Some thinkers tend to act with a knee-jerk reaction; when you ask them to explain how they intend to execute their strategies, they tell you to trust them. Or they default to luck, hoping that when things fall apart, they will be rebuilt. How do you want to rebuild it? They will tell you not to worry—when we get to the bridge, we shall cross it.

When you eventually get to the bridge, and you ask them for how they intend to cross the bridge, you will find out that they have no strategic plans. They are like arsonists, who deliberately set a house on fire, but wait for others to deal with the consequences of their actions.

If I offered that to my corporate clients, I won’t have a job the next day. When you are creating a corporate strategy, whether on mergers and acquisitions or debts restructuring or a regulatory compliance framework, you have to anticipate multiple scenarios (you also have to prepare for how to tackle those anticipated outcomes, while thinking of solutions to unanticipated outcomes, too).

Now, that takes time. You have to clearly sit back, reviewing how you logically and reasonably drafted your previous transactions, and deliver the best solutions to your current clients. It doesn’t end there, for your insights will be needed throughout the life of that project. At every stage of the project, you will need to provide some guidance on certain issues, helping your clients to avoid landmines that can threaten their bottom line.

In politics, particularly on Facebook, which is not a serious place for policy wonks, people, including keyboard warriors who can afford to buy some data on their phones, don’t understand some of these nuances. It is why their knee-jerk reactions must be curtailed with analytical explanations from those who, despite being frustrated with the system, understand that it is suicidal to take on a powerful system without plans. If being frustrated can cure our problems, then there should be no problems in this world again. Unfortunately, frustrations can’t cure our structural problems.

What we can do, however, is to channel our frustrations into coherent plans, strategizing on the best possible ways to disrupt the system.

From the get-go, I supported Mr. Sowore because I thought he was a good fit; in fact, I penned an article in support of his candidacy (you can see it in the comment section).

As we approached the presidential election, it was evidently clear that Nigerians were seriously considering two options—President Buhari, the incumbent, and Vice President Atiku—dampening Sowore’s electrifying campaign.

In that election, I proudly supported President Buhari, understanding that his presidency might continue to place a bandage on a bleeding Nigeria, particularly on the issue of corruption and financial crimes, my area of interests, opting to campaign against an irredeemably corrupt man, Atiku, who I thought would bleed Nigeria to death, judging from his antecedents, which I covered extensively during the last election. I will not relitigate those issues.

Atiku, who lost at the last election, has become obsessed with the presidency, using dirty tricks to undermine the current system, including hiring dirty tricksters in Washington, and has consistently engage in proliferating emotionally induced news to advance his illusory ambition.

Mr. Sowore, on the other hand, has positioned himself as an activist, capitalizing on his tepid momentum from the last election. I applaud what he stands for; he is a patriotic Nigerian, standing up against a corrupt system.

Since the last election, though, Sowore has made some strategic blunders, including associating himself with someone like Kanu, an arsonist, confounding Sowore’s supporters, particularly his moderate supporters who saw his affiliation with Kanu as a no-no. Personally, when I saw a video of him meeting with Kanu, I was shocked, for I didn’t see how Sowore, whose clearly articulated ideas galvanized young people, could have thought that allying himself with Kanu was good politics.

At the same time, Mr. Sowore has been at loggerheads with certain elements in his party, with salacious dossiers flying around about his lifestyle, including being accused of lodging in expensive hotels in Lagos, which, in my opinion, was a carefully choreographed attempt to dent his proletarian persona.

As you all know, politics is amoral, and one of the objects of politics is to harm your opponents’ prospects, while advancing yours, which is why those who are interested in politics must understand that it is meant for those who can swim with sharks.

Based on his antecedents, Sowore, having stood up against military regimes, knew what he was up to. This is what I tell people: in developing countries, particularly countries that once romanticized with military dictators, there is always a powerful elements at the center of everything—the military—that purports to understand the fragility of a society, guarding against imminent and anticipatory threats against a likely breakdown in law and order.

To understand what I am saying, you have to understand the nature of power in developing countries. I can’t address a semester course in a single post.

Separately, in Africa, we have seen what happened in Libya and Egypt, with the former now a failed state, while the latter is now being ruled by a despotic general, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, who capitalized on a revolution that toppled Hosni Mubarak, another despotic general, and Mohamed Morsi, a democratically elected president, to install himself as the president of Egypt.

Moreover, in the history of mankind, with the exception of the Bolshevik Revolution, which was led by Vladimir Lenin, a political theorist; the Cuban Revolution, which was led Fidel Castro; the Xinhai Revolution, which was led by Sun Yat-sen; and the Iranian Revolution, which was led by Ayatollah Khomeini, a bottom-up revolution is a herculean task. We also know that revolutions, initiated by ordinary people, usher in military regimes, as recently witnessed in Sudan.

The field of social sciences, unlike pure sciences, do not give us the latitude to accurately predict certain events, so we use historical events to explain certain phenomena. And that is why I am referencing history in this context.

Having read about Che Guevara and other relevant books in my Latin American history class, I know something for sure: when you are planning to revolt against a powerful system, you do not telegraph your intention to your adversaries, which is why I am not sure whether Sowore was engaging in a mere puffery, attempting to energize his followers, or he seriously meant that he was ready to initiate a process of revolution.

If he was engaging in the former, it will be a fair game, since activists normally do that, so he would be acting within his constitutional rights. If he was talking about the latter, he should still be excused, for he did not adequately set in motion some elements of a genuine revolution (read more about the above-cited examples). As a matter of fact, Sowore’s lawyer said that he was talking about a protest, not a revolution; at this time, I won’t address the merit of that claim.

As brilliant as Sowore is, this strategic blunder is really perplexing. At the same time, though, I hope this matter will be resolved within a short time. Sowore is not my enemy. The man I interviewed last year in Columbus meant well for Nigeria and Nigerians.

After Mr. Sowore regains his freedom, I hope his friends can intervene, and convince him that Nigerians like his energetic spirit, but he should stay away from people like Kanu and those who are trying to push him into oblivion. If he meant to initiate a genuine revolution, then he should seriously set in motion the elements of a genuine revolution. Right now, our brother does not have a clear strategy to undertake a serious revolution. Sowore is a serious activist, but there was nothing serious in his chanting of a revolution.

Please, free Sowore.