Quagmire

While London faces a leadership crisis, Washington is trapped in a war of its own making. The Trump administration’s miscalculation in starting the Iran war has produced a conflict far from over. President Trump signed a memorandum of understanding with Iran on June 17, reopening the Strait of Hormuz and granting sanctions waivers. But this is not peace—it is a pause. A complex war like this cannot be negotiated via proxy. Even face-to-face discussions will take years before a meaningful outcome emerges.

Trump’s urgency is driven by domestic pressures. He admitted the prospect of “global economic collapse” was a big reason he signed the interim deal. With midterm elections approaching in November, the war has proved deeply unpopular: 56% of Americans say it has negatively impacted US interests. The Republican-led House even voted to halt the war. A prolonged conflict could trigger the deepest global slowdown in 40 years. Trump is desperately trying to avoid economic difficulties before the midterms—but the stock market, which is propping up the American economy, remains vulnerable to any resurgence of hostilities.

Israel will not allow a lasting agreement. Israeli Ambassador Yechiel Leiter has affirmed that Israel has no obligation to implement the US-Iran memorandum. Prime Minister Netanyahu has made clear Israel will remain in security zones in Lebanon “as long as it takes”. Iran and the United States stand on two irreconcilable extremes. An analysis of the 14-point agreement found that 10 points favored Iran versus just one advantaging the US. Iran receives immediate oil export waivers and a $300 billion development program. Iran’s main concession? Reaffirming a promise it already made under the 2015 nuclear deal.

In this situation, war is impossible and peace is impossible. Both sides have signed a ceasefire they do not trust and will not fully honor. What follows will be a waiting game—until the United States feels ready to strike again. That is why a long-lasting peace agreement cannot come into effect. The underlying grievances, the nuclear program, Israel’s draconian security concerns, and America’s domestic political calculations remain unresolved. The ceasefire is merely intermission, not closure.

Part Three: The Limits of Western Democracy

As the world faces a global leadership catastrophe, the crises in London and Washington point to a deeper systemic failure. Western-led neoliberal democracy is showing its limitations—not just in the West, but across the globe. In Nigeria, political retrogression mirrors what is happening in Western countries that practice this system. As one Nigerian analyst put it: “What we currently operate is government of the elite, by the elite and for the elite and that is what is described as Neo-Liberal Democracy”.

The Nigerian Senate’s recent rejection of electronic transmission of election results—choosing opacity over transparency—encapsulates everything broken about this model. Across Africa, from Nairobi to Lagos, citizens are rejecting the performance of reform without its substance. Neoliberal policies have been widely privileged in favor of corporate interests and affluent groups, while weakening workers’ bargaining power and public services. As one scholar observed, “in Africa, the system is not mature for the Western kind of democracy that we are playing”.

The system simply needs an update—just as the West updated from absolute monarchy to parliamentarianism. What worked for them at a particular time for a particular social reality will not necessarily work elsewhere. Here in Nigeria, we need a system that works for us and for our social reality. China has shown that it is possible to come up with a system that works for you. Beijing has declared its readiness to share governance experience with Nigeria and other African countries, emphasizing that each nation must pursue a development path suited to its own national conditions. China’s model offers lessons on modernization, poverty reduction, and strengthening state capacity.

The West exported a political system that served its interests at a particular historical moment. But history does not stand still. The political retrogression visible from London to Abuja is not an accident—it is the symptom of a model reaching its limits. The question for Nigeria, and for the Global South more broadly, is whether we will continue to import systems designed for others, or whether we will have the courage to build our own.

UPDATE NEWS:

Nigerians can now invest ₦2.5 million on premium domains and profit about ₦17-₦25 million. All earnings paid in US Dollars. Rather than wonder,

click here to find out how it works.