And I agree with them, for the most part.

But as enlightening as the book is, I think it missed one crucial factor: .

I believe one key reason nations fail, especially in the Global South, is that they don’t have rivals. Not enemies. Rivals. Competitors. Challengers. Countries or blocs that keep them on their toes, force them to innovate, and drive them to outperform. The kind of competition that sparks reform, fuels ambition, and raises national standards across the board.

Think about it. Some of the world’s most successful nations have had and still have clear, formidable rivals.

Take the United States. At different points in its history, it had the British Empire, the Soviet Union, and now China as ideological, military, and economic adversaries. These weren’t just passive background players. These were rivals who pushed America to innovate, to build, to reform, and to rise. The Cold War alone gave us the space race, the internet, and decades of scientific advancement, all fuelled by competition.

China, too, isn’t new to rivalry. Historically, the Chinese empire grappled with threats from the Russian Empire, Japanese imperialism, and today faces the pressure of competing against the US in virtually every sphere. It is this sustained rivalry that has driven China’s rapid development and its current ambitions to dominate in AI, manufacturing, infrastructure, and geopolitics.

India is another good case. Post-independence, it had an immediate and hostile rival in Pakistan, and since the 1990s, China has also emerged as a strategic and economic competitor. These rivalries have compelled India to invest in defence, build technological capacity, and most importantly, strive for relevance in global affairs.

Even within Africa, North Africa in particular shows signs of this competitive spirit. Algeria and Morocco are neighbours but certainly not allies. Their rivalry, rooted in historical, political, and territorial disputes, has seen both nations attempt to outdo each other diplomatically, militarily, and economically. Whether it’s sporting dominance or arms procurement, that rivalry breeds a certain urgency.

Now compare that with most of Sub-Saharan Africa, particularly the West African subregion.

What do you see?

Cooperation? Maybe. Kumbaya conferences and regional summits? Definitely. But competition? Healthy national rivalry? Virtually non-existent.

We’re in a region where mediocrity is often normalised and excellence is an outlier. Most countries here get along just fine, sharing corruption, economic crises, failing institutions, and military coups like party souvenirs. There’s no fire. No real contest to push one another toward greatness.

Nigeria is the so-called “giant of Africa” (for whatever that’s worth), but has any West African country tried to outdo Nigeria in tech, education, infrastructure, or youth innovation? No.

And to be clear, when I say rivalry, I’m not talking about war or violent conflict. In fact, most of the examples I’ve mentioned haven’t led to full-blown war. China and India literally have a clause in their border protocols that prohibits firearms; when their soldiers clash, they throw rocks and fists like high school kids. But even that bizarre theatre of military posturing fuels billion-dollar budgets and national innovation drives.

What I’m talking about is competition to better your country. The hunger to do more, to be more, to surpass someone else doing better than you.

That’s the kind of rivalry that forces governments to fix their roads, not just because a road is needed there, but because their neighbour just built better ones. That’s the kind of rivalry that pushes a nation to reform its educational system because another country is leading in research and patents. That’s the kind of rivalry that doesn’t just tolerate opposition, but understands that criticism can help you outthink your adversary.

We’re missing that in West Africa. We’re missing it badly.

The absence of credible rivalry has led to a region where most leaders don’t feel the need to outperform anyone. No one is coming for their spot. No one is challenging their status. And so they recycle excuses, distract with propaganda, and settle into kleptocracy and chaos while the people suffer.

If we had real rivalry—credible, high-stakes competition—we might finally see some urgency from our governments. A race to eliminate poverty. A contest to reduce unemployment. A battle for tech supremacy. Even a space race? why not? It would force nations to prioritise research, innovation, infrastructure, and the well-being of their people, if only to prove a point to a rival nation.

Without that kind of competition, complacency wins. Corruption thrives. And nations fail—not just because they lack inclusive institutions, but because they have no one pushing them to be better.

So yes, Why Nations Fail is a brilliant book. But if there’s ever a sequel, I hope it includes a chapter on rivalry because, without it, even the best institutions risk growing lazy. And in that laziness, nations collapse.

Nurudeen Hassan is the programmes manager at Hope Behind Bars Africa in Abuja. He writes on governance and human rights issues.

Views expressed by contributors are strictly personal and not of TheCable.