See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/355717531

FOUNDATIONS OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

Book · October 2021

CITATIONS READS
3 9,129

1 author:

Ibaba Samuel Ibaba

Niger Delta University
57 PUBLICATIONS   294 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

natural resource governance and violent conflicts View project

CONFERENCE ON ETHNICITY, DEMOCRACY AND POLITICAL INSTABILITY IN NIGERIA View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ibaba Samuel Ibaba on 28 October 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

IBABA SAMUEL IBABA

FOUNDATIONS
OF
POLITICAL SCIENCE

Revised Edition

i
FOUNDATIONS OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
First Published in 2004 by Amethyst and Colleagues Publishers, Port Harcourt

First revised in 2010 and published by Harey Publications, Port Harcourt

Second revised edition published by …………

Copyright © Ibaba Samuel Ibaba
November 2014
Contact: eminoaibaba@yahoo.com

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a

retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without prior permission of
the copyright owner

ISBN: ………………….

ii
 CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

• Politics
• Power
• Authority
• Rule
• The Scope of Politics
• The Origin and Dynamics of Political Science
• Science in Politics: The Debate
• The Subject of Political Science
• The Study of Politics: How Relevant to Society?
References
CHAPTER 2: CONTENDING PARADIGMS IN CONTEMPORARY
POLITICAL ANALYSIS

• The Marxist Approach to Political Analysis

• The Systems Theory
• Political Culture Approach
• Pluralism
• Elite Theory
References
CHAPTER 3: THE STATE AND POLITICS

• Meaning and Importance of the State

• The State: Theories of Origin
• The Purpose of the State
• The Legal Features/Characteristics of the State
• The State and Nation
References
CHAPTER 4: THE ORGANIZATION OF

• The Structure of Government

• The Presidential System of Government
• The Parliamentary/Cabinet System of Government
• The Federal System of Government

iii
• The Co-Federal System of Government
• The Unitary System of Government
• Military Government
• Local Government
• Democratic Government
References

CHAPTER 5: INSTRUMENTS OF POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

• Political Participation
• Political Party
• Pressure/Interest Group
• Civil Society
References

CHAPTER 6: INTRODUCTION TO POLITICAL THEORY

• What is Political Theory?

• The Context of Political Theory
• The Phases/Strands of Political Theory
• The Industrial Revolution ad Modern Political Theory

iv
 DEDICATION

To Grace, Ayibaemi, Ayibanoa, Ayibatari and Ayibatokoni.

v
 PREFACE

This book introduces students to key concepts and fundamental issues in the
study of politics. Divided into five chapters, its presents, interprets and locates
the concepts/issues in a context designed to promote a clear understanding of
politics. When the book was first published in 2004, the reception was very
enthusiastic. The observations, queries and comments made by colleagues and
students necessitated a revision in 2010. This edition attempted to tie the
identified loose ends. A new chapter was included, while the other chapters
were edited to delete ambiguities. Some new issues and concepts were also
included. The second revised edition has added two more chapters.
The first chapter examines the nature and significance of politics. It
highlights the essential components of politics, the political system, the origin
and dynamics of political science and the scientific status of the discipline.
Chapter two reviews the contending paradigms in contemporary political
analysis, while chapter three discusses the State. Chapter four, deals with the
organization of government, while chapter five discusses selected instruments
of political participation. The chapter six introduces students to political theory,
and chapter seven deals with selected themes in contemporary political studies.
The book is a product of my experience as a lecturer and student, and has
the advantage of providing in a single volume a number of issues, concepts and
themes in introductory political science.

Dr. Ibaba Samuel Ibaba

Niger Delta University,
Wilberforce Island,
Bayelsa State, Nigeria.

September, 2014.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
vi
 I am thankful to my mentor, Professor Kimse A. B. Okoko of the University
of Port Harcourt for his goodwill and efforts in nurturing me to grow as an
academic. Similarly, I also thank my teachers at the University of Port
Harcourt, Professor Henry Alapiki, Professor O.C. Nwaorgu, and Dr. Johnson
Nna for their roles in my academic achievements.
I am also grateful to the anonymous editor whose editorial comments
improved the quality of the book. I take responsibilities for any errors and
omissions.

Dr. Ibaba Samuel Ibaba.

vii
 CHAPTER 1

THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF POLITICAL

SCIENCE

What is Political Science?

The term political science has been variously defined as the science of the
state (Varman, 1975:1); the systematic study and analysis of politics
(Anifowose, 2001:6); the study of the shaping and sharing of power (Laswell,
cited in Dahl, 1995:3); the study of political life (Alapiki, 2000:2); and the study
of politics (Pickless, 1972:5). The thread which runs through the above
definitions is that the subject of political science is politics. Thus, to understand
the nature of political science, we must know in clear terms, the meaning of
politics.

What is Politics?
This question has elicited different answers. Thus, the term has been defined
as the authoritative allocation of values for a society (Easton, 1965:50); the
determination of who gets what, when and how (Laswell, 1930); a system of
behaviour by which a society expresses its self-determination by choosing its
leaders, holding them to account and evolving and pursuing collective goals
(Ake, cited in Nna 2002:5); the resolution of the problems and contradictions
which arise from the struggle to satisfy the economic needs of people (Ndu,
1998:3) and the act of influencing, manipulating and controlling others (Wright,
1955:130).
The many definitions of politics are a source of difficulty for beginners. But
understanding is enhanced if the term is situated within its context. Political
science literature agrees that group life is the basis of politics. Although men
are created individually, they have interests that are only actualized in
association with other men. Undoubtedly, man is gregarious.
In this regard, individual men have interests that crisscross each other. In
this relation, each attempts to promote his interests in a calculated manner,
which sometimes involves undermining the other man’s interest. This
relationship among men, defined by the pursuit of individual and group interests
is seen as the basis of politics. Given this, politics is in the character of man,
and is therefore as old as human existence. Writing in this regard, Aristotle
(cited in Rodee, Anderson, Christol and Greene, 1976:2) declared, “Man is by
nature a political animal”. This means that:

1
 …the essence of social existence is politics and that two or more men interacting
with one another are invariably involved in a political relationship…that this is a
natural and inevitable predisposition among men…As men seek to define their
position in society, as they attempt to wring personal security from available
resources, and as they try to influence others to accept their points of view, they
find themselves engaging in politics.

The above quotation graphically demonstrates that politics is ubiquitous, and

agrees with Dahl (1975:1), who writes that “politics is an unavoidable fact of
human existence.” How? Dahl explains that “a citizen encounters politics in
the government of a country, town, school, church, business, firm, trade union,
club, political party, civic association, and a host of other organizations.”
The foregoing implies that politics can be located in two dimensions – the
macro level (State/Government) and the micro level (associations and groups
in society). Generally, discussions on politics locate it at the macro level. In
this sense, politics is seen as rule, the exercise of power or authority, resource
allocation, and the regulation of human conduct.
A significant point to note here is that man’s nature makes politics necessary.
This nature has been variously described as wicked, selfish, corrupt, vicious,
proud and immoral. These are characteristics that undermine man’s desire for
collective existence. Social existence promotes collective goals, which are
required for the actualization of individual aspirations; the most important being
freedom, peace, justice and security.
However, by nature, man creates conflicts which constrain the achievement
of the above stated collective goals. Given that this undermines the end of
group life, it is necessary to resolve these conflicts, which fundamentally centre
on resource distribution. Ndu (1998:1-3) captures it thus:

…humans, whenever they have been found, have lived in groups…also…each

human being differs from others in terms of his/her wants, needs, desire and
inclinations… This implies that each individual is distinct and different from
others…all these imply that each person will seek to satisfy his/her wants, needs
desires and inclinations of others… It is also accepted that the resources...which
are available for the satisfaction of these needs and wants of humanity are
relatively scarce. This means then that the attempts of each human being to
satisfy his/her needs, (which he/she is inclined to do unmindful of others)
generally results in competition. At best, the combination of the wants of so
many people and the scarce provisions available for their satisfaction would lead
to some having and others not have so much. In order to prevent these
contradictions from degenerating into an internal war, each group works out for
itself ways and means of dealing with them. The processes by which these basic
problems of group life are resolved are what we describe as politics.

This involves the creation of an institution (government) to make and

enforce laws; the recruitment of persons to occupy this institution in an agreed
2
manner; and the granting of power/authority to this group of persons to make
binding decisions. All these are directed towards the agreed/accepted
mechanisms of resource distribution. Politics is thus a set of interacting
activities, which lead to binding decisions on the distribution of a society’s
resources.
It is noteworthy that the most manifest aspect of politics is the contest for
power to direct society’s resources. This explains why in Nigeria for instance,
many reduce politics to elections and the activities associated with it. In all,
politics is necessitated by the greed and selfishness of man; the incompatibility
of human interests; the scarcity of socio-economic resources; the need to
promote harmonious social existence; the need to regulate and control human
conduct; the need to promote peace and security; and the need for a single agent
to direct the affairs of men for the common good. It stands to reason from the
above that power, authority and rule (Dahl 1995:5) constitutes the essential
ingredients of politics.

Power
Power is central to politics, and this explains why some see politics as the
contest of power. Generally, power is viewed as a relationship between two or
more persons or groups in which one is made to act against his/her will, or
promote the interest of the other. It is a relationship where an individual, group
or country controls another in a desired direction. This is usually defined by
the use of sanctions or coercion. For example, if in a relationship between John
and James, John gets James to act in a manner he would not, to satisfy John’s
interest, then John has exercised power over James. For instance, James may
want to watch a football match between Nigeria and Cameroon, whereas John
compels James to go on an errand for him. If James abandons watching the
football match for John’s errand, because of an expected punishment or reward,
then John has exercised power over James.

Influence
Influence unlike power, secures obedience and affects decisions
through persuasion. Sanctions and coercion, which are essential
attributes of power, are not associated with influence

At the level of countries, if Nigeria makes Togo to act in a manner she would
not otherwise have acted, Nigeria is said to have exercised power over Togo. It
is pertinent to note that the individual, group or country that exercises power
usually stands in an advantageous position over the other. This could be
circumstantial, transient or permanent, and is defined by the possession of the
elements of power. This view of power sees nearly every human relationship as
3
a power relationship – that between a parent and a child, a husband and wife, a
teacher and his students, a pastor and the congregation, etc.
However, the focus here is political power, which is located in the state and
exercised by the government. Political power is the making of authoritative
decisions by governmental office holders. Thus, government policies and
programmes in resource allocation and distribution, and so on amount to the
exercise of political power. Clearly, therefore, political power is the hallmark
of politics, and this explains why the state (where it is located) is the object of
political competition.
Political power is exercised through the laws of the state, and it can take the
form of force or persuasion. To this end, the coercive apparatus of the state
(e.g. politics, army, navy) is employed in the exercise of political power. At
another level of analysis, political power may be exercised at the intellectual
level through the possession of superior knowledge or information. This is done
by indoctrination through the educational system or the socialization process.
Whichever form the exercise of political power takes, it impacts on the
citizen positively or negatively. Indeed, “the consequence of politics is
inescapable” (Dahl 1995:1). A significant feature of power (political or not) is
that its distribution is not equal, a fact attributable to the even possession of the
elements of power by individuals, groups or countries. The elements of power
are discussed below.

The Elements of Power

Elements of power refer to the sources of power or the factors which confer
power on individuals, groups, societies and countries. The elements are
identified at three levels – individual, group and country.

Table 1.1: Three Levels of Elements of Power

The Individual Social Group Country

The power exercised by an Social group here refers to The elements of a country’s
individual is determined by ethnic groups/associations, power include:
factors which include: pressure groups, religious geographical location in
wealth, status in society, groups and so on. Their terms of size and
intelligence, physical sources of power include: availability of natural
appearance in terms of size, numerical size, resources, technological
education, and office the organization/discipline, development, quality and
individual occupies. education, wealth and strength of military,
placement in the national morale (the level
opportunity and political of identification between
structure of society. the citizens and the
government), food security
and good leadership.

Source: Compiled by Author, 2010

4
Authority
A thin but significant line separates power and authority. Political science
literature agrees that whereas power may be illegal, authority is always legal,
given its attribute of legitimacy.

Legitimacy
Legitimacy simply means the recognition given to a government
by the governed based on the understanding that the acquisition of
power was done in accordance with established or agreed
procedure. It is usually the attribute of government found on
consent, e.g. democratic government

The point to note here is that although power and authority involve control,
securing of obedience, and the making of binding decisions, authority always
possesses legitimacy while power does not. This implies that the exercise of
power over an individual or group may not be recognized or accepted, although
they will obey out of fear of sanctions. On the other hand, the exercise of
authority over a group or individual is accepted. For a clearer understanding of
the difference between Power and Authority, let us take a look at two examples.

Example One: The Exercise of Power

An Armed Robber walks into your residence, and at gunpoint, secures
obedience to whatever he wants. Compliance here is based on force or fear.

Example Two: The Exercise of Authority

A policeman walks into your residence with a search warrant and secures
obedience to his will. Compliance here is based on respect for the law.
Authority is based on law and procedure; thus, a government exercise power
if it is not established according to agreed procedure or laws. A classic example
is a Military Government that violates constitutional provisions on leadership
succession. Democracy is the best example of a government that exercises
authority. Generally, authority contains elements which include a property of
a person or office, especially the right to issue orders; a relationship between
two offices, one superior and the other subordinate such that both incumbents
perceive the relationship as legitimate; and a quality of communication by
virtue of which it is accepted (Alapiki, 2000).

Types of Authority

5
 From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that legitimacy is the most essential
attribute of authority. To this end, types of authority refer to the sources of
legitimacy and the corresponding patterns of leadership and governance. Max
Weber’s classification of authority stands out as the best cited example.
Accordingly, it is presented here - under. Weber identifies three types of
authority – Traditional Authority, Charismatic Authority and Legal –
Rational/Bureaucratic Authority.

Traditional Authority
Traditional authority is based on the sanctity of tradition. Thus, leadership
is legitimized by culture, norms, beliefs and values that are tradition bound.
What this means is that the principles of leadership succession are shaped by
the traditions of a group or people. This is premised on two essential elements
– heredity or dynastic rule and divine ordination.
For example, in many parts of Africa, leadership succession is hereditary,
and largely anchored on the principles of gerontocracy. This simply means that
the oldest person (usually a male) inherits leadership. For instance, if in a
community the oldest man is 80 years, he rules; if he satisfies other conditions
of inheritance such as coming from the lineage that has the exclusive right to
govern, he rules.
Similarly, if the next oldest man is (for example) 70 years, he takes over
authority when the incumbent dies, and no one questions his authority since it
is congruent with the custom of the people. In some cultures, the first son of
the incumbent ruler (no matter his age) inherits rulership and he is accorded
recognition. A classic example of traditional authority is a monarchy.
It is significant that in Africa, traditional authority has been largely diffused
by the modern system of government. Thus, elections have been introduced in
choosing leaders. For example, in the South-South geo-political zone of
Nigeria, appointment of traditional leaders by election has become a common
practice. However, heredity is still retained in many of the traditional political
systems, particularly the centralized ones – the rule of Oba’s, Emir’s, etc.

Charismatic Authority
This type of authority is anchored on attributes or qualities that are personal
to individuals. According to Weber, charismatic authority is legitimized by
certain qualities which set an individual apart from others (Nna 2004).
Experience has shown that the qualities which confer charismatic authority on
an individual include: discipline, patriotism and honesty, being courageous,
dependable, reliable and predictable and the possession of miraculous/magical
powers.
The literature on charismatic authority highlights it as a revolutionary
movement. Thus, unlike traditional authority which sustains the existing order,
6
charismatic authority seeks to create changes in society. Examples of
charismatic leaders include Jesus Christ, Prophet Mohammed, Mahatma
Ghandi, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King (Jnr), Haille Salaissie, Ken Saro-
Wiwa and Obafemi Awolowo.

Legal – Rationale or Bureaucratic Authority

In this type of authority, leadership succession and conduct are based on
agreed rules and regulations. This is essentially the modern bureaucracy
characterized by a hierarchical structure, anonymity, meritocracy,
impersonality, rationality, universalism and adherence to rules and regulations.
The point to note here is that “leadership is legitimated by a belief in the
supremacy of the law, rules and regulations”, (Alapiki, 2000:14) and this
defines compliance or obedience.
In modern democracies for instance, government offices are patterned into
structures, with clearly allocated functions, with the qualifications for the
offices and the recruitment procedures governed by accepted laws. The
exercise of control by a leadership is only legitimated when the occupant of an
office follows due process to assume the office.
Consequently, legal-rational authority is attached to an office, which
automatically extends to the individual holding that office (Gauba, 2003). For
example, Nigerians obey Chief Olusegun Obasanjo because he holds the office
of President of Nigeria. Clearly, it is the law that controls and guides legal –
rational authority. Adherence to law is the basis of legitimacy.
It is proper to argue that the authority attached to an office, which extends
to the occupant of that office in legal – rational authority is also applicable to
traditional authority. For example, if a young man of 30 years assumes
traditional authority, older men and women are bound by his rule because of
the office he occupies, and not his person.

Rule
Rule is the manifestation of the exercise of political power or authority. It
basically means governance, and involves rule making, rule
execution/implementation and rule interpretation/adjudication. The types of
rule include: rule by one man (Monarchy), rule by a few person
(Aristocracy/Oligarchy) and rule by many persons (Democracy).

The Scope of Politics

The scope of politics deals with the political. Put differently, it answers the
question, what is the political?. A clear answer to this question requires an
understanding of the nature of the political system. Like other concepts in
political science, the political system has been interpreted differently.
However, the central distinguishing feature is that political interactions, unlike
7
social interactions, are predominantly oriented towards the authoritative
allocation of resources for society. Ake, 1982).
What is discernible from the above is that the network of relationships at the
governmental level constitutes the political system. In this regard, attention is
focused on governmental structures and their corresponding authorities.
However, political science literature highlights the fact that the political system
is not just the structure and organization of government, but also the political
culture, the “underlying propensities, beliefs, attitudes, and values which define
the context in which the political act takes place” ( Ake1982:2)
It is clear for instance, that the political culture of a people shapes the
character of politics and by extension, political structures. Following this, the
difference in the political culture of societies gives rise to different political
systems – federalism, unitary and confederacy. Equally, differences in political
cultures create different patterns of operating the same type of political system.
For example, whereas Nigeria, Canada, United States of America and India
operate the Federal System of Government, the structures and processes are not
exactly the same. This partly explains the comparative study of political
systems.
The political system is equally seen as a combination of elements made up
of the governmental structures and other political bodies such as political parties
and pressure/interest groups (Rodee, Anderson, Christol & Greene, 1976). The
political system is therefore made of the following interrelated elements: the
state/government and the formal institutions of government (legislature,
executive and judiciary), the political culture; all processes and institutions
associated with governmental policy making; the coercive apparatus of the state
(police, arm, etc) and all processes and organizations associated with leadership
recruitment.
It stands to reason here that the boundaries of the political system are
determined by the network of organizations and processes that make binding
decisions. Thus, all organizations, relations, and processes that have no bearing
on authoritative decision-making are outside the political system. Clearly, the
political is all that pertains to the political system. See diagrammatic
presentation below:

Figure 1.1: The Political System

The Society
State

Government Civil Extra-ministerial Security

Service Departments, Agencies Services
8 Commissions, etc
Executive

Legislature
 Authoritative Interest
Judiciary Decision-Making Aggregation
Political Parties
Interest
Articulation-
Pressure Groups

Source: Author, 2010

The Origin and Dynamics of Political Science

The term political science was developed by the great French political
philosopher, Jean Bodin who lived between 1530-1596. It is a translation of
the French words, “Science Politique”. The actual study of politics is as old as
man himself. This view is shared by a variety of political science scholars. One
of such studies notes that:

The study of politics…called political science, is born when men begin to

speculate about the rules by which they are governed, or by which their ancestors
were governed, when they begin to ask whether these rules ought to be accepted,
or ought to have been accepted in the past, why some societies choose different
rules from others, whether is it possible to find the best rules for a particular
society, or whether it is possible to discover general rules of conduct which
could, or should be applicable to all societies…This enquiry…has been going on
for thousands of years…(Pickles, 1974:15).

The treatises on the best form of government, the necessity of the state, and
so on by Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke, among others, can be situated within
this context. These writings are now classified as political theory/thought and
are located in the realm of philosophy. The description as political thought by
political scientists clearly demonstrates that it amounts to the study of politics.
For example, Ndu (1998:11) defines political theory/thought as “abstract
generalizations arising from mental processes regarding a society’s notions of
justice (politics)”. Similarly, Sabine and Thorson (1973:3) describe it as “man’s
attempts to consciously understand and solve the problems of his group life and
organization”. Equally, Wayper (1974:1) defines political thought as “thought
about the state, its structure, its nature and its purpose”

9
 What one can draw here is that political thought/theory concerns itself with
a systematic study of the political. The discussion on political thought and the
development of political science is essentially limited to Western political
thought, which is the basis of political science. Political terms and concepts
such as sovereignty, rule of law, constitutionalism, liberty, legitimacy, justice,
political institutions and ideologies, political systems, etc, all derive their origin
from western political thought, which is traced to the Greeks.
The point to note here is that the study of politics actually commenced with
the Greeks. However, in its present form, political science is traceable to the
Americans. The subject was first taught in American Universities in the 1850’s
(Anifowose, 2001:7). The discipline evolved from many related fields of study
including history, philosophy, law, and economics (Rodee, Anderson, Christol
and Greene, 1976:4). Political science was originally taught as part of these
disciplines (Anifowose, 2001:7) and this created an identity crisis for it. The
efforts to solve this identity crisis led to its emergence as an autonomous and
independent discipline (Alapiki, 2000:1).
It is clear that political science evolved in stages. Four of such stages can be
identified. The first stage laid emphasis on apriority reasoning and the
deductive method. The second stage adopted the historical and comparative
method, while the third stage was anchored on observation and measurement.
The fourth stage developed the science in politics ( Barongo, 1983;18).
From the above, we find that the classification of the stages of evolution of
political science is based on the method of study. In addition, two methods
have been identified: the traditional and the scientific or empirical method. The
traditional preceded the empirical and was normative; its characteristics include
over generalization, incomplete observation, speculation, qualitative,
formalistic and descriptive propositions.
The traditional approach limited the scope of political science to political
philosophy and institutional description. Equally, it was anchored on a legal
institutional framework (Varma, 1975) and focused on citizenship training
based on the values of society faith in the “irreversibility of the system,”
equality of men and rule by consent (Barongo, 1983). In all, traditional
approach was philosophical, historical, legal and institutional.

Philosophical Approach
The philosophical approach concerned itself with the prescriptions
of standards of political behaviour that should govern socio-
political organization. Emphasis was laid on what ought to be,
although inquiries always began with what is. The application of
the philosophical method helped to develop and clarify concepts
used in the discipline. The writings of Plato, Aristotle and others
are categorized as part of the philosophical approach.

10
 Historical Approach
This method denotes the analysis or account of historical events to
establish the principles of politics, and thus create a better
understanding of the growth of political institutions and
phenomenon. Plato, Aristotle, Locke, Marx, Hegel, and
others contributed to this approach.

Legal Approach
This approach concerns itself with the legal framework of politics.
Essentially, it deals with politics and law and thus seeks to answer
questions, which include: what is the constitutional basis of
government? What is the nature of law that governs political
institutions and political actors? And many others.

Institutional Approach
This approach deals with the structure and organization of
government – the type of government (presidential for example),
organs of government (legislature, executive and judiciary) and
their functions/powers, and others.

The empirical approach is a sharp contrast with the traditional method.

Whereas the empirical method is based on the principles of scientific inquiry,
the traditional method is not. The empirical component of political science was
influenced by the behavioural revolution, which essentially was a scholarly
drive to make political science adopt the scientific method of study.
Behaviouralists insisted that there are discernible uniformities in human
behaviour that are amenable to quantification and systematic study within the
framework of scientific principles. The argument is that with the use of
appropriate scientific tools of analysis, political studies can conform to the
above principles. The acceptance of this school of thought, whipped up by the
behaviouralists gave rise to empirical political science which changed the
methodological approach and raised scientific awareness among political
scientists.
The empirical or behavioural approach to politics is, therefore, characterized
by observation, experimentation, verification (Anikpo, 1986) lack of
speculation, objectivity, measurements, data collection and analysis.
Behaviouralism redirected the focus of political science. There was a shift in
focus from political philosophy and legal-institutional framework to the
behavioural patterns and network of relationships in the political process.
Political studies now examine the sources and use of power in a state and
government; the character of leadership; the policy making process; the
linkages between leadership and ideology; election patterns and leadership
recruitment; civil society/non-governmental organizations and decision-

11
making, political parties (Varma, 1975), and so on. The behavioural revolution
also promoted the interdisciplinary approach to the study of politics.

Science in Politics: The Debate

Political Science is one of the social science disciplines (others are
Economics, Sociology, Anthropology and Geography), and it has the oldest
history as an empirical science (Anikpo, 1986). However, its scientific status
has been a subject of debate. Whereas a school of thought argues that political
science is not a science, another perspective insists that it is actually a science.

The argument against the scientific status of political science was predicated on
a number of issues, which include the following:

1. Human behaviour changes too much from one period to the next to permit
scientifically exact predictions;

2. Human behaviour is too elusive, subtle, and complex to yield to rigid

categorizations and artificial instruments of science.

3. Human behaviour can be studied only by other human observers and this
always distorts fundamentally, the facts being observed, so that there can be no
objective procedures for achieving the truth.

4. Human beings are the subject of such predictions and have the ability to
deliberately upset any predications (Alapiki, 2000:4).

The opposing argument acknowledges the above limitations, but contends

that studies in politics can adopt the scientific methodology and come out with
valid predictions. To this end, it is a science. Besides, it highlights the fact that
even the natural sciences are not always perfectly predictable and are thus,
equally faced with limitations. The difference is, therefore, a matter of variation
in exactness or perfection.
To situate the argument in a clear perspective, it would be proper to examine
the nature and methodology of science. In simple terms, science is a systematic
form of inquiry which gives rise to the acquisition of knowledge. It is based on
principles which are:

1. The principle of natural kinds which posits that what is true with one case
may be true of all other cases of similar distinction;

12
2. The principle of constancy which accepts that relatively constant conditions
exist in nature; and

3. The principle of determinism which affirms that natural phenomenon are

determined by antecedent events (Anikpo, 1986:24).
Science deals with what is and is anchored on logic or rationality and the
observation of empirical facts (Babbie, 1979). It seeks to explore, describe,
explain, and predict occurrences on the bases of validated empirical evidence
(Barongo, 1983). The scientific procedure or methodology involves
observation, formulation of hypothesis, verification, experimentation and
theory formulation. These are explained below:

Observation
This is a careful and systematic study or examination of phenomena, events
or objects, with a view to identifying uniform occurrences or regularities. It
involves taking measures, that is, the assignment of numerals to objects or
events according to rules (Stephen cited in Joe, 1997). This means that data
collection is part of the process of observation. Observation is equally a tool
for identifying a research theme or problem. It is, therefore, an instrument of
starting a scientific inquiry as well as the collection of data (Anikpo, 1986:19).

Problem
Problem in science means phenomena, event, occurrence, objects
or puzzle, which requires investigation, explanation or solution. In
scientific studies or research, the identification of problem usually
marks the first step. The problem actually justifies the need for a
scientific study or investigation.

Hypothesis Formulation
A hypothesis is a tentative answer given to a research problem. Essentially,
scientific inquiry seeks answers to social problems or issues. Given that the
answers are not known at the beginning of the inquiry, the research makes a
guess of the possible answers, to guide the data collection process. This
statement of the probable answers to the research problem is what is referred to
as the hypothesis.

Experimentation
Experiment is a fundamental component of scientific inquiry. Basically, it
involves the collection of data and the establishment of causal relationships
13
(cause and effect) among phenomena. Experimentation provides checks and
balances to the validity or otherwise of any research finding (Anikpo, 1986).

Verification
Verification determines the extent to which the results of an experiment are
congruent with the stated hypothesis. It subjects the responses from the
experiment to proof of validity, (the extent to which a specific measurement
provides data that relate to commonly accepted meanings of a particular concept
(Babbie, 1979) and to that extent gives legitimacy to the objectivity of scientific
results (Anikpo, 1986).

Theory Formation
A theory is simply a scientific generalization of research findings; and it is
the vehicle that aids or makes it possible for science to make predictions.
Theory and research are interlocked. Thus, while theory describes the logical
parts of the world, research offers means for seeing whether those relationships
actually exist in the world (Babbie, 1979). To this end, whereas theory is the
logical conclusion to a research work (Anikpo, 1986), the research process itself
is guided by theory.
Evidence clearly shows that political studies follow the scientific procedure
outlined above. Significantly, what matters in any scientific endeavour is the
method by which knowledge is acquired (Anikpo 1986). Political science is,
therefore, a science.
However, the scientific status of political science is fraught with a number
of shortcomings. As noted elsewhere, the changing and unpredictable nature
of man limits its scientific potency. Equally, objectivity is difficult to attain,
given that the political scientist is part of what he studies.
The subjective element, personal values, feelings, attitudes, opinions,
preferences and biases (Anifowose, 2001), are brought to bear on political
studies. A classic example is western political science and its prejudices against
Africa-Western political science are replete with studies, theories and ideas that
are biased against Africa. For example, development theory is Eurocentric,
positing western values as the only tonic to development, while despising
African values. Equally, western political thought on imperialism dissociates
it from African underdevelopment, whereas evidence clearly demonstrates the
linkage.
Perhaps of greater significance is the lack of agreement on the basic concepts
and categories of political science (Anifowose, 2001). It must be noted that
there is considerable disagreement among political scientists on the
classification of political phenomenon, concepts and categories. This
undermines scientific measurement and evaluations, thus making it a less
developed science (Rodee, Anderson, Christol and Greene, 1976). Indeed, a
14
critical look at the issues raised against the scientific status of political science
show that the arguments are in two camps.
First is the position that political science cannot be termed a scientific
discipline. And second, the view that although it is a science, it has a relatively
low scientific standing (Rodee, Anderson, Christol & Greene, 1976). It is clear,
however, that the second school of thought is more potent. What this means is
that although political science is a science, it is not as developed as the natural
or physical sciences.
This implies that with more effort, the scientific standing of the discipline
will be enhanced. Indeed, political studies have become more scientific.
Evidence points to the fact that:

…Political scientist have been able to improve the methods of study of their
discipline by borrowing for use from the physical sciences and other social
sciences, their research skills, tools, techniques, and concepts…contemporary
political scientists…demonstrate commitment to rigorous empiricism, in the
collection and analysis of data. There is now extensive use of sample survey for
gathering information, and statistical methods for quantifying the data…the
recording of these on charts, graphs, scales and tables (Anifowose, 2001:21).

This explains why political science is able to predict political behaviour such as
the outcome of election results. This is also true of policy evaluation.
The science in politics explains why political science students are taught
courses such as social statistics, statistics for political science, the logic and
methods of political inquiry, research methods, political data analysis and
politimetrics

The Subject of Political Science

This section highlights the issues, which constitute the focal point of
political studies. The subject of political science is complex, multidimensional
and interrelated. The high points are examined below.

Government
This deals with the organization and structure of government. It highlights
the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary as the major organs of government.
Furthermore, the classification of government on the basis of the number that
governs, the type of power exercised (that is Executive or not) and the
institutional forms are also inclusive.

In the social sciences, Economics is seen to have more scientific advantage over political
science, particularly because Economists agree more on concepts and categories. For example,
Gross Domestic Product (GDP), Per Capita Income, etc. Some of these concepts and categories
have been borrowed by political science.

15
Public Administration
The focus here is on the management of government business at all levels.
It involves the public policy process, that is, how policies are formulated and
implemented, public finance administration, which involves the economic
functions of the state and budgeting as well as the principles of administration
(theory and practice) are also studied.

Inter-Governmental Relations
This deals with the relationship among different structures (Executive,
Legislature, Judiciary, and Extra Ministerial Departments/Agencies)
layers/levels of government. In a federal political system for example, we
usually have two or three layers of government – the federal (central or national)
government, the state (regional or provincial) government; and the local
government or authority. Inter-governmental relations examine the points at
which these levels of government meet.

Political Philosophy/Thought (Theory)

The primary focus here is the examination of man’s socio-political
organization. Essentially, it prescribes political and social ideas which form the
basis of the rules of behaviour that should guide the actions of men/states. Thus,
it emphasizes what ought to be. It is categorized into two – the western tradition
(traceable to the Greeks), and the non-Western or Third World orientation
which includes African political thought. Political philosophy/thought
functions to demonstrate the theory and actual practice of politics.

Development
Development studies highlight the components and essentials of the
development process – political, economic, social, and so on. It explains why
some countries are developed, and others are not. It equally proffers policy
options that can promote development.

International Politics
This deals with politics among countries. It examines the organization of
the international political system and the importance of power, alliances and
economic development in international relations. International economic
relations, as well as international organizations such as the United Nations
Organization, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), etc, are
also studied.

Comparative Politics

16
 This involves a comparative study of different political systems. The issues
of focus include system of government, pattern of leadership recruitment and
succession, political parties, political socialization and public administration,
among others.

The Structures of the Political Process

This studies the culture of politics, leadership recruitment, electoral systems,
political parties, pressure/interest groups, the civil society, legislative politics,
the executive process and the judicial or legal process.

The Study of Politics: How Relevant to Society?

It is clear that the study of politics benefits man and society in several ways.
The study of political science helps to refine the “animal” in man, and to that
extent makes him to live a civilized and disciplined life.

Civilization/Discipline
This means that man lives an organized and patterned life, as
defined by respect for rules and regulations. It involves the making
of concessions based on respect for other people’s feelings and the
subordination of individual interests to collective interests.

It defines clearly the relationship between man and man, and man and
society/state. This moderates the actions of man, and limits his expectations
from fellow men and society. Pickles (1972:32-33) sums how the study of
politics refines man thus:

…He can learn how much or how little political action can reasonably be
expected to achieve, and how fast or how slow the advance is likely to be in given
conditions. He can learn not to count on miracles or to base his hopes on wild
miscalculations of the potentials of human behaviour. In other words, he can
learn to be, an intelligent and balanced citizen…The…contribution which the
study of politics can make to the art or science of government is to add to our
knowledge of the political forces which go to make up national group attitudes.

Political science inducts the citizen into the workings of the political system;
it helps the citizen to balance his demands and supports to the system. This
ultimately promotes efficient governance. Again, the teachings of political
science on the cyclical nature of history give a guide on how the leadership of
a country ought to manage its people and resources.
It is proper to remember that the modern system of government and its
attributes (democracy, human rights, rule of law, sovereignty, etc) are all based
17
on the teachings of political studies. In all, therefore, political science generates
ideas that perfect socio-political organizations. The writings of Plato, Aristotle,
Locke, Montesquie, Dicey, Machiavelli and others are instructive.
For example, in answer to the question ‘who should rule’?, Plato prescribes
that rulers should be knowledgeable. He points out that just as the safety of a
ship depends on a skilled captain, so does the safety of a state depend on a
skilled leader. To guarantee efficiency and stability, Plato posits that
materialism should be divorced from leadership. Again, he insists that leaders
must be trained and educated, both in theory and practice. Evidence shows that
the leadership of many developed countries approximates Plato’s prescription.
The reverse is the case with the less developed countries. In Nigeria, for
example, the fusion of politics and materialism is a major source of the
instability plaguing the country. This is also true of the ideals of
constitutionalism, fathered by Aristotle and strengthened by Locke and Dicey
(Foster, 1971).
Equally, Locke insists that “the end of government is the good of the
community”. Furthermore, he insists that government must be founded on the
consent of the people (cited in Wayper, 1974:75). These constitute some of the
essential ingredients of modern day democracy. The separation of powers
which is revered in modern day governments is traceable to Montesquieu.
Again, laissez faire or free enterprise which is at the heart of modern day
economic organization and governance is a logical outcome of Smith’s
writings. In his famous book, The Wealth of Nations (1776), Adam Smith
argued that the drive by individuals to achieve their rational self interests,
inevitably promote the progress of society. Accordingly, individuals should be
granted the freedom, within limits of law to pursue their interest; and
government should not intervene or be immersed in economic affairs. This laid
the basis for laissez-faire.
Similarly, real politics and gunboat diplomacy, a common practice of
powerful countries in international politics, was posited by Machiavelli. In
‘‘The Prince and The Discourse’’, Machiavelli advocated for agreements or
treaties to be violated when they no longer promote your interest. The use of
this expressed as real politics or gunboat diplomacy. Its use by the United States
of America explains why it violates United Nations Resolutions when it suits it
to do so. A classical example is its war on Iraq.
Also worthy of note is the fact that Political Science enables us to predict
political behaviour. Although this has limitations, given the unpredictable
nature of man, it gives a guide to political action. For example, based on a
pattern of actions, the reaction of citizens and groups in society to a given policy
of government can be predicted. In this regard, the government can position
itself to prepare the people for the policy or in the alternative to contain the

18
people’s response. A good example is the increase in the prices of petroleum
products in Nigeria.
Experience has shown that Nigerians in general, resent price increase in
petroleum products. In particular, the organized labour usually mobilizes its
members and other citizens for strikes and other forms of protest. This means
that whenever there is such a price increase, the response of the citizens can be
anticipated. Certainly, this can guide government policy and action. The
foregoing clearly vindicates political studies.

References
Aaron, K.K., (2004), Science in Social Relations: An Introduction to the Social
Science, Kemuela, Publications, Port Harcourt.

Ake, Claude, (1982), Social Science As Imperialism, Ibadan University Press,

Ibadan.

Alapiki, H.E. (2000), Politics and Governance in Nigeria, Corporate

Impressions, Owerri.

Anifowose, Remi, (2001), The Nature and Scope of Political Science, in

Alapiki, H,E (eds), The Nigerian Political Process, Emhai
Printing and Publishing Company, Port Harcourt.

Anikpo, Mark, (1986), Foundations of Social Science Research: A

Methodological Guide for Students, ABIC Publishers, Enugu.

Babbie, E.R., (1979), The Practice of Social Research, Wadsworth Publishing

Company Inc; California.

Barongo, Yolamu (eds),(1983), Political Science in Africa: A Critical Review, Zed

Press, London.

Dahl, Robert, Modern Political Analysis (5th Edition) (1995), Prentice Hall,
India, .

Easton, David, (1965), A Framework for Political Analysis, Prentice Hall,

Englewod Cliffs

Essien-Ibok, A.J.,(2004), Political Thuggery and Corruption: How its Affects

the Voting Process, paper presented at Independent National

19
 Electoral Commission (INEC) Seminar, March 24-25, 2004,
Yenagoa, Bayelsa State.

Foster, M.B., (1971), Masters of Political Thought, (Vol.1), George G. Harrap

and Co. Ltd., London.

Gauba, O.P.(2003), An Introduction to Political Theory (4th edition) Macmillan,

India.

Joe, A.I., (1997), Fundamental Statistics for Education and the Behavioural
Science, Kraft Books Ltd, Ibadan.

Lasswell, Harold (1930), Politics: Who Gets What, When and How, New York.

Machiavelli, (1950), The Discourses, New York.

Ndu, Eme, (1998), Ancient and Medieval Political Theory: An Introduction,

Springfield Publishers, Owerri.

Nna, N.J., (2004), Contemporary Political Analysis (2nd Edition), Springfield

Publishers, Owerri.

Okoko, K.A.B. (1998), SPDC – Host Community Relations Survey

(Unpublished Report)

Pickles, D.M. (1964), Introduction to Politics, Methuen and Co. Ltd, London.

Rodee, C.L., Anderson, T.J, Christol, C.Q, AND Greene, T.H (1976),
Introduction to Political Science, McGraw Hill, Kogakusha

Sabine, George and Thomas Thorson, (1937), A History of Political Theory (5th
edition), Oxford and IBH Publishing Company PVT Ltd, New
Delhi, 1973. Smith, A. The Wealth of Nations, (with
introduction by Max Lerner) New York.

Varma, S.P. (1975), Modern Political Theory, Vikas Publishing House, India.

Wayper, C.L. (1973), Political Thought, English Universities Press Limited,

England.

20
 CHAPTER 2

CONTENDING PARADIGMS IN
CONTEMPORARY POLITICAL ANALYSIS

Introduction
Political analysis is the product of the empirical – scientific orientation in
the study of politics (Gauba, 2003). It deals with power, rule or authority (Dahl,
1995) and focuses on the political system, political processes, behaviours and
roles. It seeks to analyze politics in a concrete and critical manner, in order to
create a better understanding, (Nwaorgu, 2002). Political scientists have
developed a number of approaches to political analysis.
21
The Marxist Approach to Political Analysis
The Marxist approach to the study of politics is a radical interpretation of
politics, as defined by the doctrines, principles or postulations associated with
the German scholar, Karl Henrique Marx (Nna, 2004) and his associates,
Fredrick Engels, V.I. Lenin, among others. Marxism was developed as a
critique of the capitalist system, seen to be exploitative to the extreme. The
ultimate aim was to liquidate capitalism, and bring into existence, communism
the preferred socio-political order.
In the Marxist sense, politics is an activity which involves classes of people
in a pattern of relationship. The central component is the capture and retainship
of political power for the benefit of one class, and to the disadvantage of
another.

Class: A class means a group of people who occupy the same place
in a system of production, defined by the ownership or non-
ownership of the means of production and role in the organization
of production. Thus, there is a class of owners of the means of
production (Slave masters, feudal lords and bourgeoisie) and a
class that does not, and consequently, only owns labour power
(slaves, serfs and proletariats). Ownership of the means of
production is the fundamental factor that differentiates one class
from another. Society is thus made of classes who enter into
production relations that often results to the appropriation of the
labour or surplus of one class by another.

This means that society is polarized into two or more classes, one of which
is dominant, and to that extent controls political power, which it uses to advance
its own interest. The drive by the excluded class to have its share of society’s
resources sets in a contest for power between the classes. This is what Marx
calls class struggle. The struggles between classes whose interests are either
incompatible or contradictory (Borisov and Libman, 1985).
It stands to reason here that politics in the Marxian perspective means class
struggle. It would thus appear that societies without classes do not engage in
politics. Nevertheless, it is clear that all collective existence is anchored on
politics. To this end, the relationship among individuals, groups and countries,
based on the contest for power, and its control by the stronger party captures
the Marxist view of what politics means.
The defining element in the Marxist conception of politics is the
determination of who benefits from the control and exercise of political power.
Marxists argue that the exercise of power benefits those who control the state,

22
a fact attributable to the partisan nature of the state. Because it lacks neutrality,
the laws of the state and its coercive instruments (the Police, Army, etc) are
employed to the advantage of those who control state power.
The Marxist approach to the study of politics is a holistic method based on
three components. For a clear understanding, the following section of the
chapter examines these components.

The Sources and Components of Marxism

Marxism has three sources and three corresponding components, as presented
in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1: The Sources of Maxism

The Sources The Components
(i) German Philosophy. Dialectical materialism and Historical
materialism
(ii) Bourgeois/British Political Economy Marxian Political Economy
(iii) French Utopian Socialism Scientific Socialism (communism)
Source: Borisov & Libman, 1985

Dialectical/Historical Materialism
Dialectical and historical materialism represent the fundamental basis of the
Marxist doctrine. These two concepts were developed from two strands of
German philosophy. In the period Marx theorized, German philosophy was
anchored on two opposing perspectives – the idealists and the materialists. The
idealists posited that consciousness is the author of nature and matter. In
contrast, the materialists argued that materialism defines consciousness.
A famous proponent of the idealist school was George Hegel who posited
that the world is a creation of consciousness. In his writings, Hegel argued that
consciousness, what he also called the absolute idea, thought or reason, wills
all that happens in our material world. The logic is that pure reality resides in
consciousness, and that the realities of our world only occur incongruence with
the design of reason.
This simply means that God is the author of the world, and to that extent,
whatever happens is an expression of his will. He explains that because God is
consciousness (spirit), he cannot descend to the material world to actualize his
desires. Accordingly, men are used by God to realize his objectives. Hegel
calls this the cunning of reason, and what happens is that God inflames the
passions of men to make them pursue their self interest which is enlarged to
achieve the original purposes set by God.
For example, to salvage mankind, the Almighty God sent his son Jesus
Christ to the material world, to further the process; the passion of greed in Judas
Iscariot was inflamed, thus making him to betray Jesus Christ as part of the
process of saving the soul of man. The significant point to note is how
23
consciousness posits the material world which is unconscious. Hegel explains
this with the dialectics.
The term dialectics is derived from the Greek word “dialego” and is used in
two senses. In the first sense, it means to discuss or debate. It involves a
question and answer procedure designed to expose contradictions, with a view
to determining the ultimate truth. This method was employed by Socrates
(Wayper, 1974).
The second sense is used to demonstrate the logical changes that come out
of extreme actions or situations. This was premised on the observation of the
Greeks that anything, if pushed too far will tend to produce its opposite
(Wayper, 1974). For example, in his treatise on Politics, Aristotle identified
three kinds of good or right constitutions or governments and their
corresponding perverted forms as shown in Table 2.2:

Table 2.2: Aristotle’s Good and Perverted Constitutions/Government

Good Constitutions/Government The Perverted Forms
(i) Kingship Tyranny
(ii) Aristocracy Oligarchy
(iii) Polity Democracy
Source: Wayper, 1973

The explanation is that kingship rule if stretched too far, leads to tyranny,
which in turn transits to aristocracy. Similarly, the abuse of aristocratic rule
leads to oligarchy, which is succeeded by polity. (Wayper, 1973).
The use of dialectics by Hegel captures the second meaning. He saw
dialectic as the unity of opposites, giving rise to contradictions and resultant
changes. In this regard, consciousness and unconsciousness are fused together
and this process promotes the realization of the design of God in the world.
Essentially, Hegelian dialectics is three-dimensional change. Wayper
(1973:159) points out that:

…Every being, as Hegel expressed it, is to be understood, not only by what it is

but by what it is not. The opposite of being is non-being, and being and non-
being are alike summed up and carried further towards reality in becoming. Each
stage, or thesis reached by the ideal, until it has arrived at its goal, must fall short
of perfection. Its imperfections will call into being a movement to them, or
antithesis. There will be a struggle between thesis and antithesis until such a time
as synthesis is found which will preserve what is true in thesis and antithesis, the
synthesis, in its turn, becoming a new thesis, and so on until the idea is at last
enthroned in perfection.

A number of things can be deduced from the above reference. First, the
dialectics involves the movement from potentiality to actuality. Second, the
dialectics presupposes a contradictory movement of a thing or phenomenon,
24
which is constant and only ceases when it gets to a state of perfection. Third, it
has three points of movement – the thesis, antithesis and synthesis. The thesis
is the original idea, whereas the antithesis is the contradiction that results in the
synthesis. In each synthesis, there is a thesis and thus an antithesis; this goes
on until the original idea (the thesis) gets to a state of perfection. The process
is presented in the diagram below:

Figure 2.1: The Dialectical Schema

Thesis Antithesis Synthesis

Thesis

Antithesis

The following examples make it clearer.

Example: 1
Hegel’s discussion of the state contains elements of dialectics. He traces the
origin of the state thus. The family (thesis) gives rise to bourgeois society
(antithesis) and the result (synthesis) produces the state in which thesis and
antithesis are raised to a higher power and reconciled (Wayper, 1973).

Example: 2
Aristotle argues that the state is natural and traces its origin and growth in a
dialectical manner. It commences with the family (thesis), which disintegrates
to produce its antithesis (village). The result (synthesis) is the polity or state
(association of villages).

It is important to note that Hegel situated his dialectics within the context of
idealism, and that Marx borrowed the principles of the dialectics and
assimilated it with the basic tenets of Ludwing Feurebach’s materialism.
Feurebach was a leading proponent of the materialist philosophy of the
Germans. Their basic argument was that man is first and foremost a material
being, and for that reason, his material existence determines his consciousness
(Borisov and Liban, 1985). The fusion of Hegel’s dialectics with Feurebach’s

25
materialism gave birth to the two doctrines of Dialectical materialism and
Historical materialism.

What is Dialectical Materialism?

Dialectical materialism highlights the primacy of material conditions in
social existence. As a doctrine, it illuminates the universal laws of the
development of nature, society and human thought. The essential argument is
that first and foremost, man is a material being. The justification is that before
he can do anything, man must eat; and in other to eat, man must produce. In
this regard, his material orientation shapes his thoughts. Given this, Marx
declared that is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence,
but their social existence that determines their consciousness (Borisov &
Libman, 1985). It is interesting, therefore, that even the character of politics is
largely determined by the economic base.
Dialectical materialism also highlights the contradictions of material life. It
examines how production is organized, and reveals for instance how some
groups and individuals are excluded from society’s resources; including what
they toil to generate. It draws a relationship between this exclusion and political
consciousness which inducts the exploited into radical political attitudes.
It is clear from the above that dialectical materialism as a method of
analyzing society gives primacy to material conditions, particularly economic
factors, in the explanation of social life. The fact that material condition
determines other aspects of society is evident everywhere. For example, social
science literature agrees that the dominant motive for colonization was
economics (Ake, 1981). Similarly, a major cause of instability of the Nigerian
State is the culture of politics that sees politics as an enterprise. Thus, the drive
to acquire wealth through politics sets in a desperate struggle for power,
resulting in violence and insecurity.
Equally, evidence show that ethnic politics thrives in Nigeria because it is
materially beneficial. The involvement of the military in Nigerian politics is
also attributable largely to the drive to have access to the state as a means of
accumulating wealth. Again, the conflicts and violence in the Niger Delta
Region of Nigeria are to a large extent defined by material considerations. In
spite of its evident and abundant resources which include Nigeria’s oil wealth,
the Niger Delta region represents one of the extreme situations of poverty and
underdevelopment. This contradiction had generated political consciousness,
which has inducted the people into radical political attitudes, thus setting in
conflicts which are violent in many instances. This is also true of several of the
socio-political and religious problems that abound in the country – corruption,
proliferation of churches, crime, examination malpractice, the near collapse of
moral and ethical values.

26
 It is instructive that just as the material basis of society shapes the other
aspects – politics, religion and so on, these aspects equally influence the
material aspects of the society. Thus for example, politics impacts on the
economy significantly. Also, religious beliefs do influence material conditions.

What is Historical Materialism?

Historical materialism is the application of the principles of dialectical
materialism to an interpretation of the development of society from one stage
to another. It is the fundamental basis of the Marxist theory of socio-political
change which places man at the centre. Historical materialism highlights the
fact that the production of the pre-conditions of existence, particularly food, is
the basis of survival. Significantly, the organization of production and the
distribution of the fruits thereof have almost always failed to balance reward
with the burden associated with the production of wealth, thus, creating internal
stress and strain in society (Wayper, 1973).
The fact is that in the organization of production, some owns the means of
production and therefore direct the production process, while some others only
own their labour, and are therefore labourers in the production process. In this
relationship, the owner of the means of production takes a large share of the
proceeds, even though the labourers bear the direct burden of production. This
causes discontent and disillusionment which advance the drive for a just
resource distribution mechanism. This argument is located in the mode of
production analysis.

Mode of Production: The mode of production is a fusion of

relations of production and forces of production.
Relations of production: The social relationships which govern
production, and by extension, the distribution of the wealth
generated.
Forces of production: This is made of two main elements: the
Means of Production, a combination of Instruments of Labour
(cutlass, hoe, etc) and the Objects of Labour (the gifts of nature
from where man sources production – land, etc); and Labour Power
which is man’s physical and mental abilities with which he
produces. The mode of production also known as the substructure,
infrastructure or economic system. It is the material aspect of
society. Thus, each mode has a corresponding society.

Marx identified six modes of production – the Primitive Communal mode,

the Slave mode, the Feudal mode, the Capitalist mode, the Socialist mode and
27
the Communist mode. The theory argues that with the exception of the
primitive communal and communist modes of production, class relations define
production.
In this regard, a class owns the means of production, while another class
does not, and is therefore employed to work for the class of owners.

Primitive Communal Mode of Production: Classless.

Slave Mode of Production: Class-based, and society is divided
into slave-owners and slaves. The slave-owners rule.
Feudal Mode of Production: Class-based, and society is
polarized into feudal lords and peasants or serfs. The feudal lords
rule.
Capitalist Mode of Production: Class-based, and is made of the
bourgeoisie and proletariat (workers). The bourgeoisie rules.
Socialist Mode of Production: Class-based, and is made of the
bourgeoisie and proletariat (workers). The proletariat rules.
Communist Mode of Production: Classless.

For this reason, the classes share a contradictory and antagonistic relationship.
This would cause a fight that each time ended either in a revolutionary
reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending
classes (Max and Engels, 1988). This means that the struggle over resources
by opposing classes is the engine of socio-political change. The logic of change
is the contradiction between the productive forces and the relations of
production. Whereas productive forces develop, the relations of production lag
behind. Although productive forces develop and create more wealth for society,
the exploitation associated with resources ownership becomes worse and
exclude the producers of wealth from having a fair share of what they produce.
Thus, setting off contradictions which manifest as class struggle.
A critical element here is the doctrine of class-consciousness in Marxist
analysis. Class is seen in two dimensions – class-in-itself and class-for-itself.
The former is an unconscious class category, while the latter is a conscious class
category. In Marxist thought, consciousness means man’s ability to ideally
reproduce in his mind, the surrounding reality existing beyond and independent
of him; the reproduction of which is engendered by contradictions (domination,
exploitation and marginalization) in society (Borisov and Libman, 1985).
It is imperative to note that class-consciousness is a group (not individual)
outlook of society, as defined by exploitation; it is largely an attribute of the
exploited and oppressed group. It also implies that classes or society groups
transit from a class-in-itself to a class-for-itself. The essential elements of class-
consciousness include the following:
28
1. A full awareness by members of the exploited group of the reality of their
exploitation.
2. A recognition of common interests.
3. The identification of an opposing group with who their interests are in
conflict, and
4. A realization that only collective actions can liquidate exploitation
(Haralambos, 1980:60-62).

This is the basis of the class struggle which gives rise to the destruction of one
mode of production, and the succession of a new and higher mode of
production. The pattern of transition from one mode of production to another
is discussed below.

The Primitive Communal Mode of Production

This is the first mode of production identified by Marxist analysis. It marked
the beginning of human history and has a number of distinctive features.
Firstly, the means of production were collectively owned. Secondly, labour
was a collective activity. Following the above, appropriation was done
collectively.
It should be noted that the absence of private ownership of property (means
of production) in consequence of the socialization of the means of production
made the relations of production to be free of exploitation. There was absence
of classes since property ownership was the basis of class divisions in society.
Similarly, the absence of classes meant that the state was non-existent; after all,
the emergence and existence of the state is predicated on class cleavages in
society. Society was thus propertyless, classless, stateless and egalitarian. The
absence of surplus production and appropriation was the basis of its
egalitarianism. Production was a collective activity, and the fruits were
distributed directly. People had full control over the production process and the
resultant products (Borisov and Libman, 1985).
Developments in the primitive communal mode set in contradictions that led
to its disintegration. At the initial state of society, production was at a very low
level of development, and consisted of the gathering of wild fruits and primitive
forms of crop growing and stockraising (Volkov, 1985). It involved the use of
crude implements of production.
At some time, however, cattle raising, growing of crops and craftsmanship
was developed to a point which set in division of labour. Division of labour
undermined the collective nature of production and appropriation (Borisov and


This means class solidarity.

29
Libman, 1985:55). It resulted in surplus production, exchange relations and
private property. The emergence and development of private property created
property inequality and ultimately exploitation of man by man. The primitive
communal mode collapsed and was replaced by the slave mode of production.

The Slave Mode of Production

This marked the first class-based mode of production; and it succeeded the
primitive communal mode. The main classes in this mode were the slave-
owners and the slaves. In addition, merchant’s artisans and free peasants also
existed as other classes. It strengthened private ownership of the means of
production and thus deepened the inequality that emerged in the primitive epoch
or society. Private ownership of property was crude to the extent that the slaves
were properties of the slave-owners. The slave-owners enjoyed absolute rights
over the slaves (Borisov and Libman, 1985).
The slave mode was an exploitative system based on class divisions.
Consequently, it marked the emergence of the state. This means that the state
first came into being in the slave society. The exploitation which characterized
the slave mode generated class-consciousness among the slaves and other
oppressed groups. This set in rebellion which brought down the system. The
significant point to note here is that material contradictions between exploiters
(slave-masters) and the exploited (slaves) set in the processes which led to the
eventual disintegration of the slave mode of production.

The Feudal Mode of Production

Feudalism was the second-class based mode of social production. It was a
land (agriculture) system where a feudal lord who owned lands shared it among
peasant serfs who pay part of their surplus (usually the larger part) to the lord.
The distinguishing feature between the slave and feudal modes was that, unlike
the slave mode, the feudal lord did not own the serf as a property (chattel); the
lord was only entitled to the labour of the serf, and to the obligatory
performance of certain services (Borisov and Libman, 1985).
From the above, we find that the feudal mode had two major classes: the
feudal lords and the peasant/serf, with the lords subjugating the serfs. Thus
class oppression and dependence remained in feudalism. Similarly, the
ownership of private property was strengthened. This was also true of the state,
which was repositioned to perform its exploitative and oppressive role.
The exploitation of the feudal system generated class-consciousness, for the
peasants who resented their exploitation. This led to peasant revolts. Examples
include, Jacquerie in France (1358), the uprising led by Wat Tyler in England
(1381); the Hussite wars in (Zehia in the first half of the 15th century, the
Peasant war in Germany (1524-1525); wars led by Iran Bolotnikov (1606-
1607); Stepan Raszi (1667-1671) and Emelyan Pugachev (1773-1775) in
30
Russia (Volkov, 1985:136-137). The collapse of feudalism was also facilitated
by the Industrial Revolution.

Industrial Revolution
The industrial revolution refers to the fundamental changes which
took place between 1760 and 1840, following the application of
science and technology to production. It opened the gateway to
the modern world and created material changes which ushered in
new modes of thought, life, economic process and advancement in
the understanding and control of nature. It facilitated the collapse
of feudalism and the emergence of capitalism. It equally provided
the scientific basis of modern social science and modern political
theory. The displacement of feudalism and the emergence of
capitalism came along with new social ideas, values and practices
which gave birth to the modern state and a correlate ideology
(capitalism). Mainstream and radical political science (theory)
derives its origin from this context.

The Capitalist Mode of Production

In the capitalist mode of production, private individuals or corporate bodies
own the major means of production. It is equally a class-based society with two
major classes – the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat. The former owns the means
of production, which equally gives them the control of political power, while
the latter does not. In this regard, the Bourgeoisie employs the Proletariat and
subjects him to exploitation.
A major feature of this mode is the commoditization of production and the
drive for maximum profits, as defined by self-interest and individualism.
Essentially, the proletariat (workers) generates surplus values (profit) for the
Bourgeoisie to appropriate. The Proletariats are only paid an infinitesimal
proportion of the wealth they generate a sum that is barely adequate for them to
live on. Thus, although the capitalist mode is very productive, the Bourgeoisie
reaps all the benefits.
This demonstrates the contradictory class relations in the system. Marx
argues that at a point in capitalist development, the exploitation of the system
becomes sharper, promoting class-consciousness. The class-consciousness
itself is facilitated by other contradictions in the capitalist mode. According to
Ake (1981:17):

31
 There are…contradictions inherent in the expansion of capitalist
production…expansion of production goes hand in hand with the concentration
of a large work force in an intricate division of labour and also an absolute
increase in the labour force, the victims of exploitation. So expansion creates
and concentrates the Proletariat, the potential army against capitalism.

It is significant to note that the state in capitalism is highly developed, and

as such, has acquired sophisticated instruments to facilitate the oppression and
exploitation of the Proletariat. In spite of this, Marx posits that the class-
consciousness of the Proletariat would get to its climax and the Proletariat
would stage a violent revolution to destroy the capitalist mode and replace it
with the socialist mode.
Marxian political analysis also contends that the contradictions of capitalism
gave birth to imperialism, widely seen as a fundamental cause of
underdevelopment in Africa.

Imperialism: Generally, imperialism means the domination of one

group by another for a number of reasons – cultural, economic,
political and religious. Marxist sees it as an economic
phenomenon that is a logical outcome of capitalist development.
They argue that the contradictions of capitalism endanger its
survival; to contain this threat, capital is exported from the
advanced capitalist societies to the less developed ones. In Africa,
imperialism has manifested as slave trade, colonialism, neo-
colonialism, and globalization. The slave trade involved the trade
in human beings whereby able - bodied and productive Africans
were exported to Europe/America as labourers. Colonialism
involved the conquest and political control of Africans. Although
neo-colonialism is essentially the economic control of African
countries, it translates to political control as it compromises the
sovereignty of African States.

The Socialist Mode of Production

This mode is successor to the capitalist mode and prepares the ground for
communism to establish itself. The major means of production are transferred
to state control and the Proletariat exercise power in what is called “the
dictatorship of the Proletariat”. Thus, it is also class based, except that the
32
Proletariat now takes charge; the overthrown Bourgeoisie now battle for
survival, as the Proletariat set out to liquidate all attributes of the capitalist
system.
The use of the state as a tool of domination, therefore, remains. However,
the reason for domination changes, not to exploit, but to direct society in such
a way that justice will guide resource allocation. To this end, the state becomes
the employer, and workers work according to their ability and are rewarded
according to their work.
The socialist mode is a transient one, which as noted above, nurtures the
values required for the establishment of the communist mode. Accordingly,
when the nursery period is over, the socialist mode transits to the communist
mode.

The Communist Mode of Production

The communist mode marks the end of Marxist social change theory. It is
the end point of society’s development. Essentially, it is the rebirth of primitive
communal society in a different setting. Private ownership of the means of
production is abolished. Society is equally stateless and classless. The
oppressive and exploitative state withers away since it is a class phenomenon.
In this context, the mode of production and the superstructure (politics,
culture, etc), comprising the non-material aspect of society combine to make up
the social formation. Every society is, therefore, made of two elements – the
mode of production and the superstructure. The superstructure reflects the
mode of production, and therefore, the character of the substructure largely
defines the character of the state. Change in society therefore commences with
the mode of production and later transforms other aspects.
This implies that every mode of production has a corresponding political
structure, and therefore, the understanding of the politics of a particular society
or country necessarily requires an understanding of the character of the
economy. This is particularly important since those who wield economic power
equally exercise political power. Also of significance is the fact that the
character of the state (which is shaped by the economy) defines the character of
politics.

Political Economy
Antoine De Montchretein was the first to use the term in a work titled “The
Laws of Political Economy”. The use of the word was later strengthened by
scholars such as Adam Smith, James Mill, etc.
Marxian political economy assimilated the principles of Bourgeoisies
political economy as laid down by Adam Smith, David Ricardo and others. In
particular, Marx adopted the labour theory of value, which postulated that the

33
value of a commodity or product is determined by the labour required for its
manufacture (Volkov, 1985).
However, Bourgeois political economists saw production as a relationship
among things (factors of production) as they developed political economy as a
science that showed where and how private individuals and society increase
wealth (Borisov and Libman, 1985). In contrast, Marx developed the labour
theory of value to demonstrate that production is a social relationship among
people.
Marxian political economy was developed as a holistic and historical
method for studying the capitalist system (society) and its contradictory
relationships. The fundamental basis of Marxian political economy is
dialectical materialism, which studies the general laws governing the
development of nature, society and human thought (Volkov, 1985).
Following dialectical materialism, Marx used the doctrine of surplus value
to explain the exploitative nature of the capitalist system. He explains that
every man engages in socially necessary labour, in order to afford the needs
required for his survival. Marx points out that when labour is hired by the
capitalist, it is made to work beyond necessary labour; the excess labour
becomes surplus labour, and this creates surplus products and by extension
surplus value. The surplus value is the unpaid labour the capitalist takes as his
profit. Thus, Marx locates exploitation in production. The example below
further explains the doctrine of surplus values.

Example of How Surplus Values is Created

A worker spends 4 hours daily at work as his necessary labour and produces
8 loaves of bread at a cost of N200 a loaf. This same worker sells his labour to
a capitalist and consequently works for 12 hours to produce 24 loaves of bread.
This means that he has worked for 8 extra hours and produced 16 extra loaves
of bread, thus producing surplus for the capitalist. This is presented in
mathematical form for clear understanding.

Necessary Labour = 4 hours

Necessary Product = 8 loaves of bread
Cost of loaf of bread = N200.00
Surplus labour = Hours worked for capitalist
minus necessary labour =
12 hours – 4 hours = 8 hours.
Surplus product = number of loaves of bread produced for
capitalist
minus necessary product =
24 loaves – 8 loaves = 16 loaves.
Surplus value = Surplus products multiplied by value of each bread
34
 = 16 x 200
= N3, 200.00

In the above example, the worker produces 42 loaves of bread at a value of N4,
800. Of this sum N3, 200 go to the capitalist as his profit (surplus value)
whereas the actual producer gets N1, 200.00. The surplus value is thus the
value created in excess of what a worker needs, but which the capitalist
appropriates. This illustrates the exploitative nature of the capitalist system.
Marxist political economy as a tool of political analysis draws its strength from
the following:

1. It is holistic and historical and therefore provides a concrete basis for the
analysis and interpretation of society.

2. It adopts a material basis which gives insight into the changing modes of
production and direction of development.

3. It has a class basis which provides a guide for understanding the dynamics of
class contradictions and social reproduction (Ake, 1981, Ekekwe, 1986,
Akpakpan, 1991, Bottomore, 1961).

Scientific Socialism (Communism)

The theoretical sources of Marxist scientific socialism were doctrines of
French Utopian socialists such as Simon Claude Henry and Fourier Francis
Marie Charles. These men disliked capitalism because in their view, “the
prosperity of one group rests on the miseries of the other” (Fourier in Living
Marxism, 1985:11-12), and thus advocated for a new society.
Given the above, Fourier conceived a society that would promote the
actualization of the aspirations of every man. He called it phalanxes (Living
Marxism, 1985:12) – a collectivity of organized workers. He also called on
capitalists to help in the implementation of his ideas. But this represents a major
flaw in his postulations since capitalists are unlikely to help to destroy a system
they benefit from. This is also true of Saint-Simon whose criticism of
capitalism was harsh and angry; but he thought that the ideal society can be
managed by industrialists – workers, employers, merchants and bankers (Living
Marxism, 1985:12).
The socialist doctrines of Fourier, Saint-Simon and others suffered a
methodological weakness due to their failure to provide a strategy for the
enthronement of socialism. Marx, however, built on what they did and
transformed socialism from Utopia (a dream of an ideal social system) to a

35
science. With the doctrine of the class struggle as defined by dialectical and
historical materialism, he explained how the Proletariat could terminate the
exploitation of man by man, oppression of one nation by another so as to create
a society of social justice – communism (Borisov and Libman, 1985).
The class struggle demonstrates how material contradictions set in motion a
process that brings about a social revolution. The changes first occur in the
mode of production and later engulf the entire society. Marx demonstrated the
evils of the capitalist system and posited that because it is exploitative, it will
decay, and out of its ruins communism will emerge. In classical Marxist
thought, the changes are expected to follow the pattern demonstrated below.

Primitive Communal Society Slave-owning society

Feudal society Capitalist Society

Socialist Society Communist Society.

However, some Marxists (Engels, Stalin for instance) later argued that the
capitalist stage can be by-passed. In reality, this was what happened in the
socialist revolts. The former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) is a
classic example. On a final note, it is important to mention that no country has
attained communism.

High Points in the Marxist Approach to the Study of Politics

The basic teachings of the Marxist approach are summarized below:

• That first and foremost man is a material being; given that, he must
produce as a pre-condition of his material existence (his most important
activity) before he can do any other thing.
• That man’s material conditions define his consciousness.
• The material basis of society (mode of production) is a major
determinant of what happens in other aspects of society (superstructure).
• The character of the state and politics reflect the economic basis.
Accordingly, understanding the nature of the economic basis is a
requirement for understanding the nature of politics.
• That in class-based societies the dominant class controls both economic
and political power. To understand politics therefore, we must have a
clear idea of the character of this class.
• The state is partisan in its rule, which benefit the dominant class. This
is achieved through state legislations.

36
• Every exploitative social system collapses at a point; and that the class
struggle is the motor of such changes.
• Although capitalism is very efficient, the exploitation associated with it
makes it unjust. Accordingly it would collapse and out of its ruins
communism would emerge;
• The productive forces of a society are the major determinants of
development. No society develops beyond the level of development of
its productive forces.
• That religion is opium of the masses, which blocks the development of
political consciousness.

The Relevance of the Marxist Approach in a Changing World

Except for a few writers, many now argue that Marxism is “dead”, and is,
therefore, no longer useful in political analysis. Given the collapse of the
leading socialist country, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR),
many political analysts argue that Marxist doctrine is no longer relevant to the
contemporary world. But this view is rather narrow in outlook. It tends to see
Marxism only in the light of socialism (communism). It is clear, however, that
socialism is only one of the three components of Marxism. Although socialism
has suffered a major setback, the doctrines of dialectical and historical
materialism remain an objective truth that cannot be denied.

The Systems Theory

The systems method sees the political system as an organism, and
consequently, considers politics as an activity of interrelated parts (structures)
and processes in a society. Varman (1975:161) describes its usefulness thus:

The concepts developed by the general system theory open up new questions and
create new dimensions for investigation into the political processes, and several
of them can be used to great advantage by political scientists in their own analysis
of political phenomena…we can…make a distinction between the open and
closed systems, and immediately a number of questions open up before us for
investigation…what distinguishes the open system from the closed system, how
the open system or the closed system operates to the stability, equilibrium and
effectiveness, or instability, disruption, and breakdown of the political


Lenin exposed the bourgeoisie which used relation (belief in the supernatural) to enslave the
working people spiritually. Thus, the struggle against the capitalist system included the need
to free the working people from religious enslavement by the exploiter state. He advocated that
every man should be absolutely free to profess any religion or none at all, and that all creed-
based discrimination of citizen was unacceptable. Lenin came out against all kinds of hostility
between believers and non-believers, for such hostility distracts the working people from their
struggle against an exploiter system (Lenin, in Borisov and Libman (ends), 1985:94.).

37
 system…the systems analysis is…useful in the understanding of systematic
changes or systematic breakdown.

System analysis, therefore, illuminates the functional requirements of a

political system. The knowledge it throws up will certainly strengthen the
efficiency of political systems, as well as give a clear insight into the dynamics
and workings of political systems. The Systems Analysis of David Easton and
Gabriel Almond will be discussed here.

David Easton’s System Analysis

David Easton explains how the political system works in an input – output
relationship in the making of authoritative decisions. In the Eastonian model,
the political system responds to demands from its environment in the exercise
of political power. (See graphical presentation below).

Figure 2.2: Diagram of the Eastonian Political System Model

Environment
O
I The Political Decisions and u
Demands System
n Policies
t
p
Supports
p
u u

t t
s
s

Feedback

38
 Environment

The making of decisions follows this pattern. Inputs made of demands and
supports get into the political system where the authoritative decision makers
reside. The demands represent what the citizens want from the political system
as defined by the duties the system owes the people. Examples include the
demand for the provision of social amenities, employment, security, right to
vote and be voted for, and so on.
The supports refer to the resources, actions and orientations with which the
system functions. These include payment of tax, obedience to laws, respect for
constituted authority, participation in community and national service, voting
at elections, taking part in census, and so on. All these come from the
environment outside the political system, and which represents the domain of
the ordinary members of society.

Environment
This means the interrelationship which exists among man, other
living beings, water, air, plants and land. It is classified into
physical and human development. The physical environment is
made of the land, air and water. Man’s creations on the physical
environment constitute the human environment. The political
system is located in the human environment. The political system
is located in the human environment which is both internal and
external. The internal environment is within a country, while the
external environment is in other countries. Both environments
influence or affect the political system. Events in other countries
can throw up challenges for the Nigerian political system, just as
events in the country will do. This is also true of the physical
environment. For example, environment changes or devastations
such as earthquake, flood, drought, desert encroachment, erosion
and pollution, puts pressure on the political system.

The participation of citizens in politics, therefore, takes the form of input

relation with the political system. It should be noted that the environment takes
internal and external dimensions and that it affects the political system and is in
turn influenced by the political system. When inputs get into the political
system, they undergo a conversion process which essentially is an exercise in
policy making.

39
 Policy: Simply refers to a chosen course of action designed to
achieve set goals. In governance, public policy translates the
visions and intentions of political leaders into reality. The public
policy process consists of policy making, implementation and
evaluation

Demands usually throw up policy choices predicated on the level of

supports. The authorities usually balance demands and supports before taking
decisions. This is to avoid stress and possible systemic collapse. This process
leads to authoritative decisions or policy outcomes (output) that are passed on
to the environment. The political system gets the response of the people
through the feedback loop, which acts as a tool of policy evaluation/impact
analysis.

What is Systemic Stress?

Systemic stress is a condition which threatens or endangers the stability or
effectiveness of a political system. It takes two dimensions – input and output
stress. There are two types as of input stress – demand stress and support stress.
Demand stress results when demands overflow into the political system. It
arises when authorities do not limit the number and variety of demands that
enter the system (Ake, 1979:90). Easton noted that demand stress can be
checked by limiting the volume of demands that go into the political system,
and also, by increasing the capacity of the political system to bear demands.
Demand stress can also be checked by the effective use of communication
channels to curtail the flow of excessive demands into the political system.
Also, policy makers can contain demand stress in the conversion process by
limiting demands to resource capability (Gauba, 2003). This is, however,
predicated on a leadership that is disciplined and dedicated to the public good.
Related to demand stress is support stress. This results when support falls
below a minimum level (Ake, 1979:90). Support stress is caused by factors
such as the failure of government to meet the expectations and aspirations of
the people, alienation of the people from government, a feeling among citizens
that a government is illegitimate or corrupt, and low level of political
consciousness. This can be checked with a number of measures:

• By making changes in the structure and processes that characterize a

particular type of political system. This involves changes in goals and
structures.

40
• By instilling in the members of a political system a high level of diffuse
support in order that regardless of what happens the member will
continue to be bound to it by strong ties of loyalty and affection.

• By stimulating the input of specific support. This implies input to a

system that occurs as a return for the specific benefits and advantages
that members of a system experience as part of their membership (Ake,
1979:90).

Output stress refers to a situation where the decision or policies of

government are not accepted or are considered unsatisfactory by some citizens,
either because it falls below expectation or it is out of sync (not congruent) with
the aspirations of the people. This condition undermines loyalty and obedience
to government; it manifests as strikes, boycotts, demonstrations, and in the
extreme, rebellion or insurrection. These are challenges that constrain the
stability and efficiency of a political system.
Output stress undermines the support citizens give to the political system.
This contributes to support stress which reduces the capability of government
to meet the expectations (demands) of the people. This worsens output stress,
and therefore,creates a vicious cycle of stress, which if not checked, can lead to
the destruction of a political system. Output stress can be checked by ensuring
that government policies and actions are congruent with the aspirations and
expectations of the people.

The Feedback Loop

The feedback is the communication channel between the political system
and its environment. The people’s response to government action gets to the
system through public opinion and citizens demands. The feedback is very
essential for the survival of the political system, as it enables the system to
respond to stress.
The place given to feedback depends on the nature of the political system.
An open political system depends on feedback more than a closed political
system. For example, a democracy is predicated on feedback more than a
military dictatorship. It is deducible that feedback makes government more
responsive and thus inclusive and participatory.
When a political system is closed, feedback plays a partisan role that benefits
the leadership. For example, government in power uses information generated
from feedback to strengthen its rule and contain all elements of opposition.
Accordingly, the people are alienated from government and this undermines
their loyalty and obedience to government. To elicit obedience, the government
41
resorts to bureaucratic authoritarianism (force) that often lead to violence and
instability.
Although the Eastonian model has been accused of being too abstract,
conservative and Eurocentric, it is a useful guide for the analysis of politics. It
provides some useful insights into the stability and survival of political systems
through the management of stress

Gabriel – Almond and Structural Functional Analysis

Structural-functionalism was first adopted as a framework of analysis in
sociology before it came to political science (Varman, 1975). Functionalism
sees the society as a social system made of interdependent parts which performs
individual functions that are necessary for the survival and stability of the entire
system (Anele 1999). Emile Durkheim is acclaimed to be the father of
functionalism. Another leading proponent was Talcott Parsons.
In political science, structural-functional analysis deals with the structures
and functions of a political system. In specific terms, it answers three crucial
questions – what are the structures in a political system? What functions do the
structures perform? And under what conditions do the structures perform these
functions? (Varman, 1975).
Gabriel Almond adopted functionalism to explain the functionality of the
political system. He was particularly interested in how political systems change
from traditional to modern (Varman, 1975:166). Almond’s view of the political
system reflects Easton’s view which sees it as a pattern of interaction that gives
rise to authoritative decisions.
Almond also examines the workings of the political system in terms of input
– output relationships. He identifies seven functions of political system, and
divides them into output and input functions. The input functions are performed
by non-governmental subsystems, the society and the environment (the aspect
of society outside the political system). The input functions are: Political
socialization and recruitment. This means the induction of people into politics;
interest articulation; interest aggregation; and political communication that is
information flow within the political system.
Political socialization and recruitment are performed by a combination of
elements which include the school, family, peer group, church, and so on.
Interest articulation is performed by interest/pressure groups. Political parties
undertake the function of interest aggregation, while the mass media (print and
electronic) execute the political communication function. The output functions
are the traditional domain of government, and include rule making; rule
application; and rule adjudication (Varma, 1975).
The legislature performs the rule making function, the executive rule
application, and the judiciary, rule adjudication. The interplay of the input and
output structures/functions makes the political system to work. The efficiency
42
of the system is predicated on each structure performing its assigned role. The
inefficiency of the one undermines the entire system.
For example, if the legislature fails to perform its supervisory functions over
government spending, budget discipline or control, the congruence between
government spending and budgetary provisions in terms of objectives and
approved sum of money will be difficult to achieve and this will impact on
national development negatively.
Similarly, the ability of a structure to perform its assigned role determines
the efficiency of the system. For example, a judiciary that lacks independence
cannot be effective in the performance of its duties, and could cause the entire
system to be impaired. This is also true of other structures such as political
parties and pressure/interest groups. For instance, the discipline and
organizational strength of political parties promote political stability. On this,
it is pertinent to mention that undisciplined political parties encourage election
fraud, which creates election violence and instability.
It is clear that nature of the structures in a political system largely define the
character of politics. This explains variations in the character of politics among
different countries. Highlighting this, Almond (cited in Varma, 1975:171)
declared that:

…What distinguishes the Western, the more highly developed, political systems
from the others is that they have more specialized structures’ for interest-
articulation (interest groups), interest-aggregation (political parties), and political
communication (the mass media) in relation to developing countries where the
structures are not so highly specialized.

The above reference implies that the political system performs better with
specialized structures, that is functional specificity. This provides a guide in
the analysis of politics in different countries and within a particular country.
For example, it can help us to answer some of these fundamental questions.
Why is election rigging and violence a common feature of the Nigerian political
process? Why is government in the developed countries more responsive to the
aspirations of the people than government in the less developed countries? Why
is the rule of law respected in some countries, and ignored in others? Etc.
Almond was concerned with the stability of the system, and thus, he
highlighted the issue of system stress and capability (Varma, 1975). Stress
refers to challenges, which endanger the stability of the political system while
capability is the ability of the political system to cope with stress. Like Easton,
he maintained that the political system could contain stress by balancing input
and output. The political system faces a number of challenges, which arise from
within the political system itself, the environment, and other political systems.
These can be classified as internal stress (challenges which originate within the

43
political system and its internal environment) and external stress (challenges
which originate from external environment – other political systems).
Political elites and other political actors, by their actions subject the system
to stress. For instance, the lack of discipline, honesty, and patriotism among a
political class throws up a number of challenges (corruption, the lack of
frugality in managing national resources, etc) which undermine the efficiency
of the political system. In Nigeria for example, this partly explains the
country’s lack of progress on the ladder of development.
Similarly, the variety of groups in the environment creates challenges for the
system. These are in the form of demands on the system, like vicious
competition for resources, etc. Again, a political system generates problems for
another political system. For example, the instability of the political systems in
Liberia, Sierra-Leone, Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, etc. have created
numerous challenges (insecurity, refugee problems, the need for peacekeeping
and cost involved, etc) for other political systems – Nigeria, Ghana, Bourkina-
Fasso, Uganda, etc.
The capability of the system to cope with stress is predicated on a number
of factors. First are the potential resources available for extraction (Varman,
1975:173). Where a political system is able to exploit more of its resources to
meet challenges, it can cope with stress. If workers demand a wage increase,
the ability of government to pay depends on available resources. If the
resources base is large enough, then the government can accommodate the
demand. The reverse would be the case if the resource base is narrow.
Certainly, a narrow resource base will place the political system in a difficult
situation that could endanger its stability.
Related to this is the ability of the political system to distribute goods and
services to its members (Varman, 1975). The more a political system provides
for its members, the stronger it is. One advantage here is that it guarantees that
the people identify with the government. This facilitates the mobilization of the
people for further development.
Again, the capability of the political system to manage stress is predicated
on how well it exercises control over individuals and groups; that is its ability
to enforce compliance to its rule. This is, however, defined by the character of
the state in terms of its autonomy. Where the state is autonomous, it effectively
exercises control. The lack of autonomy constrains this ability, as the dominant
class pulls the state in different directions. In such circumstance, the state even
finds it difficult to mediate conflicts because it is often drawn into participating
in the conflict (Ekekwe, 1986, Ake, 2001).
Almonds structural-functional analysis sheds light on how to maintain the
political system. Its teachings highlight the differences in political systems and
by extension the character of politics in different societies. Although it is
Eurocentric, it is clearly a useful and incisive method of political analysis.
44
The Political Culture Approach
The term culture simply means the way people organize their collective life.
Collective existence is characterized of a number of institutions (economic,
political, religious, etc) and the relationships which govern them. The particular
pattern of relationships exhibited by a group towards these elements of society
as defined by beliefs, norms and values constituted culture.
Thus, we can talk of economic culture, political culture, religious culture,
etc. Significantly, these are expressed or manifest as patterns of behaviour. In
this regard, political culture has been adopted as a method of political analysis
by political scientists. Political culture has been explained differently by
scholars. However, the consensus on what it means is captured by Almond and
Powell (1966:50). According to them:

Political culture is the pattern of individual attitudes and orientation towards

politics among the members of a political system. It is the subjective realm which
underlines and gives meaning to political action…

The above statement implies that political culture is the pattern of political
behaviour demonstrated by a group in a political system. It further highlights
the fact that political culture shapes the character of politics. A critical look at
its elements or components would make the meaning clearer.

The Elements or Components of Political Culture

Almond and Powell (1966:50) identified three elements on components of
political culture – the Cognitive Orientation, Affective Orientation and
Evaluative Orientation. These are explained below.

Cognitive Orientation
This requires having knowledge of the political system. It involves the
understanding of institutions and structures in the political system, their roles
and functions, the laws of the state, rights/duties and obligations of citizenship,
the political processes as defined by its values and norms, and so on.
It is deducible that this will be predicated on a number of things - level of
education or literacy; the openness and inclusive character of the political
system, its responses to the aspirations of the people and the effectiveness of
the institutions of socialization, interest articulation and aggregation. (The
school, mass media, political parties/interest groups, etc.).
The cognitive orientation promotes political consciousness which enhances
the stability and efficiency of the political system. For example, citizens will
now know the kinds of actions that endanger the system and therefore avoid
negative decisions. Again, it will promote rational political decisions such as

45
who to vote for at elections. It equally makes the mobilization of citizens for
the development process much more effective in less developed countries like
Nigeria; it can help to minimize primordial ethnic loyalties.

The Affective Orientation

This refers to the feelings of attachment to involve in and rejection of political
objects (Almond and Powell, 1966:50). Three issues are recognizable here -
attachment to the political system; involvement in the affairs of the political
system; and rejection of the political system. All these are based on perceptions
or feelings which can influence political behaviour.
Attachment to a political system necessarily brings about a total
identification between the people and the government. This is largely defined
by the level of response of the system to the aspirations of the people. An
individual or group may develop such feelings on the basis of self-interest or
common interest. What this means is that a government in power may satisfy
the selfish interest of a group or individual, and for that reason, an attachment
develops. Significantly, a government may be fair, just and efficient in its rule
to the extent that the entire citizens will become attached to it.
This has implications for the politics of a country. If the feelings of
attachment are anchored on selfish interests, it endangers a political system
since the loyalty of such groups and individuals is limited. Such groups cannot
be relied on since they easily switch support to wherever there is bread and
butter. In contrast, a general feeling of attachment based on good governance
strengthens the political system. It guarantees total identification between the
government and the people; thus in times of crisis (for example external
aggression or internal insurrection), it ensures firm cohesion and rapid popular
mobilization in defense of the state (Wilmot, 1983). This is also true of feelings
of involvement in the political system.
Feelings of rejection constrain development in all ramifications. Such
feelings alienate the citizens from the government. The citizens see the state as
an object to be cheated (Ake, 2001 & 1996). This promotes corruption and
other forms of indiscipline, and more significantly, hinder the mobilization of
the citizens for the development process.

The Evaluative Orientation

This means the making of value judgment and opinions about the political
system (Almond and Powell, 1966:50). It is influenced by both the Cognitive
and Affective Orientations. Knowledge of the political system and attachment
to it certainly determine the judgments and opinions people pass on the system.
Knowledge of the political system however, promotes the making of correct
judgments which strengthens the stability and efficiency of a political system.

46
 It is discernible from the above that the different types of orientations cannot
be placed in neat compartments in a political system. Furthermore, individually
or collectively they create political behaviour which shape the character of
politics in different societies.

Types of Political Culture

Political culture is classified as parochial, subject and participant political
cultures. It is imperative to note that these are general or major classifications
that are not exclusive; they overlap. Other variants are parochial – subject,
subject-participant, and parochial participant political cultures.

Parochial Political Culture

Parochial political culture refers to a group in a population who has little or
no awareness of the political process (Almond and Powell, 1966). Such persons
lack knowledge of the scope of the political system, its structures and roles.
This refers particularly to natural political institutions. The people’s political
actions are limited to their locality. Nna (2004:138) notes that in a parochial
political culture:

…the citizens political orientation towards the political system is

weak…institutional and role differentiation are also relatively weak. The citizen
neither relates himself positively to national institutions…and policies nor sees
himself as affecting them; in short, he is apolitical…

Indifference to politics in a political system is attributable to a number of

factors. First is the effect of close political systems. In traditional political
societies for instance, the structure of social stratification excludes some social
groups from the political system. Equally, the overbearing nature of authority
in some traditional political systems places people outside the political scope.
Those affected are thus politically apathetic.
In modern political systems, bureaucratic authoritarianism, the lack of good
governance, and the abuse of leadership succession procedures (election rigging
for instance), bring about indifference to politics among those who are victims
of the above vices. Ignorance is also a notable factor. Whether in traditional
or modern political systems, the lack of knowledge of political objects and
issues “blinds” people to politics and make them parochial. Furthermore, the
alienation of people from politics, in terms of resources allocation and
participation, engenders a parochial attitude to politics.


Particularly national institutions may relate to local political institutions.

47
 In the same vein, the obsession with daily subsistence, particularly among
the less privileged group in the society also promotes lack of interest in politics.
For example, evidence shows that peasants in African communities are
generally apolitical. In Nigeria, this explains why they exchange their votes for
“cups of salt”.

Peasants
These are rural based people who engage mainly in fishing,
farming and related activities. Their production is characterized by
manual labour and the use of crude implements. They primarily
produce for subsistence, and generally use their family labour for
production. They usually bear the burden of development by
producing food and raw materials. Similarly, they give up their
lands for development and provide cheap labour for industries.

Parochial political culture constrains the efficiency of a political system.

Indifference to politics slows down the growth of political systems. An
organized and politically conscious civil society promotes democracy, whereas
a parochial political culture undermines the development of political
consciousness. The success of military coups and the culture of election rigging
in Africa are attributable in part to the prevalence of a parochial political
culture. Such issues and phenomena either go unnoticed, or just do not bother
the parochial. Indeed, election fraud is easily perpetrated in an apolitical group
or society. It also constrains national integration as such parochial groups
hardly see themselves as an integral part of national politics.

Subject Political Culture

This is characterized by individuals and groups that are oriented to the
political system and the impact of its outputs, but not to substantial participation
in its structures (Almond and Powel, 1966:23). Individuals or groups have a
bearing on political structures and roles. They reasonably understand how the
48
system works, make demands on it and benefit from its outputs. However, they
hardly participate in the political process. To this end, the inputs they make
into the political system are very limited.
The situation is one in which the citizen largely thinks of what the
government can or should do for him, without a “payback” on his part. The
citizen hardly gives to the system, resulting in indiscipline and the lack of
patriotism, factors which undermine society’s growth and progress.

Participant Political Culture

Participant political culture describes individuals and groups who are
oriented to participating in the making of political demands and political
decisions (Almond and Powell, 1966:23). Such persons are politically
conscious and therefore active participants in politics. This is in sharp contrast
to parochial political culture which is characterized by apathy to politics
Participant political culture, and by extension, political participation,
benefits a political system in several ways. For example, when citizens take
part in politics, they acquire knowledge of the political system (its structures,
roles and operation). This enables them to make correct judgments about the
system and helps to promote stability, given that it reduces speculation,
suspicion and rumours which are usually the basis of rash decisions that give
rise to misunderstanding, violence, insecurity and instability.
Furthermore, political participation enhances transparency, accountability
and probity in governance. It makes government to be responsive in satisfying
the aspirations of the people. In addition, it strengthens constitutionalism/the
rule of law and the guarantee of human rights. It is significant to note that in a
democracy, political participation is one of the central elements, which
expresses itself as the popular will of the people.

Pluralism
Pluralism highlights the group basis of competitive politics in liberal or
capitalist societies. It argues for an institutionalized arrangement that
guarantees the sharing of political power among competing groups in society.
This method of political analysis is based on a number of assumptions that are
derived from the values of the capitalist system and advances liberalism.

Liberalism
Liberalism is a political philosophy anchored on liberty or freedom
of individuals, minimal involvement of government in economic
activities and free capitalist enterprise. It posits that man is
rational, and possesses rights that cannot be violated by
government or society. It sees the state as an artificial being
created by man to promote his interests, and advocates adherence
49
 to procedure in governance. It equally upholds competition,
contract and bargaining in the realization of individual and group
interests. Liberalism sees politics as the reconciliation of
incompatible, contradictory or conflicting interests.

First is that the state is neutral. This means that in the exercise of power or rule,
the state is not partisan and therefore its rule benefits all groups equally.
Following this, it insists that the state’s role is the establishment of enabling
laws that will govern competing interests or groups. To this end, the state is not
expected to interfere in the activities of the people, but to guide them through
the enactment of just laws. This is in conformity with the position of Hobbes
(the Leviathan in Wayper, 1974) who argues that the laws of the state only guide
the actions of the citizens. It does not interfere or control their lives.
The crucial point to note here is that the actualization of interests is anchored
on competition. And to strengthen competition, pluralism contends that the
groups in society are equal. It thus assumes that no single group dominates or
monopolizes the decision-making apparatus of the state. In politics, therefore,
each group is expected to have access to the state in order to actualize its
interests. This would translate to a character of politics which although
competitive, is just and therefore promotes the public good.
From the viewpoint of the pluralists, the various groups in society have and
pursue incompatible interests. However, the neutrality of the state promotes
each interest. For example, orthodox churches in Christendom compete for
power and influence. This is also true of Moslems and Christians. Similarly,
indigenous people and settlers in a society usually contest for power and
resources.
Similarly, while businessmen in the tobacco and alcohol beverage industry
seek the removal of restrictions on their spheres of investments, religious and
non-governmental organizations that are anti tobacco or alcohol would want
such restrictions to be made more rigid. Retail Traders and Manufacturers,
Industrialists and Agriculturalist, Medical Doctors and Nurses, Academic and
Non-academic Staff of Universities, etc, all stand in opposition in the realization
of their interests.
At the state level, the government in power and the opposition (contending
political parties), all have opposing interests they seek to actualize. Given that
they are equal, and the state is not partisan, all groups advance their interest.
The resource distributive mechanism is therefore non-exclusive.
The United States is usually cited as the best example of a country where
pluralism is obtainable. Evidence, however, shows that the social groups in
America are not equal, because they do not posses equal levels of the elements
of power. This is also true of gender relations – the inequality of the male and

50
female gender. Indeed, in capitalist societies, equality is not concrete; rather, it
is formal. This, therefore, undermines freedom and competition, made worse
by the fact that the state in the capitalist society lacks neutrality – it is partisan.
The reality in America and other capitalist countries, however, approximate
the tenets of pluralism. This is not difficult to understand given that the
doctrines of the plural method of political analysis are anchored on the values
of the capitalist system. The reverse is the case in political systems that are
either not capitalist or lowly developed capitalist systems. The foregoing would
indicate that as a tool of political analysis, pluralism has little relevance in
countries like Nigeria.

Elite Theory
Political science literature has noted that the term “elite’ was derived from
the French and literally meant something excellent. Elite is thus seen as superior
social group characterized by the highest ability in any field of human
endeavour (Gauba, 2003: 258). This suggests that there are different settings of
elites, and we can, therefore, have political elites, elite lawyers, banking elites,
etc. In political analysis, the elite theory is traced to Vilfredo Pareto, Gaetano
Mosca and Robert Michels. The theory is based on a number of propositions.
Firstly, society is divided into two groups, a minority which takes political
decisions and a majority which is ruled. Those who rule are the elites while the
ruled are the masses. Secondly, the rule of the dominant class is necessary to
ensure proper organization of the majority who are considered to be
unorganized. The third proposition is that the masses have no chance of
becoming part of the elites. Other propositions are that elites are drawn
disproportionately from the upper socio-economic strata of society. Public
policies reflects elite interests and preferences, and the relationship between the
elites and masses in society tend towards conflict due to the concentration of
power in the elites, lack of access to power by the masses and the lack of
accountability in governance (Eminue, 2001; Gauba, 2003, Nna, 2004).
The elite theory further makes a distinction between “governing elite” (
those in power at a particular point in time) and “non-governing elite” (those
elites who are out of power). The “non-governing elite” is in constant motion
to capture power while the “governing elite” always seeks to retain power,
leading to a constant competition for power which results in what has been
described as the “circulation of elites”, the movement of power from one
segment of the elites to another (Gauba, 2003). However, Robert Michels “Iron
Law of Oligarchy” contests the “circulation of elites” thesis. Michel argues that
every organization ends up with rule by the chosen few, because majority of
people in society are “apathetic, indolent and slavish.”Consequently he
observes, those who govern perpetuate themselves in power to the extent that it
becomes very difficult to replace them (Gauba, 2003:259). The elite theory is
51
further classified into single elite model and group/plural elite model. Table 2.3
provides insights into the characteristics of the two models.

Table 2.3: Characteristics of Single Elite and Group Elite Models

Single Elite Model Group/Plural Elite Model
(1)Power is derived from roles or positions (1)Individuals acquire power in their
occupied by people in the socio-economic and relationship with others in the decision
political system. making process.
(2)Power relationships tend to persist over (2)Power relationships do not persist over
time. Issues and elections may come and go time.
but the same leadership group retains power. (3)The distinction between elites and
(3)There is a clear distinction between elites masses may be blurred. Individuals move in
and masses. The masses can only join the and out of the ranks of decision makers with
elites by acquiring high positions in the relative ease, depending on the nature of
institutional structures of the society. decisions.
(4)The distinction between the elites and (4)The distinction between elites and
masses is based primarily on control over masses is based primarily on the level of
economic resources of society. interest people have in a particular decision.
(5)Small group exercise power and influence Access to decision making can be achieved
at the top of the political system. through the skills of leadership,
(6)The elites are conservative and share organization, information and knowledge
consensus on issues. They are always about democratic processes and skills in
cohesive when the system is threatened. public relations. Wealth or economic power
(7)The elites are not influenced by the masses is an important asset in politics, but is only
one of many assets.
(5)There are multiple elites and as such no
single group dominates the decision
making process on all issues.
(6)There is high level competition among
elites, and public policies are based on
negotiation and compromise.
(7)The masses can exercise reasonable
influence over elites through elections and
membership of organizations. Masses hold
elites accountable in what is described as
democratic elitism.

Source: Nna, 2004: 96-98

The elite theory has been criticized for a number of reasons. Firstly, it has
been accused of lack of empiricism and clear methodology in the identification
of the elites who actually exercise political power in society. Secondly, its lack
of specification on the scope of elite influence has also been given severe
knocks by political analysts (Eminue, 2001). Despite these criticisms, however,
the theory provides a good insight into the workings of the political system. For
example, the issues of elite preference and interests in public policy
determination, the retention of political power by particular groups, cohesion
and consensus among elites in the face of threats to the political system, etc
52
raised by the theory aptly captures the reality in Nigeria. The continuation of
the privatization and deregulation policies by successive governments in
Nigeria despite the painful, complaints of the masses, the agreement to zone the
presidency to the southern part of the country, and particularly to the south-west
geo-political zone in 1998 following the threat posed to the stability of the
country by the annulment of the June 12, 1993 presidential elections, and the
perpetuation of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) in power despite its many
intra-party problems that have tended towards the split of the party attest to this.

References

Ake, Claude (2001), “The Political Question”, in H.E. Alapiki (eds) The
Nigerian Political Process, Emhai Printing and Publishing
Company, Port Harcourt

Ake, Claude,(2001), “The State in Contemporary Africa”, in H.E. Alapiki (eds)

The Nigerian Political Process, Emhai Printing and
Publishing Company, Port Harcourt

Ake, Claude (1981), A Political Economy of Africa, Longman, Nigeria, 1981.

Ake, Claude (1996), Democracy and Development in Africa, Spectrum Books

Ltd, Ibadan, 1996.

Ake, Claude (1979), Social Science as Imperialism, University Press, Ibadan

Akpakpan, Edet (1991), Economics: Beyond Demand and Supply, New

Generation Publishers, Port Harcourt

Almond, G.A. and B.G. Powell Jnr.(1966), Comparative Politics: A

Development Approach, Little Brown and Co., Boston

Anele, K.A.(1999), Social Change and Social Problems in Nigeria, Springfield

Publishers, Owerri

Borisov, E.F. and G.I. Libman (eds)(1985), A Reader on Social Sciences,

Progress Publishers, Moscow

Dahl, Robert (1995), Modern Political Analysis, (5th edition), Prentice Hall,
India,

Ekekwe, Eme 1986), Class and State in Nigeria, Macmillan, Nigeria

53
Eminue, O. (2001), Introduction to Political Science, CATS Publishers, Calabar

Gauba, O.P. (2003), An Introduction to Political Theory (4th Edition),

Macmillan, India

Haralambos, M.(1980), Themes and Perspectives in Sociology, University

Tutorial Press, Great Britain

Litcheim, George (1970), A Short History of Socialism, Praeger Publishers,

Great Britain

Living Marxism: From Utopia to a Science, Novosi Press Agency Publishing

House, Moscow, 1985.

Luckac’s George (1968), History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist

Dialectic, Rodney Livingstone Merlin Press, London

Marx, K. and F. Engels (1988), Manifesto of the Communist Party, Foreign

Languages Press, Beijing Chine

Nkrumah, Kwame (1974), Neo-colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism,

Panaf Books, Ltd, Great Britain

Nna, N.J. (2004), Contemporary Political Analysis (2nd edition), Springfield

Publishers, Owerri

Nwaorgu, O.C. (2002), Dimension of Political Analysis, Springfield Publishers,

Owerri

Varman, S.P. Modern Political Theory 1975), Vikas Publishing House, India

Volkov, M.I.(1985), A Dictionary of Political Economy, Progress Publishers,

Moscow

Wayper, C.L.(1973), Political Thought, English Universities Press Limited,

England

Wilmot, P.F.(1983), Apartheid and African Liberation, University of Ife Press

Limited, Ile-Ife,

54
 CHAPTER 3

THE STATE AND POLITICS

Meaning and Importance of the State

Political science literature throws up differing views on the meaning of the
State. For instance, Laski (1961:1) sees it as the ‘‘crowning-point of the modern
social edifice’’; Ake (2001:26) defines it as a specific modality of class
domination; Watkins (in Alapiki, 2000:21) explains it to mean a territory in
which a single authority exercises sovereign powers. Again, Oyovbaire
(1980:3) sees the State as the organizational structure that provides society with
the necessary cohesive factor and maintains its unity of existence. Miliband
(1969:49) defines the state as a number of particular institutions which,
together, constitute its reality, and which interact as parts of what may be called
the state system.
Three issues can be discerned from the above. First, is that the State is an
instrument of social regulation. Second, that it is a coercive power. And third,
that it is a legal entity. As an instrument of social regulation, the State is seen
as a mechanism for controlling the affairs of men. It imposes principles of
behaviour which regulates the conduct of men (Laski, 1961)
It should, however, be noted that the State is not the only instrument of social
regulation; the family, school and church, among others are equally
mechanisms for the regulation of human conduct. A logical question arises in
this regard. What makes the State different from other institutions of social
regulation? This is attributable to three factors.

(i) The State possesses coercive power, whereas the other institutions do
not;

(ii) The State is a more permanent entity than the other institutions. States
do disintegrate and new ones formed as in the case of the former Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). However, such occurrence is
limited when compared to the other institutions that can be completely
obliterated.

55
(iii) Membership and obedience to the state is compulsory; it is usually
voluntary with the other institutions. As a legal entity, the State is
characterized by government, territory, people and sovereignty. As long
as an individual lives within the territory of a State, he is compulsorily
a member of that State and must comply with all laws or face sanctions.
Unlike the state, an individual can opt out of a church, family or school.

It is also instructive that all other institutions of social regulation are

subordinated to the State.
Ultimately, the possession of the instruments of force, and by extension, the
power of compulsion makes the State to stand out among the other instruments
of social regulation. The coercive apparatus of the State include the Police, the
Armed Forces and the Prisons. The components of the State include
government, the instruments of force and all levels of bureaucracy (Miliband,
1969:49).
The State is thus seen as an instrument through which political power is
exercised. It is the ultimate power in a society. In the words of Laski (1961:1):

The State…lays down a system of imperatives, and uses coercion to secure

obedience to them. From its own standpoint, the validity of these imperatives is
self-derived. They are legal, not because they are good, or just, or wise, but
because they are its imperatives. They are the legal expression of the way in
which men should act as laid down by the authority, which is alone competent to
make final decisions of this kind.

This explains its pivotal place in socio-political organization. To this end a

clear understanding of the State is very crucial in political studies. The State is
the object of political competition, and for this reason its character defines the
nature of politics in a society. A State is either autonomous or lacks autonomy.
An autonomous state is not manipulated and pulled in different directions by
the ruling/dominant class. Accordingly, it is not privatized. This means that the
state is not used as a medium for accumulating wealth for those who control it
as against promoting the interest of the entire society and thus, politics is
directed to the benefit of all members of society. Furthermore, the political
process is governed by the rule of law, an important ingredient for political
stability.
However, where the state lacks autonomy or has only limited autonomy. It
is likely to be an instrument of the ruling/dominant class for the accumulation
of wealth. The lack of autonomy means that the state is not detached from the
dominant class, and for this reason, it is used as a tool for the pursuit of parochial
interests (Ake, 2001:45). When the state is autonomous, it is detached from the
dominant class, and this places it above the dominant class even though it might
promote the interests of the class.
56
 The lack of autonomy by a State creates a desperate and normless struggle
for power, which sets in instability. This state of affairs hinders development
in several ways. Firstly, the instability which results from politics of
lawlessness drives out investments, and hinders productivity. Secondly, the
high value placed on retaining political power makes the leadership to ignore
development. The resultant view is that politics is an enterprise. Public funds
are thus diverted to private pockets, instead of being directed into development
(Ake 1996:8).
Worse, accountability, transparency, and frugality in the management of
national resources, all essential ingredients of governance for development are
undermined. Finally, citizens are alienated from the State and this is a
constraint against mobilizing them for development.
As I have noted earlier, the character of the State largely explains the sharp
contrast in the character of politics and level of development between the Less
Developed Countries (Africa for instance) and the Developed Countries of
Europe and America. The State in Europe and America is largely autonomous,
and for this reason, is placed below the rule of law. This shapes the character
of politics which is directed towards the actualization of the aspirations of the
people. The reverse is the case in Africa.

The State: Theories of Origin

The origin of the State has been a subject of debate among philosophers,
political thinkers and scholars. This has given rise to a variety of theories on the
origin of the State. These include the divine theory, the machine theory, and
the natural or organic theory.

The Divine Theory

This theory postulates that God ordained the State. This means that the
creation and establishment of the State is willed by God. Put differently, it
posits that God created the State. Medieval philosophy posits that the state was
created by God for two reasons. First, as a punishment against man due to his
disobedience to God’s injunction in the Garden of Eden. Second, to redeem
man from sin, by regulating the conduct of men on earth, to avert anarchy and
collapse of society.
This implies that earthly government is ordained by God, and to that extent,
all other institutions (including Christendom), must be subordinated to it. Thus,
all men and institutions must obey the state because it is God’s creation. The
divine theory of the State laid the basis for the idea of the divine rights of kings,
and by extension, royal absolutism.

57
The Natural/Organic Theory
This theory sees the State as a natural institution which evolves as a living
organism, and develops from one stage to another in response to man’s quest
for a gregarious life or collective existence. Aristotle’s conception of the State
as a natural institution clearly explains this. Aristotle argued that man is only
self-sufficing when he lives in a collectivity, and that a natural instinct drives
him to form a political community.

Political Community
Political community refers to a collectivity or association of people
in a geographical unit, bound together by common agreements of
governance. The people see themselves as a single entity under a
government.

Aristotle elaborated that the development of the state begins with the family,
which is an association of husband/wife, children and slaves. The family exists
to provide man with his daily recurrent needs. However, the family develops
to a point and disintegrates to form a village - an association of families, which
in addition to the daily recurrent needs (food, etc) laid the basis for culture,
religion, and justice. Finally, the village metamorphoses into the polis, which
is an association of villages, namely the State.
This is also true of the Hegelian State which evolves out of the family and
bourgeois society. Hegel notes that the family, an association of husband/wife
and children disintegrates to create what he calls bourgeois society, a host of
independent men and women held together only by ties of contract and self-
interest (Wayper, 1974). The State emerges to regulate the activities of men by
bourgeoisie society. Hegel traces the evolution of the State as divine idea.
What this means is that, it is manifestation of Gods design. This is similar with
the views of the divine theory. He was more practical.
Two fundamental reasons accounted for why the state is seen as a natural
organism. First, is its evolutionary nature - its growth from the family or
household to its status as a State. Second is the fact that the emergence of the
State satisfies a natural end of man to live in a political association. What this
means is that it helps to actualize or realize nature.
Furthermore, the natural theory appears to be an extension of the divine
theory of the State. Whereas the divine theory attributes the emergence of the
State to divine ordination, it did not demonstrate how this was done. The
natural theory thus explains how the State emerged and locates it in nature or
consciousness (God). Again, medieval philosophers like Thomas Aquinas for
instance, adopted the Aristotelian logic to explain the emergence of the State.
Undoubtedly, the State emerges out of human activities, and that the
theorists only attribute it to God because God is the author of the world.
58
Conversely, God is the author of nature, and therefore, the natural theory of the
State only demonstrates the manifestation of God’s will. However, it is certain
that the State did not fall from heaven. Its necessity was therefore defined by
the actions of men. The machine theory explains this.

The Machine Theory of the State

The machine theory sees the State as a contrivance or artificial creation by
man, to serve certain purposes. It has two variants – the social contract, and
force schools of thought.

The Social Contract Theory of the State

Social contract simply means an agreement men enter into for the purpose
of governance and administration. It usually spells out the commitments of
each contractual party to the agreement. In general terms, the social contract
theory locates the emergence of the State in the contract. The social contract is
in varied form as expressed by Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean Jacque
Rousseau.

Thomas Hobbes’ Social Contract Theory

Thomas Hobbes expressed his view on the social contract and the State in
his famous work, the Leviathan. He argued that the state emerged in response
to man’s nature, which requires an instrument of control or regulation. For him,
man is by nature greedy, wicked and selfish, and to that extent only wills his
insatiable individual interest, even at the expense of others. Hobbes
demonstrates this with the State of Nature.

State of Nature
It is a hypothetical or artificial construct used by social contract
theorists to describe the condition in which men lived before the
state was created.

Hobbes writes that in the State of Nature men lived without a government
or sovereign power; and consequently, there were no laws to regulate men.
Thus, each man is a sovereign and might is right. The Hobbessian State of
nature is characterized by competition, diffidence and vainglory. Competition
brings men into conflict as they compete for gain. Men in the State of nature
are equal, and consequently they all have equal claims to the gifts of nature.
This keeps men in constant motion; the State of nature becomes fluid and
restless.
Diffidence refers to the quest for endless power for self-protection and
preservation. Given that there is no government and might is right, men

59
continually seek for power to compete for gain and to protect the fruit thereof.
Furthermore, vain glory, the vain conceit of one’s own wisdom and strength,
makes men to think of having more than any other man in terms of strength,
wisdom, reputation, and so on. The interaction of these features of the State of
nature, anchored on man’s drive to actualize his individual gains set in envy,
hatred and finally war (Wayper, 1974:53-54). The State of Nature thus
becomes a State of war where each man is an enemy to the other. Accordingly,
men kill one another, destroy each other’s property and dispossess themselves
of property
The drive by man for gain creates conflicts that threaten his continued
existence. To guarantee their self-preservation, men enter into a contract among
themselves, and agree to surrender totally, their individual sovereignty and
therefore put an end to arbitrariness. Men submit themselves to a man or an
assembly that unites their individual sovereignty into one and stands above
them to regulate their affairs. Hobbes notes that men submit to the Leviathan
(the sovereign), which is the State. Thus, the social contract creates the State
which exists to impose order, with a view to promoting man’s security,
freedom, and well being.

John Locke’s Social Contract Theory

John Locke also subscribes to the State of Nature. He lists the characteristics
of the state of nature as freedom, equality and cosmic law. Again, for him man’s
character is vicious and corrupt. He posits that in the State of Nature, all men
are free to exploit nature for their self-preservation; a fact strengthened by an
equality, which makes men equal in strength and the faculties of the mind.
Freedom is, however, limited by law.
The law of nature requires men to preserve themselves, but not to hurt others
in the process. All men have the right to deduce the law and punish offenders
without sentiment. In the context of natural law the state of nature was devoid
of war. There was peace but it was not holistic. This undermined liberty and
the acquisition of property, the basis for self-preservation. Three reasons
accounted for this state of affairs.

1. The absence of an established settled and known law. That is the lack of a
standard law.

2. The absence of a known and indifferent judge (impartial judge).

3. The absence of an executive power to enforce just decisions (Wayper,

1974:71).

60
 Given their tendency towards viciousness and corruption, men exploited the
above deficiencies of the state of nature for their selfish gains. Development
and the overall well- being of man were stunted, thus necessitating the creation
of the State through the Social Contract. In the contract, the people give up their
arbitrary power to punish, but retains their supreme power (sovereignty). This
means they decide who governs and this has remained the basis of popular
sovereignty in present day democratic theory or governance. In Locke’s social
contract, the people first create society, and then government to exercise
political power which is located in the State.

J.J. Rousseau’s Social Contract Theory

J.J. Rousseau also discusses the state of nature as a context, in the location
of the origin of the state. He sees the state of nature as a place where man
exhibits his true self or nature, a state where man is free from corruption. He
points out that in the state of nature, man had three attributes – he was dull,
stupid, and therefore unintelligent, compassionate and not sociable. This made
him to live a free life devoid of inequality and corruption.
However, there was a transition from the State of Nature to society, and this
set in inequalities with two extremes; few had everything but the majority none
at all. This situation was a constraint on man’s freedom and endangered the
growth and stability of society. To contain these problems, Rousseau posits,
the state emerged to promote the interest of all in society.
In this regard, he talked of the particular interest (the private interest of
individuals) and the general will (the common interest for the good of the State).
He advocates for the rule of the general will to be created by the social contract.
In this contact, every man submits himself to an association of which he is a
member. Together, they exercise sovereign power over themselves for the good
of all. Thus, the general sovereign (that is the assembly or association) created
by the social contract is the State.
The social contract theories on the origin of the state express the liberal view
of the State. Nna (2004) sums the liberal view thus:

…the liberal perspective views the State as a human contrivance to regulate

human conduct, promote the actualization of the potentials of the human
individual, including the protection of personal liberties, freedom as well as the
right to life and property…the State derives its existence from the consent of the
people and is designed to serve the common good of all…the goal of the State is
the promotion of the greatest happiness of the greatest number.

The liberal view of the state contends that the state is in its rule does not
favour any group in society. It stands for the common interest. The Marxian
view of the state contests this sharply.

61
The Force Theory of the State
This view of the state argues that the state is an artificial creation imposed
on society by a few powerful individuals. This means that it did not emerge
through consent or agreement. The Marxian view of the State is a classic
example of this school of thought.
Marxists see the State as an instrument of class domination and exploitation
that emerged when society broke down into irreconcilable and antagonistic
class divisions. It argues that where there are no classes, there is no State. The
State thus exists only in class-based societies. Thus in the primitive communal
society which was classless, there was no State.
The State therefore emerged in the slave society, which was the first class-
based society. In other words in class-based societies, a dominant class with
very few members dominate a less privileged class with a vast number of
persons. To be effective, the dominating class requires a coercive apparatus to
enable them subjugate the other class. It is in this context the state is established
and imposed on society. The State is, therefore, a machine for maintaining the
rule of one class over another (Borisov and Libman, 1985).
Thus, the state pervades all class-based societies, changing its form in
different epochs, but retaining its role of domination. According to Lenin (cited
in Borisov and Libman, 1985:82):

…before the division of society into classes…no State existed. But as the social
division into classes arose and took firm root, as class society arose, the State
also arose and took firm root…whenever there was a state there existed in every
society a group of person who ruled, who commanded, who dominated and who
in order to maintain their power possessed an apparatus of physical coercion, an
apparatus of violence, with those weapons which correspond to the technical
level of the given epoch.

It is clear that the State in the feudal society was more developed than that
of the slave society. Similarly, the capitalist State is more developed than the
feudal State. However, they all retain the features of domination and
exploitation. Domination as a characteristic of the State withers away in the
communist state, which retains the advanced features of the capitalist State.
Given all of the above, Marxists contend that the state is partisan in its rule;
and not neutral as the liberal theory posits. Writing on the partisan nature of
the State, Oyovbaire points out that:

The major assault upon the liberal view of the State is woven around a denial of
its ability to protect and promote all the interests of the social formation equally.
Indeed, it is contended by this view that by it raison d’etre and very nature, it is
fundamentally and diametrically biased against a conceptualization, protection
and promotion of all interests, let alone promoting them equally…The State
exists for, and expresses a will which maintains a system of class relations. It

62
 protects and promotes the interest of those who win the instruments of production
and by implication, ignores and even suppresses the interest of those who do not
own the means of production.

It can be noted from the above that Marxists see the State as a capitalist
phenomenon anchored on domination. This explains the position that State will
wither away under communism.
It should be said however that every State though in theory, is a State for all,
it is in practice a State for some (Ake, 2001). Accordingly, it promotes the
interest of those who control it (class, ethnic group, religious group, etc), over
and above those who do not exercise political power. This is done through the
laws of the State which reflects the interests of those who exercise political
power.

The Purpose of the State

The purpose of justification for the State is seen in varied dimensions. This
is defined by the different accounts on its origin. The divine theorists on the
origin of the state charge the state with three functions:
(i) The punishment of evil doers.

(ii) The reward and protection of good men who obey God’s command.

(iii) The promotion of temporal peace on earth, through the regulation of

man’s conduct.

The natural theorists see the primary purpose of the State as the provision of
a self-sufficient life for man. Plato and Aristotle highlight this position. For
example, Plato says that the State arises out of the needs of mankind – food,
dwelling, and clothing (cited in Foster, 1971:53). On this part, Aristotle notes
that the purpose of the State is to promote the good life. (All that is required
for the full and complete development of man), made up of three elements.
External Good (food, shelter, clothing, etc.); Physical Good (health); and
Spiritual Good (morality).

Aristotle contends that although all three concerns the state, the spiritual
element is most important. Making man moral, as a purpose of the State is a
fundamental difference between Plato and Aristotle, and the machine theorist’s
view of the State’s function. Locke (cited in Foster, 1971) captured the machine
theorist’s view. He writes that:

…the function of the State is limited to the preservation of the rights of

its members against infringement by others. Each individual has a right
63
 to security of his person and his property and to liberty of action in so far
as he does not use their liberty to infringe the rights of others. The task
of the State is to repress by the use of force any violation of these rights,
to deter any man from injuring another in respect of his person, property,
or freedom, or to punish where it is not successful in deterring.

This implies that the State’s role is to prevent man’s wickedness against
man; to prevent and control crime and injustice; to protect property rights and
liberty, not necessarily for the moral well-being of the citizen. Aristotle (cited
in Foster, 1971:32) contests this sharply and argues emphatically that:

…a society which was no more than this would not deserve the name of a State
at all…Because it would be restricted from performing that service to its citizens
which is the chief end of a state to perform – the service of making them good
men…The bad actions of a man which do not infringe the rights of his neighbor
are just as vicious as those which do. A State is doing only half its duty which
sets itself to curb the latter but ignores the former…A State which does not care
how good or bad it citizens are so long as they do not commit criminal actions is
not performing the proper function of a State. Those who care for good
government take into consideration virtue and vice in State…virtue must be care
of a State.

In essence, whereas the machine theorists see the maintenance of law as the
primary duty of the State, the natural theorists consider the moral perfection of
citizens as the most important duty of the State. From all of the above, the
functions of the State can be classified into three – the imposition of order, the
promotion of the social welfare/well-beings of citizens, and the promotion of
development. These are discussed below.

The Imposition of Order

This is perhaps the most visible function of the State. Indeed, it is the
primary function of the State. It simply means the regulation of human conduct
to avoid or deter infringements of an individual or society’s rights by other
persons. Given that men have incompatible interests which bring them into
conflicts, the State formulates and executives laws to guide their interactions in
order to ensure orderliness, directed towards the peace, progress and
development of society.

Law

64
 Law outlines a procedure for doing or not doing some things. It
either compels or prohibits individuals or groups from certain
sources of actions. Laws are therefore instruments of social
regulation; through it, the State prescribes patterns or principles of
behaviour, and enforces compliance with its coercive apparatus.
Laws are made through legislative enactments, judicial
pronouncements or decisions, and customary practices.

The justification for the use of law as a social regulation is anchored on man’s
nature. Given his drive for personal gain, man only respects or abides by
covenants when there are sanctions for violation of the covenants. The law of
the State, however, reflects international law, customary law and natural law.

International Law: International law refers to the agreed and

accepted principles of behaviour, which regulates the actions of
states and international bodies.

Customary Law: Customary law means the traditional norms and

values which govern socio-political, religious and economic
relations among people in a community, ethnic or cultural group.

Natural Law: Natural law refers to the wisdom and reason of God
which defines good and evil.

The Promotion of Social Welfare/Well-Being

The well-being of the citizens of a state is a fundamental basis for the
existence of the state. Essentially, this function is directed towards a number
of things the state must do to promote the happiness and progress of citizens. It
includes the guarantee of security and the liberty of citizens and the promotion
of the political, economic, social, cultural and religious interests of the people.
This is in addition to the promotion of ethical values directed towards the moral
perfection of the citizens.

The Promotion of Development

Development is a common goal among all societies in the world.
Accordingly, the state plays a fundamental role in development engineering.

65
 Development: Development is a man- centred phenomenon; it can
be seen as a multi-dimensional process which involves the
fundamental transformation of the entire facets and institution of
society – politics, economy, culture – such that these must be
brought to bear on man by improving the quality of his standard of
living - measured by access to the basic needs of life such as food,
shelter, clothing, education, health facilities, clean water and
electricity. Eradication of absolute poverty and reduction in the
level of unemployment and inequality stands out as the central
measures of development. Equally, and perhaps more
significantly, development is by man, and therefore a fundamental
requirement for development to take place is man’s ability to tame
or control his environment; as defined by his scientific and social
consciousness. Scientific consciousness guarantees technological
inventions which enable man to subdue the environment and
enhance production. On the other hand, social consciousness
guarantees the establishment of institutions (political, economic
and social) to organize society in terms of resource distribution.
Currently, democratic government is seen as the best of such
institutions.

The State’s role in development is to develop or put in place those factors which
enhance development. Such factors include capital for investment, an efficient
banking and financial system, a wide and efficient market for investment, an
efficient transport and communication system, science and technology, a stable
political environment and security, skilled labour or manpower, social
infrastructure (roads, electricity, communication, etc). The role of the State in
development is informed by the ideology of the society. Thus, while the
capitalist state desires to develop the market mechanism and private
entrepreneurship, the socialist or communist state seeks to strengthen the
socialization of the means of production to facilitate development.

The Legal Features/Characteristics of a State

The state is a legal entity defined by four clear features or characteristics –
sovereignty, government, people and definite territory. In international law, a
State is only recognized as a person if it possesses these features. This is based
on the resolutions of the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties
of States. In this sense the State also means country. The features of the State
are explained below:

Population/People
A state is made up of people, mainly nationals (either by birth, registration
or naturalization) and foreigners or aliens. The nationals are known as the
citizens. It is important to note that a citizen is a person who owes allegiance
66
to a state and in turn receives protection from the state. The citizen is entitled
to civil, political and social rights, just as he/she must fulfil duties and
obligations to the state (Gauba, 2003: 269-270). Table3.1 provides insights into
how citizenship of a state can be acquired.

Table 3.1: The Modes of acquisition of Citizenship in a State

Citizenship by Birth Citizenship by Naturalization Citizenship by Registration
(a) Citizenship is granted to (a) Citizenship is granted to a (a)Citizenship is acquired
a person born within the person after living in a through marriage.
territory of a country. particular country for a
specified continuous period, (a)Citizenship granted to
(b)Citizenship is granted by and other criteria. an adopted child.
blood (“jus sanguine”), thus
acquired through birth into a (b)Collective naturalization or
family lineage or tribe. citizenship can be acquired by
a group of persons if the
(a)Citizenship is acquired by territory within which they live
birth in a registered Ship. is ceded or incorporated into
another country.
Source: Paki & Inokoba, 2006:146-148; Gauba, 269-281

Although there is no specified number of people that should make up a state,

there is a unanimous view that it must not be too small to the extent that it could
inhibit its independence, development and security; again, it must not be too
large to inhibit its development.
The population of a country is an index to its strength, stability and
development. In his famous work, the Republic, Plato posited that the state is
an enlarged individual. To this end, the character of a state reflects the character
of the people who constitute it. Accordingly, a patriotic, honest and disciplined
people create a state that is transparent and accountable, and to that extent
directs development to the benefit of all.
This is also true of hard working, educated and morally upright citizens;
these qualities translate to a strong and developed society. Put differently, a
corrupt people give rise to corrupt state; a disciplined state reflects a disciplined
people, and so on. At another level of analysis, the homogeneity of a people is
a basis for the survival of a state. The point is that:

…a homogenous people are likely to be more fully agreed on the fundamentals

of its political system and hence better able to communicate and to live
harmoniously together. On the other hand, a State made up of peoples of diverse
races, nationalities, religions, languages and customs may be subjected to greater
internal cleavages and stress in periods of domestic or international difficulties
(Rodee, Anderson, Christol & Greene, 1976:21).

67
 Thus, the strength of a State is likely to be weakened when it is composed
of heterogeneous people. This explains why national integration, which seeks
to weld different groups in a state together to make them see themselves as one
in a common objective among heterogeneous states. It is clear from all of the
above that people/population is an essential attribute of a state.

Territory
This refers to a clearly defined boundary which sets one state apart from one
another. The territory of a state promotes its development, stability and survival
in several ways. First, the location of a state enhances its development. For
instance, Britain’s location which gave her access to navigable rivers,
contributed to the successes the country recorded as a pioneer of the industrial
revolution.
A difficult geographical terrain and wide expanse of territory is a military
advantage. It creates difficulty for an invading army to conquer a state. Again,
a territory that is blessed with useful or highly valued natural resources (crude
oil, Gold, Uranium, among others) strengthens the power of a state. In
international politics, natural resources possessed by a state constitute an
element of her power. This is also true of a territory that enhances agricultural
production. Self-sufficiency in food production promotes the survival of a state.
However, evidence points to the fact that a country can only exploit the
potential benefits of its territory, if it has good leadership. Thus, for example,
despite its numerous resources, Nigeria ranks among the 30 poorest countries
in the world. This is largely attributable to the country’s lack of technology and
or good leadership.

Government
Government refers to a group of people who are empowered to manage the
affairs of the state. Government and state are not synonymous; they are
different. Government is an agent of the state made up of an infinitesimal
proportion of the entire population of a state. The state, which covers the whole
population, is therefore a larger unit. Furthermore, whereas the state is a
permanent entity, government is transient or temporary. For example, Nigeria
became an independent state created out of British colonies in October 1960.
Although the Nigerian State has remained, several governments have come and
gone

Sovereignty
Jean Bodin developed the term in his six books of the Common Wealth
published in 1576. As a feature of the state, sovereignty means supreme power
of the state; is the final legal authority, above and beyond which no further
legal power exists. It is derived from the Latin word Superanus, which means
68
supreme. Put differently, it refers to the independence a state has over its
affairs. Sovereignty is absolute, permanent, universal, inalienable and
indivisible. Absoluteness means that sovereignty cannot be limited or restricted
by any superior power or authority. Permanence means that sovereign power
is perpetual. Sovereignty is universal because it extends to all individual,
groups, areas and things within the state. Inalienability means that sovereignty
cannot be taken away except the state is dissolved. Finally, sovereignty cannot
be divided between or shared by different sets of individuals or groups, making
it indivisible (Gauba, 2003).

Dimensions of Sovereignty
Sovereignty has been classified to include – external, internal, legal, popular,
defacto, and dejure sovereignty.

External Sovereignty
This is the independence a state has over its external relations with other
states. In international politics, countries, being the major actors are seen to be
equals. Accordingly, no country is expected to be subordinated to another;
external sovereignty is anchored on this. Essentially, a state possesses
sovereignty if it is not dominated or controlled by another state (country) in the
international arena. This also implies that no country, institution or
organization can intervene in the internal affairs of an externally sovereign
country (state).

Internal Sovereignty
This implies that the state has supreme powers over its internal affairs. This
means that it is the final authority, the sole source of political power mediated
through law. Accordingly, it makes laws and enforces compliance. It is
important to note that where a state is sovereign over its internal affairs, no other
power, internal or external, dictates to it on how it should govern its territory.

Legal Sovereignty
This means that the state is the sole source of law; that is, legislative power
is conferred on it. The legal sovereign therefore deals with the exclusive powers
of the state to make laws and compel obedience from the subjects (Nna, 2004).

Popular Sovereignty
Popular sovereignty refers to the power of the people to decide who governs
them. This is usually exercised by the electorates through a free and fair
election. This is the cornerstone of modern day democratic theory and practice.
Importantly, it means that the people create government, and to that extent
government depends on the will of the people. This is not an arbitrary will.
69
 The idea of popular sovereignty was well-covered in the writings of John
Locke on Government; John Locke is seen as the father of the doctrine of
popular sovereignty. He posited that the people created government for a
limited period and for a particular purpose (the actualization of their
aspirations). In this regard, power reverses to the people when the period of a
particular government expires. Equally, the people can dissolve government, if
the government negates the purpose for which it was established.
Also highlighting popular sovereignty in the writings of John Locke,
Wayper (1974:77) notes that the State in the Lockean sense is created by the
people; consequently:

The state should exist for the good of the people, should depend on their consent,
and should be constitutional and limited in its authority. If it is not for the
people’s good, if it does not depend on their consent, if it is not constitutional or
it exceeds its authority, it can…legitimately be over-thrown.

To overthrow government means to dissolve or change government

according to laid down procedures as defined by laws known to the people.
Popular sovereignty refers to the supreme power of the people to create and
change government.

Defacto Sovereignty
This refers to the illegal exercise of sovereign power in a state. Leadership
succession in countries is usually governed by law and procedure. In this
regard, the appropriation of sovereign power outside the context of law and
procedure amounts to defacto sovereign. Put differently, it means an illegal or
illegitimate government. A good example is military governments.

Dejure Sovereignty
This is the direct opposite of defacto sovereignty. It means the appropriation
of sovereign power through legitimate means. That is a government that is
legitimate because it is based on law and procedure. A truly democratic
government is a classic example.

Limitations of Sovereignty
The sovereignty of states is limited by a number of factors discussed below.

Membership of International/Regional Organizations

The membership of international and regional organizations by countries
limits their sovereignty. The United Nations Organization (UNO), the African
Union (AU), the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS),
70
etc, are governed by Charters and Resolutions which empower the
organizations and the member countries to intervene in the affairs (internal or
external) of any country that runs contrary to provisions in its Charter or
Resolutions.
For example, when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the United Nations
condemned it and forced Iraq out of Kuwait through a coalition of military
forces; it equally placed sanctions on Iraq for that reason. This was so because
the United Nations Carter enjoins all member states to respect the territorial
integrity and sovereignty of other states. Equally, when the Sanni Abacha
regime in Nigeria Killed Ken Saro-wiwa, and eight of his Ogoni kinsmen, in
1995, the world responded with outrage.
The Commonwealth of Nations suspended Nigeria’s membership of the
organization, and the United States, Canada, the United Nations, etc condemned
it. Some countries placed or severed relationship with Nigeria. All these were
done because the Abacha regime’s action was adjudged to be a violation of the
1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

International Law/Treaties
Although States are independent over their internal matters and external
affairs, their actions are governed, and consequently limited by International
law and treaties. The laws of states and actions of statesmen are expected to be
consonance with international law. Violations of international law by states
attract sanctions from international organizations. International law and treaties
therefore provide a basis for international organizations and states to intervene,
control or regulate the affairs of other states. For example, international law
was the basis for the settlement of the dispute between Nigeria and Cameroon
over the Bakasi Peninsula.

The Growth of Executive Power

The three arms of government – the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary,
usually exercise portions of sovereignty. However, the growth of executive
power due to its enormous powers, places the executive above the other two
arms of government. This distorts and weakens the sovereign power of the
state. In this regard, the head of the executive appears to be the sovereign, when
he is not. This endangers the stability of the state as the executive may act
arbitrarily.

The Division of Powers in a Federal System/Delegated Legislation

In theory, sovereignty is indivisible; in practice, however, it is not
particularly to internal sovereignty. Delegated legislation which involves the
transfer of power to low levels of government, and the division of government
71
powers in a federal system between the central (national) and state (regional)
governments, undermine the indivisibility of sovereign power in a state. In the
federal state for example, the citizen is subject to both national and state laws.
In Nigeria, the citizen is equally subject to local government laws. This means
that there is no sole source of law. However, a single constitution regulates or
controls these varied sources of law.

A Period of War
In times of war, the independence of a state over its affairs is usually
constrained. The ability of government to enforce compliance to its laws is
limited. Equally, wars provide a basis for international organizations and other
countries to intervene in the internal affairs of a country. Examples of countries
whose sovereignty have been undermined by wars include Liberia, Sierra-
Leone, Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda, Sudan, Burundi, Rwanda and
Somalia.

Public Opinion
Although a state possesses supreme authority over its people, the citizens
influence the exercise of political power through public opinion. In this regard,
government integrates the views of the people into its policy making process.
This sometimes compels the state to change its position on certain national and
even international issues. This is, however, obtainable in open political systems
and may also depend on the character of the head of a government. Arrogant,
over-bearing, all-knowing, parochial minded, strait-jacket minded, selfish, and
unpatriotic leaders hardly consider public opinion in governance.

Military Might
The possession of military might strengthens the sovereignty of a country.
In international politics, military might is one of the elements of power which
further a country’s interests. Countries that lack military might are easily
subdued, and their sovereignty compromised. Also, countries that lack military
might are vulnerable to conquest by other states with such might. Besides, the
ability of a country to quell internal insurrection is predicated on its military
strength. For example, the United States of America and its allies were able to
conquer and suspend Iraq’s sovereignty because of superior military might.

Dependency
Dependency is a fundamental problem that limits the sovereignty of countries.
The Underdeveloped or Less Developed Countries (LDC’s) or Third World
countries have economics that are dependent on the developed countries of
Europe and America. Accordingly, the LDC’s are manipulated both in their

72
external relations and domestic affairs. This constrains the sovereignty of the
LDC’s.

Dependency
Dependency refers to a situation where a country or group of
countries have their economies tied to another economy or
economies. In this regard, the economies of Third World countries
are tied to the economics of Europe and America. In this
relationship, the Third World economies are dependent, and
consequently, their growth and development is conditioned by the
growth and development of the economies of Europe and America.
Following this, the dependent economies are dominated and
exploited. This leads to the “development of underdevelopment”,
a situation where the dependency relation creates
underdevelopment in the dependent countries and development in
the dominant countries at the same time. Imperialism is widely
seen as the source of dependency.

Globalization and Increasing Interdependence of Countries

Globalization now assumes a central place in international economic
relations. The phenomenon has impacted on countries in varying dimensions,
including their sovereignty.

Globalization: Globalization is a multidimensional process

(economic, cultural, political, social, technological and
communication), which has integrated countries of the world into
a single community. Essentially, it is an economic phenomenon
which amount to the internationalization of the capitalist system.
Its fundamental aspect include the collapse of national economic
barriers, trade liberalization and the associated free flow of capital,
investments and people across national and regional boundaries,
the empowerment of multinational corporations, as well as the
drive for international peace and security.

A significant outcome of globalization is increased interdependence among

countries, directed towards economic interests. To this end, economic concerns
determine how countries form external alliance. Equally, within the framework
of globalization, international institutions such as the World Bank, the
International Monetary Fund (IMF) and more developed states such as the
United States, dictate economic policies to Less Developed Countries such as
Nigeria. This is also true of the system of governance. For example, the drive
for democratization in Africa is one the insistence of the IMF, World Bank and
the developed countries of Europe and America.
73
The Lack of Autonomy of a State
Political Science literature shows that unlike in the advanced countries of
Europe and America, the State in the Less Developed Countries of Africa, and
Asia, lack autonomy. This is a factor that limits their sovereignty. The lack of
autonomy is in two dimensions. First is that the state is controlled by imperialist
countries and Agencies externally, and second, it is controlled internally by the
ruling/dominant class. (Ake, 2001).
Clearly, the state that lacks autonomy is controlled and dominated by other
states in its external relations. Similarly, the extent of its independence on
internal affairs is determined by the dominant class. In Nigeria for example,
the state is pulled in many directions by the dominant class that is factionalized
and fractionalized (Nwabueze, 1991). This immerses the state in partisan
politics, and consequently undermines its ability to resolve conflicts among
opposing political groups or factions. This inhibits its primary function of
imposing order. Clearly, the lack of autonomy, curtails the sovereignty of a
state.

Membership of Cartels
Membership of Cartels such as the Organization of Petroleum Exporting
Countries (OPEC) limits the sovereignty of a country. These organizations
regulate the production of a country’s resources. For instance, OPEC limits the
volume of oil Nigeria can produce and sell on the international market.

The State and Nation

State and nation are often used interchangeably in a manner that suggests
that they mean the same thing. However, this is not always the case. The State
is a political entity which secures the compulsory membership of all the people
within the territory. The nation is a cultural entity which binds people together
on the basis of culturally homogenous ties – common or related blood, a
common language, common religions, a common historical tradition, common
customs and habist (Rodee, Anderson, Christol & Greenea, 1976:21-22).
A nation is an exclusive group and it simply means ethnic groups or
nationality. Thus, examples will include the Ijaw nation, Igbo nation, Yoruba
nation, Asante nation, etc. The essential features of a nation are:

• A homogenous cultural unit characterized by distinct customs, social

practices, moral values, modes of interpersonal relationships,
languages, rituals, myths, traits of temperament, a common system of
meaning and world view.

• Members have a specific and shared identity.

74
• Deep attachment to a specific territory – the earthly home.

• Membership is limited by ties of blood, intermarriage, kinship and

common descent.

• Members have a shared understanding of who they are, how they

originated and have developed over time as well as a sense of collective
belonging (Parekin, cited by Nna, 2004:34-40).

It is clear that State and nation are two different concepts. For example,
Nigeria is a State, not a nation. Equally Ijaw is a nation, not a State. Scholars
have attempted to make a distinction between nation – state, multi-nation –
State, and State – nation.

Nation – State
This refers to a nation that has attained political unity and independence
(Rodee, Anderson, Christol & Greene, 1976). That is a homogenous cultural
group that attains political independence and consequently assumes the features
of a State. For example, if Palestinians are integrated into a monolithic whole
and they achieve state-hood, the resulting entity can be labelled a nation-state.

Multi-Nation – States
This implies a group of nations who win independence to form a State. For
example Nigeria is made up of over 200 ethnic groups (nations) which were
conquered and colonized by the British. At independence, they achieved State-
hood, not as distinct nations, but as a composite group in a defined territory.
This is a common feature in Africa.

State – Nation
This refers to a heterogeneous State; that is a State made up of different
nations, integrating the various components to become a monolithic whole.
This is achieved through the breakdown of ethnic barriers, the elimination of
primordial loyalties, and a sense of common identity. Nigeria is a classic
example of a heterogeneous State that is trying to erode the presence of micro-
nationalities in place of a spirit very far from the end point. The United States
and Switzerland are close to the point.

References

75
Ake, Claude (2001), “The Political Question”, in H.E. Alapiki (eds), The
Nigerian Political Process, Emhai Printing and Publishing
Company, Port Harcourt

Ake, Claude (1981), A Political Economy of Africa, Longman Nigeria

Ake, Claude (1996), Is Africa Democratizing?, Malthouse Press Limited, Lagos

Alapiki, H.E (2000), Politics and Government in Nigeria, Corporate

Impressions, Owerri

Borisov, E.F. and G.I., Libman (eds) (1985), A Reader on Social Science,
Progress Publishers, Moscow

Ekekwe, Eme (1991) Onyeiwu and D. Iwarimie-Jaja (eds), Issues in the

Political Economy of Structural Adjustment in Nigeria, SIJ
Publishers, Port Harcourt.

Ekekwe, Eme (1986), Class and State in Nigeria, Longman, Nigeria

Engels, Frederick (1978), The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the
State, Foreign Languages Press, Peking

Foster, M.B. (1971), Masters of Political Thought (Vol.1), George G. Harrap

and Co. Ltd, London

Gauba, O.P. (2003), An Introduction to Political Theory, (4th edition)

Macmillan, India

Goulborne, Harry (eds) (1979), Politics and State in the Third World,
Macmillan, London

Imoagene, O. (1990), The Ibo of East Central Nigeria, New Era Publishers,
Ibadan
Jones, W.J.(1960), Masters of Political Thought (vol.2), George G. Harrap and
Company Ltd, London
Laski, Harold (1961), Introduction to Politics, George Allen and Unwin,
London,

Miliband, Ralph (1969), The State in Capitalist Society, Weidenfeld and

Nicolson, London,
76
Ndu, Eme (1998), Ancient and Mediaval Political Theory: An Introduction,
Springfield Publishers, Owerri

Nna, N.J. (2004), Contemporary Political Analysis, Springfield Publishers,

Owerri,

Nnoli, Okwudiba (1978), Ethnic Politics in Nigeria, Fourth Dimension

Publishers, Enugu

Nwabueze, G. (1991), Public Policies and Underdeverlopment: A Critical

Appraisal of the Structural Adjustment Programmeme, in
Steve O. and Iwarimie-Jaja, D. (eds), Issues in the Political
Economy of Structural Adjustment in Nigeria, SIJ Publishers,
Port Harcourt.

Oyovbaire, S.E.(1980), “The Nigerian State as a Conceptual Variable”, in Cliff

Edogun (eds) Nigeria: Politics, Administration and
Development”, the Nigeria Political Science Association,
University of Port Harcourt,

Paki, F. and Inokoba, P.(2006), An Invitation to Political Science, Kemuela

Publications, Port Harcourt

Rodee, C.L., Anderson, T.J, Christol, c.q. and Greene, T.H. (1976) Introduction
to Political Science, McGraw Hill, Kogakusha,

Varma, S.P.(1975), Modern Political Theory, Vikas Publishing House PVT

Limited, India

Wayper, C.L. (1973), Political Thought, English Universities Press Ltd,

England,
CHAPTER 4

THE ORGANIZATION OF GOVERNMENT

Introduction
In simple terms government refers to a group of individuals sharing a defined
responsibility for exercising power (Alapiki, 2000:36). Used in this sense,
government exists at all points of human collectivity – church, school, club, etc;
77
thus, we may talk of the government of a church, club, etc. In the context of
politics (the exercise of political power) however, government means a specific
institution, established and licensed to perform the duties of the State. It is
different from the state, subordinated to the state and created for a specific
purpose. Government is characterized by a structure, people and network of
relationships.

The Structure of Government

To effectively perform the functions assigned to it by the State, government
is organized into a structure with interrelated parts and processes. The general
features of this structural organization are presented in the diagram below.
Figure 4.1: The Structural Components of Government

The Executive The Legislature The Judiciary

Government Armed
Civil service Special Statutory Financed Forces and
Ministries/ Commissions/ corporations Educational the Police
Departments Authorities Government Institutions
and Extra/Non- owned
ministerial companies
Departments
Source: Autho1

The structure of government is defined by its functions. There are thus

differences in the organization of governments among countries. For example,
a State that runs a private enterprise economy will have little place for
government-owned companies, whereas a country that operates a public
enterprise system will do. However, the major organs of government are the
executive, the legislature and the judiciary. All other institutions are subsumed
under one of these three structures.

The Executive
The executive arm of government is made up of elected and or appointed
officers. It is in charge of the day-to-day management of the affairs of a
government. Its specific functions include the maintenance of law and order;
revenue generation; the management and control of public funds; enforcement
of laws made by the legislature; administration of external relations; resource
allocation and distribution; establishment of government ministries,
departments, agencies, commissions, etc; the recruitment, discipline and
promotion of public servants (Alapiki, 2000:40); giving direction to
78
development policies of the state; the provision of social and economic
infrastructure; and the initiation of Bills to be passed into law by the legislature.
The type of government a country operates defines the composition of the
executive. In Nigeria for example, the three tiers of government have
corresponding membership of the executive. The Federal Executive is made up
of the President, Vice President, Ministers, and Advisers. At the state level, the
executive is made up of the Governor, Deputy Governor, Commissioners and
Advisers. The local government executive is made of the Chairman, Vice
Chairman, Supervisors, and Advisers.

Types of Executive
The classification of executive is based on the number of persons that head
the executive and the type of mandate (ceremonial or executive) given to the
head of the executive. Following this, four types have been identified – Real,
Normal, Single and Collegiate executive (Anifowose 1999).

Real Executive
This is a type of executive where the head of the executive branch of
government is both the Head of State and Head of Government. This means
that the President takes charge of both ceremonial and executive functions. This
is obtainable in the Presidential System of Government.

The Nominal Executive

In normal executive, the head of the executive only acts as Head of State.
The Head of Government is normally another public officer. In this regard, the
head of the executive only performs ceremonial duties. This is the practice
under the Parliamentary System of Government where the Prime Minister is the
Head of Government, and the President (as was the case in Nigeria’s First
Republic) or Queen as it is the case with Britain, performs ceremonial functions.

The Single Executive

As the name suggests, this is a type of executive headed by a single individual.

The Collegiate/Plural Executive

This is a type of executive where headship rotates among a group of
individuals in accordance with agreed principles and time frames. For example,
there could be a collegiate of six persons and at each point in time one of them
will be at the helm of affairs.

The Legislature
The legislative organ of government is made up of elected representatives of
the people. In some cases, members of the legislature are appointed or
79
nominated. The Canadian Senate is an example. The legislature is given a
variety of names – Congress, Parliament or National Assembly. Its main duty
is the making of enabling laws that guide the executive in the performance of
its functions.
Other functions of the legislature include: Approval and control of State
budget; approval/ratification of political appointments; canvassing the interests
of the people they represent; ratification of international treaties; control of
executive actions; amendment of the constitution; acting as a forum for the
resolution of public complaints and petitions; and the removal of members of
the executive (President and Governor for instance) and Judiciary (Judges for
example) from office before the end of their tenure. This may be due to gross
misconduct or violation of the constitution by the executive or judicial officers.

Types of Legislature
There are two types of legislature – the bicameral and unicameral legislature.
Bicameral legislature has two chambers, an Upper and Lower House. It is
associated more with federal political systems. Nigeria, which has the Senate
as the Upper House and the House of Representative as the Lower House is an
example. This is also true of the United State of America. In Britain, the Upper
House is known as the House of Lords, and the Lower – the House of
Commons. Other States with bicameral legislature are Australia, Canada, India
and Japan. A unicameral legislature has only one chamber. Examples include
Ghana, Sierra Leone, Spain, Turkey, New Zealand and Israel.

The Judiciary
The judiciary arm of government is made up of appointed officers like
judges and magistrates who work in the court system. Its functions includes
interpreting the laws and constitution of the State; adjudication on the law and
the punishment of offenders and or award of damages to parties that are
favoured by judgment; the settlement of disputes among citizens, the State and
Corporate bodies, and the guarantee of the rule of law and fundamental human
rights.

Types of Government
Government has been classified into different types, based on criteria that
include: the type of power exercised (executive or ceremonial), the number that
exercise power, the institutional character, the legal basis, and so on. Selected
types are discussed below.

The Presidential System of Government

The Presidential system of government is characterized by the fusion of the
functions of Head of State and Head of Government. The head exercises real
80
or executive powers. This places enormous powers in the Presidency, as is the
case in the United State of America, Nigeria and Ghana.
In the presidential system, the chief executive is elected directly by the
people. He then appoints other members of his cabinet, who are drawn from
within and outside his political party. As chief executive, the President takes
full responsibility for the failure of his government. A major feature of the
presidential system of government is separation of powers among the three
branches of government.
The three arms of government are charged with clearly defined
functions/powers, and each branch is limited to its assigned role. This means
that the three arms of government are not fused together. The separation of
powers promotes checks and balances, which ensure that power is exercised
within defined bounds. Given the enormous power of the executive, these
checks reduce the possibility of dictatorship or authoritarianism.
Although the three branches of government in the presidential system are
charged with separate functions, these duties are not exclusive; rather, they are
complimentary and interdependent. However, the isolation of the three arms,
particularly the executive and legislature, creates few institutional channels for
communication (Rodee, Anderson, Christol and Greene, 1976:38).
Consequently, informal procedures are usually adopted to reduce the
communication gap with a view to promoting harmonious intergovernmental
relations.
Presidential government has a number of advantages conducive for the
promotion of efficiency and stability of government. First, elected officials
hold office for a fixed tenure; officers can only be removed from office before
their tenure ends on grounds of gross misconduct or abuse of office. This
ensures stable government, and promotes efficiency. Second, the chief
executive is elected by the people and therefore, they decide who governs.
Conversely, the presidential system of government has some disadvantages.
Firstly, the enormous powers placed in the Presidency can make the chief
executive to place himself above the law, and therefore exercise power in a
manner that injures the people and society. For example, due to the enormous
powers at his disposal, a President can turn deaf ears to advice from cabinet, the
legislature and even the people, who elected him.
Also, the principle of checks and balances, associated with the separation of
powers can be used by one branch of government to undermine the other. In
Nigeria for example, the legislature and the executive have at various times
used their powers to unduly frustrate the other. In Nigeria, rancorous
relationship between the executive and legislature stands out as one of the
challenges to presidential democracy; for it has not only impeded the efficiency
of government, but has also contributed to the instability of the State. Efforts

81
to resolve this problem have overshot the mark to the extent that the legislature
is compromised and can hardly check the executive.
In theory, the three arms of government in the presidential system are
deemed to be equal. In practice however, it is not so, particularly with the
imperfect political systems such as Nigeria. In this regard, the executive is
higher than the other two. It is followed by the legislature. The dominance of
the executive and legislature over the judiciary is probably because, whereas
the people elect the officers of the executive and legislature, the executive in
agreement with the legislature appoints officers of the judiciary.

The Parliamentary/Cabinet System of Government

In the parliamentary system of government the executive and the legislature,
are fused while the duties of the Head of State and Head of Government are
separated. It provides for an office of Prime Minister, who is the Head of
Government. The Prime Minister is not elected directly by the people. The
practice is that the people vote at parliamentary elections, to elect
representatives. Thereafter, the leader of the party with majority seats in
parliament is appointed Prime Minister (this is the general practice, however,
in some cases, a person other than the party leader is appointed prime minister,
the appointment is done by the head of state); the majority party forms the
government. The Head of State that performs ceremonial functions assumes
office by hereditary, election or appointment. In Nigeria’s First Republic, the
Governor-General, and later the President, exercised ceremonial powers. In
Britain, it is the Queen.

The parliamentary system fuses the executive and legislative arms of

government. In this regard, the cabinet is drawn from members of the majority
party in parliament. The cabinet performs executive functions, and it is headed
by the Prime Minister. The cabinet is anchored on the principles of collective
responsibility; this means that they share the responsibilities of government
together (failure or success). Thus, the Prime Minister and his cabinet are held
accountable for governmental actions of inactions.
Although parliamentarians are elected for fixed periods, their tenure can be
cut short by the executive. Similarly, the parliament can end the rule of the
cabinet before the expiration of its tenure of office, through a vote of no
confidence. The cabinet is, therefore, responsible to the legislature. The
parliamentary system is also characterized by an institutionalized opposition.
The fusion of the executive and legislature promotes harmony in
government as it reduces conflicts to a low level. This enhances efficiency.
However, the practices of exercising a vote of no confidence, unjustifiable
dissolution of parliament and calls for new election may cause instability in
government.
82
The Federal System of Government (Federalism)
Federalism is a political system characterized by two or more layers/tiers of
authority that exercise governmental powers. This implies that two or more
governments exist in a single political system. It is usually structured into a
central or national government which has a monopoly of external sovereignty,
and governments of component or federating units (called, State, Region,
Cantons or Provinces) which share internal sovereignty with the central
government.
Each level of government is organized into the three branches of
government, executive, legislature, and judiciary, and each, exercises powers
defined by the constitution. The structure of each level of government is shaped
by the functions it performs. A federal government can be a two-tier system
(Central and State government) or a three-tier system (Central, State and Local
government).

Features/Characteristics of a Federal System

Federalism has characteristics that make it distinct from other forms of
government such as the unitary and confederal system. These features are
discussed below.

The Division of Governmental Power

The division of governmental powers among different layers of government
is perhaps the most significant feature of a federal system of government. Thus,
according to Wheare, (cited by Dare, 1979:27) one of the foremost proponents
of federalism:

I have put forward uncompromisingly a criterion of Federal Government…the

delimited and coordinate division of governmental functions – and I have implied
that to the extent to which any system of government does not conform to this
criterion, it has no claim to call itself federal.

This implies that the different levels of government are given clearly stated
powers/functions to perform, and they have autonomy over such powers. In
this regard, they exercise coordinate functions and none is subordinated to the
other. The division of powers takes different forms. In Nigeria, there are two
legislative Lists – The Exclusive List and Concurrent List. The Exclusive List
contains powers/functions that are reserved for the Federal or Central
Government. The Concurrent List is made up of powers for both the Federal
and State governments. Thus, both can legislate on any of the items that are
listed in it. However, if a conflict arises, the Federal legislation supersedes that
of the State.
83
 The division of governmental powers in Nigeria has no Residual List. What
obtains is that whatever issue not listed in the Exclusive or Concurrent List is
deemed as the Residual powers of the State. The division of powers in the
United States of America follows three Lists.

(i) An Exclusive list which contains subjects reserved for the federal
government.

(ii) A list of prohibitions against the federal government. This means that
the federal government cannot legislate on any issue listed in this list.

(iii) A list of prohibitions against the state government. This means that the
state government cannot legislate on subjects listed there-in.

All subjects not listed in the two prohibition lists constitute the Residual powers
of the state (Ofoeze, 1999).
In Switzerland, the constitution provides for an Exclusive List with
powers/functions reserved for the Federal Government. Also, there are two
Prohibition Lists. One for the Federal Government and the other for the cantons
(States). The Federal Government and the cantons are barred from legislating
on subjects listed in the Prohibition Lists. Furthermore, the Swiss federal
system has a Concurrent List of Subjects on which both the Federal
Government and Governments of the Cantons legislate. Like the practice in
Nigeria, Federal law supersedes whenever a conflict emerges (Ofoeze, 1999).
The division of governmental powers in India is sharply different from that
of Nigeria, United States and Switzerland, discussed above. It has an Exclusive
List reserved for the Central Government. In addition, there is a Second List
with subjects reserved for State Governments. Also, the Indian System has a
Concurrent List with subjects that can be legislated on by both the Central and
State Governments.
The striking feature of the Indian system is that when a conflict arises
between the Central and State Governments over a subject in the Concurrent
List, the legislation of the State Government prevails. Besides, subjects that are
not listed in the three legislative lists discussed above constitute residual powers
reserved for the Central Government (Ofoeze, 1999. This is similar to the
Canadian system, which enumerates the powers of the provinces, leaving the
central Government with Residual powers. All the above methods of division
of governmental powers seek to conform to the system of federal government,
as postulated by K.C. Wheare.

84
Financial Autonomy
The governments in a federation are expected to be financially autonomous.
This implies that each level of government must have under its control, financial
resources that are adequate for the performance of its functions. No level of
government should depend on another for its finances.
Financial autonomy is designed to guarantee the autonomy and non-
subordination of one level of government to another. Thus, according to
Wheare (cited in Dare, 1979:27):

…if the governmental authorities in a federation are to be really coordinate with

each other, in actual practice as well as in law, it is essential that there should be
available to each of them, under its own unfettered control, financial resources
sufficient for the performance of the functions assigned to it under the
constitution…if state authorities, for example, find that the services allotted to
them are too expensive for them to perform, and if they call upon the federal
authority for grants and subsidies to assist them, they are no longer coordinate
with the federal government but subordinate to it. Financial subordination makes
an end of federalism; in fact, no matter how carefully the legal forms may be
preserved.

It stands to reason that financial subordination of one level of government to

another in a federation, as it is in Nigeria, is a perversion of the tenets of
federalism.

A Written Constitution
A written constitution implies that the constitution of a country is contained
in a single document (code or handbook). In a federation, the constitution is
expected to be rigid in terms of the procedure for amendment. In Nigeria, the
1999 constitution contains an amendment procedure. Section 9 (2) of the
constitution states that:

An act of the National Assembly for the alteration of this constitution, not being
an Act to which section 8 of this constitution applies, shall not be passed in either
House of the National Assembly unless the proposal is supported by votes of not
less than two-thirds majority of all members of that House and approved by
resolution of the Houses of Assembly of not less than two-thirds of all States.

Also, Section 9 (3) provides that:

An Act of the National Assembly for the purpose of altering the provisions of
this section, section 8 or chapter iv of this constitution shall not be passed by
either House of the National Assembly unless the proposal is approved by the
votes of not less than four-fifths majority of all the members of each House, and

85
 also approved by resolution of the Houses of Assembly of not less than two-
thirds of all the States.

Section 8 of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution deals with the creation of new
States, Local governments and boundary adjustments, while chapter four covers
provisions on the fundamental human rights of citizens. It is deducible,
therefore, that any amendment of the constitution which borders on the creation
of a new State, Local government, boundary adjustment and the fundamental
human rights can only be effected if approved by four fifths (4/5) of members of
each chamber of the National Assembly, and two-third, (2/3) of the House of
Assembly of all the States. Alterations of the Constitution on other issues can
be done with the consent of two-thirds (2/3) of members of both Houses of the
National Assembly and two-thirds (2/3) of the House of Assembly of all the
States.
The procedure for amending the constitution in Nigeria is similar to that of
the United States of America. Constitutional amendments in the United States
take two dimensions. Firstly, congress can propose an amendment through a
two-third majority vote in each of the two chambers. Secondly, an amendment
can be initiated by two-third of the legislatures of the States. An amendment
takes effect if it is ratified by three-quarters of the State legislatures or by
conventions in three-quarters of the States.

It is clear from the above that the amendment of the constitution whether in
Nigeria or the United States is a tedious process. This is true of other federal
States – Canada, Switzerland, and so on.

A Body to Interpret the Constitution

Federal governments are characterized by a non-political body, charged with
the interpretation of the constitution, and the settlement of disputes among
States, and between States and the Central governments. The Supreme Court
usually exercises this role. In Nigeria for example, the 1999 constitution
provides in section 232 (1) that:

The Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have original
jurisdiction in any dispute between the Federation and a State or between States
if and in so far as that dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on
which the existence or extent of a legal right depends.

Furthermore, the constitution states in section 234 thus:

Without prejudice to the power of the President or the Governor of a State with
respect to prerogative of mercy, no appeal shall lie in any other body or person
from any determination of the Supreme Court.

86
 The Supreme Court in Nigeria is thus the final authority on legal issues. It
possesses the power of judicial review and accordingly, can declare as null and
void, any government action that violates the constitution, or Acts of the
legislature at all levels. This is also the case in India, the United States, etc,
with some variations. In Switzerland for example, the Supreme Court (Federal
Court) lacks the power of judicial review (Ofoeze, 1999: 126).

A Representative Assembly of the People

This refers to the legislature (Congress, in the United States and National
Assembly in Nigeria), which provides a forum for representatives of the
component or federating units to make enabling laws that will govern the
federation, and also pursue the rational interests of their people, and the entire
country.
It is usually a bicameral legislature with an upper chamber (the Senate) and
a lower chamber (the House of Representatives). Generally, representation in
the upper chamber is based on equality (three Senators for each State in Nigeria,
and two Senators for each State in America, for example). Representation in
the Lower chamber is based on population; thus each State is represented in
accordance with its overall population.

The Methods of Creating a Federal State

The literature on federalism shows that there are two identifiable methods
through which a state becomes federal – the aggregation and disaggregation
methods (Lazarus, 1997)

The Aggregation Method

With the aggregation method, States which are independent and sovereign
may elect to form a federal state through a process of negotiation and
bargaining. A number of reasons account for the desire by otherwise
independent States to enter into a federation. These include:

(i) Insecurity: Smaller States that share a boundary with a mighty state
may have fear for their sovereignty over the possibility of the bigger
State invading and conquering them. To contain this threat, the smaller
State will now decide to form a bigger State through a federal
arrangement.

(ii) To exploit the advantages of their geographical location for the mutual
benefit of their people. A country may be land-locked, whereas another
is not. In this case, a union will enable them to derive the advantages of
each location. Thus, the drive to maximize economic advantages can
make countries to form a federal State.
87
 The central government is created by the hitherto independent States that
gives up their sovereignty and identity as independent states. The federating
states do not give up everything; they give up only certain limited powers and
retain some powers (Wheare, cited in Dare, 1979:27). In this regard, a general
practice is for the State to retain ownership and control of its resources. The
federating units, therefore, protect their interest adequately. This largely
explains why the constituent units own and control resources in federations that
were formed by the aggregation method. The Aggregation method, therefore,
strengthens the component units in a federation. The United States and Canada
are classic example.

The Disaggregation Method

The disaggregation method progresses from a Unitary to a Federal State. In
this regard, the Central government creates the component units. What this
means is that a country that is administrated as a Unitary State can become a
Federal state by splitting itself into constituent units with corresponding levels
of government. This is done for a number of reasons.

(i) For administrative convenience and efficiency. If a country has a large

territory and population, the centralization of power might impede the
efficiency of government in the performance of its duties. This issue
can be taken care of by decentralizing power through a federal
arrangement. This is what the British did in Nigeria.

(ii) Ethnic cleavages and the drive for self-determination can also lead to
the formation of a federal government through disaggregation. This
appears to be the preferred option for the resolution of the political
conflict/civil war in Somalia and Sudan.

As a federal State, Nigeria followed the disaggregation method. When the

British formally established the colonial Nigeria State in 1900, it had three
territories – the Northern protectorate, the Southern protectorate and the colony
of Lagos. In 1906, the colony of Lagos was merged with the southern
protectorate, thus reducing the country to two political entities – the Southern
and Northern protectorates.
The two protectorates were amalgamated into a single political unit in 1914.
Later in 1946, the Richards constitutions introduced the idea of regions, leading
to the creation of the Northern, Western and Eastern regions. This was
strengthened by the 1951 Machpherson Constitution. The Lyttleton
Constitution of 1954 granted the regions governmental powers in line with the
88
practice of federalism, where governmental powers are shared by levels of
governments. Thus, the country became a federal State.
At independence, the Midwestern region was created, making the regions
four. In 1967, the regions were broken down into 12 States. The number rose
to 19 in 1976, 21 in 1987, 30 in 1991 and 36 in 1996. The above demonstrates
the point that the Nigerian federation was created through the disaggregation
method.
A significant feature of the disaggregation method is that the central or
Federal Government is preponderant. Given that it creates the component units,
it decides what power to give up and those to retain. In this regard, the tendency
is to retain the ownership and control of resources, as it is in Nigeria. The
Disaggregation method, therefore, tends to strengthen the Federal or Central
Government while leaving the federating units weakened.

Factors/Conditions that Promotes the Creation of Federal States

The formation of a federal state is made possible by a number of factors.
These factors are different from the reasons which give rise to federalism as
discussed under the methods of creation. The conditions that promote the
establishment of federal states are discussed below.

Geographical Contiguity
The formation of a federation through the Aggregation Method requires that
the states to be fused must share common boundaries. Given that one of the
attributes of a state is a clearly defined territory, the boundaries of a federal state
cannot include another state that is not part of the federation. The diagram
below explains it.

Figure 4.2

A B C D E F G

If we assume that the letters A – G represent independent states that intend to

form a federal state, the principle of geographical contiguity will give rise to
the following formations.
89
Example I
Country A and G cannot form a federation because they are not neighbouring
states. The justification here is that countries B to F separate them.

Example II
Countries A, B, F and G cannot form a federal union given that they are
separated by countries C, D and E.

Example III
Countries A – G can form a federation. This is also true of A, B, C, and D, E,
F, and B, C, D, and E, B, C, D and E, and so on.

Similarly, the formation of a federation through the Disaggregation Method

also requires that the ethnic, cultural or social groups that make up a particular
federating unit must be neighbours. In Nigeria for example, we cannot group
the Tiv, Nupe Ndokwa and Ikwerres together in a single State. Similarly, we
cannot unite the Hausa and Ijaw groups in a single state. This explains the
arrangement where groups that share common boundaries are placed in a State.

Similar Political Institutions

The formation of a federal government is enhanced if the federating units
have similar political institutions. The justification here is that it facilitates a
clear and easy understanding of the principles that will govern the federal
political system. This promotes political integration and therefore strengthens
the state. This is applicable more to the Aggregation method.

Socio-Cultural Affinity
The Disaggregation Method of creating a federal political system is
facilitated by grouping social and cultural entities that have close affinity with
each other. For example, the homogenous Yoruba and Igbo States in Nigeria.

Equality of Component Units

For the Aggregation Method of creating a federal political system to be
possible, the federating States must be equal in size, population, and political
might. This means that there must be no pronounced inequality among the
States. If one or two appear preponderant, the fear of domination will inhibit
the union.
In Nigeria for example, before independence, the minority ethnic groups
raised alarm over fears of domination and marginalization by the major ethnic
groups. Accordingly, they requested for the own States, to shield them from
90
the anticipated domination. Although the Willinks Commission, which was se
tup by the Colonial Government to inquire into these fears and suggest ways of
allaying them did not grant the demand for states creation by the minorities, the
fears then (in 1957) have come to pass in present day Nigerian society.
Undoubtedly, if the Nigerian federation was not forced, the minorities would
not have joined the Nigerian federation with the dominant groups.

Resources Endowments
Given that the desire to exploit economic advantages is a motive for forming
a federal State, countries take into consideration the resource endowments of
fellow countries, before agreeing to join any union. Thus, with the Aggregation
Method, a country that is barren of resources can hardly be accepted by another
into a federation. This is also true of the Disaggregation Method. In Nigeria,
economic viability is one of the essential criteria for creating new States.

Common Historical/Political Experience

Countries that share similar political and historical experiences are more
likely to aggregate, and form a federal State, than those who do not. For
example, the 13 States that originally formed the American federation share the
same political history of being colonized by the British. It is noteworthy that a
single factor may not propel the formation of a federal State. To this end, it is
usually created by a combination of some of the factors outlined above.

Factors that Guarantee Stability in a Federal Political System

A number of factors account for the stability of federal State. First, it is the
absence of a dominant component unit. According to Mill (cited by Okoko &
Nna, 1997):
…there should not be any one state so much powerful than the rest as to be
capable of vying in strength with many of them combined. If there be such one,
and only one, it will insist on being master of the joint deliberation, if there be
two, they will be irresistible when they argue and whenever they differ,
everything will be decided by a struggle for ascendancy between rivals.

This partly explains the instability of the Nigerian federation. An example

will suffice. The North is dominant in comparison to the rest of the country, a
situation attributable to the effect of British Colonial rule. As part of its divide
and rule politics, it placed the North in a political advantaged position. A greater
percentage of the land and population (54. 5 percent for the North, 20 percent
for the West and 25 percent for the East) Ademoyega 1981:5-6):
Whereas the above captures the situation in Nigeria, at independence, it
remains largely the same today. Given the enthnicisation of politics and the
privatization of the State, the North gets a larger share of the national material
91
resources. This is true of other majority – minority group relations in Nigeria.
The sore point in this relationship is that when the dominant group is in power,
it denies the minorities’ access to the State and a fair share of the national
resources. This throws up instability.
Related to the above is the need to treat the component groups equally. This
means that no unit must be favoured, and none should be victimized. Equity in
resources allocation guarantees this. Again, an autonomous state stabilizes a
federal political system. Where a state lacks autonomy, it is manipulated to
benefit particular groups in a federation. The neglected group develops a
feeling of alienation, and consequently dissent sets in.
On a final note, democratic governance promotes the stability of a federal
government. The values of democracy, with emphasis on respect for the rule
of law, accountability, transparency and justice sustain the federal idea. For
example, the constitutional division of powers can only be guaranteed if the rule
of law is observed. The Nigerian experience shows that military rule
(authoritarian rule) negates the practice of federalism. Military rule tends to
reduce federalism to unitary system of government. A major effect of this is
the structural tension, which makes the Nigerian State unstable.

What is True Federalism?

True federalism is a term that has assumed wide usage in national political
discourse in Nigeria. Some see it as synonym of resource ownership and
control by the components units of a federation. Others see it as the practice of
federalism which is consonance with the theoretical postulations of Wheare,
Mill and others. The second view, defines true federalism.

A federal state will be seen to be practicing true federalism, if it is

characterized by the following:

1. The exercise of coordinate authority by the levels of government (centre,

national, general, or federal and state, region, province or canton). This means
that no level of government must be subordinated to the other in the exercise of
governmental powers. This requires that no level of government should either
interfere with or undermine the powers/functions of the other.

2. The governments in a federation must be financially autonomous. This

means that no level of government must be subordinated, financially, to the
other. In this regard, each government must have financial resources that are
adequate to execute its functions/powers. Put differently, no level of
government must depend on the other for funding its programmes.

92
3. Equality of the federating ethnic nationalities, states or component parts.
This means that all units in a federation must be given equal treatment in
resource allocation and other benefits derivable from the union. There must be
no domination of one group by another.

It stands to reason that any federal system that is out of tune with the above
features is a perverted federalism. Nigeria is a classic example. Thus,
according to Ojo (1998:9):

Experience in Nigeria is that instead of separation and balance of power among

the three tiers of government, the higher powers tend to encroach upon and usurp
the powers and rights of the lower tiers. Instead of coequal legal status of all the
tiers as true federalism demands, the federal and state tiers…see their relationship
with each other and with the third tier in hierarchical terms. The federal
government sees itself as a superior to the local government tier.

This has subordinated the State Governments to the Federal Government,

both in the exercise of governmental powers and financial resources.
Furthermore, ethnic politics and the privatization of the State have led to the
unequal treatment of the minority groups. The major ethnic groups who control
the state has dominated and denied the minority groups of a fair and just share
of national material resources. Nigeria is, therefore, not a truly federal state.

The Con-federal System of Government (Confederation)

Confederation is a political system that loosely fuses autonomous or
independent states into a political unit. The method of formation is similar to
the Aggregation Method of creating a federal state. Unlike federalism,
however, the State in a confederation retains full sovereignty and identity
(Rodee, Anderson, Christol & Greenea, 1976). Essentially, therefore,
confederation is a political association of states, which seeks to cooperate in the
actualization of common interests (Ofoeze, 1999).
In this regard, the confederating states act together unanimously on all major
questions of policy and on amendments to the confederation’s basic law
(Rodee, Anderson, Christol and Greene, 1976:41). Confederation can,
therefore, be seen as a loose federation. Its features include the following:

1. Given that the confederating states retain their identity and sovereignty, they
have the legal right to withdraw their membership from the union.

2. Citizens are subject to their own governments. The central authority has no
direct control over the citizens. To this end, the governments of the federating
states midwife the authority of the centre. This means that for the laws of the
93
union to be applicable, governments of the federating units must ratify them.
The component units are, therefore, stronger than the union (central)
government.

The formation of confederate state is defined by motives which include the

need for common defence and the desire to exploit economic advantages of the
union members. Geographical contiguity is a major determinant of
confederation. Sene-Gambia, the confederate state formed by Senegal and
Gambia is a useful example.

The Unitary System of Government

The Unitary System of government locates supreme legislative power in the
centre. Unlike the federalism, there is no constitutional division of powers
among levels of government. Accordingly, constitutional powers are not
assigned to smaller units of government. They only receive delegated powers
through an ordinary statute enacted by the national legislative.
The lower levels of authority are, therefore, created by the national (central)
government, and they are reduced to its appendage. As a system of government,
the unitary system is largely determined by a small territory and high degree of
homogeneity among states. Examples of unitary states include Ghana, Togo,
Benin Republic, Britain, France and Sweden.

Military Government
This is a type of government operated by personnel of the Armed Forces
(Army, Navy, Air Force and the Police). It is not a government by election;
thus its leadership comes to power through coup d’etat – a violent take over of
power. Military government, a feature of Less Developed Countries is usually
headed by the Army and at times by the Air Force. In Nigeria for example, all
the military governments were headed by the Army. In Ghana, all but one (the
regime of Flight Lieutenant J.J. Rawlings) were headed by the Army. Its
characteristics include the fusion of powers of Head of State and Head of
Government; a hierarchical structure based on command; rule by Decree and
Edicts; suspension of the country’s constitution. This means that it places itself
above the law; the co-opting of civilians into the executive as ministers,
commissioners, and advisers; and ban on political activities.
Military government is strictly speaking illegitimate and an aberration
(abnormal). It is illegitimate because military succession to power is not based
on law, and abnormal because the constitutional duty of the military is not to
govern, but to defend the territorial integrity of the State; this includes
defending the State against external aggression and internal insurrection.

Why Does the Military Intervene in Politics?

94
 The reasons which account for the involvement of the military in politics can
be seen from two perspectives – reasons advanced by the military leaders and
those proffered by scholars.

Reasons Advanced by the Military

The military usually give a number of reasons for abandoning their
constitutional duty, to take part in politics. These include the following:

Corruption and the Consequences Thereof:

It argues that the political class in its rule is corrupt, as politicians are
preoccupied with personal aggrandizement. This promotes indiscipline and
lack of commitment to national development objectives, and worsens the
problems associated with underdevelopment. Justifying the 1983 Coup d’état
in Nigeria for instance, Sanni Abacha declared in the coup broadcast that:

You are all living witnesses to the grave economic predicament and uncertainty
which an inept and corrupt leadership has imposed on our beloved nation…our
economy has been hopelessly mismanaged…there is inadequate food…health
services are in shambles as our hospitals are reduced to mere consulting clinics,
without drugs, water and equipment. Our educational system is deteriorating at
an alarming rate…yet our leaders revel in squandermania, corruption and
indiscipline… (Adamolekun, 1985:76).

The above reference implies that the military intervened in order to correct the
problems created by the politicians.

The High Value Placed on Political Power by the Politicians

The military posits that the political class sees politics as an enterprise, and
consequently a means to accumulating wealth; that there is an obsession with
political power, which causes a desperate struggle for political power. The
resulting insecurity and instability then threatens the existence of the country.
Given its role as defender or protector of the country, therefore, it intervenes
in the political process to save the state from collapse. Again, Sanni Abacha
declared that:

…little did the military realize that the political leadership of the Second
Republic will circumvent most of the checks and balances in the constitution and
bring us to the present state of general insecurity…The premium on political
power became so exceedingly high that political contestants regarded victory at
elections as a matter of life and death struggle and were determined to capture or
retain power by all means…We have dutifully intervened to save this nation from
imminent collapse…(Adamolekun, 1987:76).

95
It is clear from the above that the military sees itself as a “messiah” that should
save its country, through intervention in governance, whenever, in its judgment,
the political class has failed to perform its assigned duties to the State.

Reasons Advanced by Scholars

The Lack of Autonomy of the state

The argument here is that military rule is a consequence of the lack of
autonomy by a State. For example Ake (2001:29), observed that whenever a
State lacks autonomy, it suffers political consequences:

…Political differences and struggles are not easily mediated…the state is

immersed in the class struggle and is not impartial or perceived as impartial.
Thus political economic competition become essentially
“normless”…contending groups struggle on grimly, polarizing their differences
and convinced that their ability to protect their interest and to obtain justice is co-
extensive with the power. That creates…the politics of anxiety. In this type of
politics there is deep alienation and distrust among political competitors.
Consequently, there are profoundly afraid of being in the power of their
opponents. This fear in turn breeds a huge appetite for power, which is sought
without restraint and used without restraint.

The above promotes the privatization of the State, which benefits the
politicians through the accumulation of wealth. This in turn creates an appetite
for power in the military, who also seek access to the state as a means to
accumulate wealth. Thus, the military intervenes in politics, not to correct the
corruption and indiscipline of the political class, but to have a “share” of the
national wealth.
This partly explains why a military government overthrows another military
government. In this regard, military governments are as corrupt and
undisciplined as their civilian counterparts. The Nigerian experience attests to
this.

Weak Civil Society

The civil society in countries that have experienced military government is
usually blamed for such occurrence. The charge against civil society is that
because it is weak, it is unable to mobilize support against military intervention
in politics.

The Lack of Identity between the People and Government

In nearly all the African countries where military rule has taken place, the
people are alienated from the government through misrule. To this end, there
is the absence of identification between the people and the government. This
means that the people do not anchor their lives on the government in power.
96
Thus, when such a government is overthrown though a coup d’etat, the citizens
do not raise any protest. Experience in Nigeria and Ghana show that because
of the level of dissatisfaction, the people actually welcome military intervention
with open arms.

The Demonstrative Effect of Military Coup

Another determinant of military government is the bandwagon effect one
military coup has on another. When a military coup succeeds in one country, it
is imitated by military officers in another country. Thus, when the first military
coup took place in Togo, in 1965, it quickly spread to Ghana and later Nigeria.
Similarly, the Junior officer led coup in Ghana under J.J. Rawlings was imitated
in Sierra-Leone (Valentine Strasser) and Bourkina Fasso (Thomas Sankara). J.J.
Rawlings was a Flight Lieutenant in the Air Force, while Valentine Strasser and
Thomas Sankara were captains in the Army when they led the coups in their
respective countries.

Local Government
The search by governments to achieve effective management of resources
has led to the decentralization of governmental powers and function to
institutions and agencies. In this respect, local government administration has
become a common feature of governments in the world. The term local
government has been given varied interpretations by scholars.
To get a better understanding of the concept, some definitions by scholars,
institutions and organizations shall be reviewed. The discussion proceeds with
the definition of the United Nations Division of Public Administration which
defines local governments as a “political division of a nation which is
constituted by law and has substantial control of local affairs, including the
powers to impose taxes or exact labour for prescribed purposes” (Enemuo,
1999:317).
For Golding (1975:9), ‘‘local government is a system of government at the
local level exercised through a locally elected representative council, enjoying
substantial autonomy in the exercise of specific powers over a given locality in
the performance of a range of functions and responsibilities allotted to it by
law.”
It is deducible from the above that local government is a sub-unit of
government at the local level. It is charged with the management of the affairs
of the local people. We may also discern from the above that the characteristics
of local government include: A defined and limited territory and population; an
institutional structure; a separate legal entity; a range of powers and functions
authorized by delegation from the appropriate central or intermediate
legislature; reasonable autonomy; and a governing body made up of elected or
non-elected representatives. (Enemuo, 1999)
97
 It is noteworthy that local government is different from local administration.
To further clarify the distinction between local government and local
administration, we will examine the concept of decentralization. According to
Adamolekun (cited in Enemuo, 1999:27), decentralization refers to:

…the organization of government activity outside the headquarters of the central

government either as an administrative measure involving the transfer of
resources and responsibilities to agents of the central government located outside
the headquarters or as a political arrangement involving the devolution of
specific powers, functions and resources by the central government to sub-
national level government units.

Generally, decentralization takes the form of de-concentration and

devolution. .
Significantly, the devolution variant of decentralization is strikingly different
as highlighted in Table 4.1

Table 4.1: Explaining Local Government

Local Local Decentralization
Administration Government

Deconcentration Devolution
The administration of Government in which Deconcentration Decentralization
local communities by popular participation involves the transfer or requires the
means of local agents both in the choice of redistribution of powers creation of
appointed and decision makers and and functions to field independent sub-
responsible to the the decision-making staff, and so on without national level so
central government process is conducted necessarily allocating government that
by local bodies which powers to them. What are outside the
while recognizing the this means is that the control of the
supremacy of the receiving agency is only central
central government is an extension of the government.
able and willing to central government or Effective
accept responsibility ministry, which devolution implies
for its decisions. redistributes its the transfer of
authority. To that extent, responsibility for
the receiving specified local
establishment acts as an services to
agent and is therefore not autonomous local
differentiated government units
structurally that are elected by
the local
population and are
granted the power
to raise their own
revenues and to
decide policy
directions.

Source: Enemuo, 1999: p.27

98
Clearly, the local government, unlike local administration, belongs to the
devolution variant of decentralization.
The exercise of local government has been justified on political,
administrative and developmental grounds. The justifications are spelt out as
follows:

1. It provides the people a platform to conduct their own affairs in line with the
local needs, aspirations, resources and customs which they alone understand
better than any outsider.

2. It provides a framework for mobilizing and sustaining popular zeal and

initiative in development.

3. Local government serves as a hedge against over-concentration of power at

the centre which often leads to tyranny.

4. Local government functions in a two-way channel of communication

between the local population and the central government. It aggregates local
interests and transmits these to the centre and also keeps the local population
informed about central government’s policies and programmes.

5. Local government can serve as an invaluable socio-political laboratory for

testing new proposals for government policies. When such policies fail, the
cost would be much less than failure at the national level. If, however, it is
successful, it can be replicated across the country.

6. Popular grassroots participation in local government either as an official or

as a voter is excellent training for voting in national elections and holding public
office. By so doing, local government provides an ever-fresh source of good
citizens and leaders for the nation while promoting the culture of democracy
(Enemuo, 1999:318-319).

To promote the actualization of these justifications, local governments all

over the world,are given a wide range of powers and functions. In Nigeria,
these functions are sourced from the constitution and categorized into two –
exclusive and participatory functions. These functions are highlighted in Table
4.2.
99
Table 4. 2: Exclusive and Participatory Functions of Local Government in Nigeria
Exclusive Functions Participatory Functions
(i) The formulation of economic (i) The provision and maintenance of
planning and development primary, adult and vocational
schemes for the local education;
government area; (ii) The development of agriculture
and natural resources other than
(ii) Collection of rates and the exploitation of minerals;
issuance of radio and (iii) The provision and maintenance of
television licenses; health services and;
Such other functions as may be conferred
upon a local government by the State House
(iii) Establishment and of Assembly
maintenance of cemeteries
and homes for the destitute or
infirm;

(iv) Licensing of bicycles, trucks

(other than mechanically
propelled trucks) canoes,
wheelbarrows and carts;

(v) Establishment, maintenance

and regulation of markets,
motor parks and public
conveniences;

(vi) Construction and maintenance

of roads, streets, drains and
other public highways, parks,
open spaces, or such public
facilities as may be prescribed
from time to time by the State
House of Assembly;

(vii) Naming of roads and streets,

and numbering of houses;

(viii) Provision and maintenance of

public conveniences and
refuse disposal;

100
 (ix) Registration of all births,
deaths and marriages;

(x) Assessment of privately

owned houses or tenements
for the purpose of levying such
rates as may be prescribed by
the State House of Assembly;
and

(xi) Control and regulation of:

(a) Outdoor advertising
and hoarding

(b) Movement and

keeping of pets of all
descriptions

(c) Shops and Kiosks

(d) Restaurants and

other places for sales
of food to the public;
and

(e) Laundries.

Source: Fourth Schedule, 1999 Constitution

It is pertinent to mention that the character of local government differs from

one political system to another; and this is determined by factors, which could
be historical, geographical, social-cultural, economic and political (Ofoeze,
1992:2).

Furthermore, scholars have categorized local governments into the following

types.

1. Anglo-Saxon – characterized by structural differentiation and political

autonomy, as practiced in Britain and Nigeria.

2. Prefectorial system which is fused with the central authority as practiced in

France.

101
3. The council – manager system as practiced in the United States of America.

4. The socialist system – characterized by structural undifferentiation as

practiced in the former Soviet Union.

5. The traditional system which fuses modern and traditional patterns of

governance (Ibodje, 1999).
It is worth highlight that the structure and organization of local government,
along with its powers and functions, are largely determined by beliefs, values
and ideologies of the class or group, which exercises political power.

Democratic Government (Democracy)

The term democracy is derived from two Greek words, “demos”, which
means people, and “cracy”, which means rule or government. Thus (Alapiki,
2000:45). Translated literally, democracy means ‘‘rule by the people”.
Democracy, therefore, vests ultimate authority and the people, and also pursues
the public good (Gauba, 2003: 421)

Elements/Features of Democracy
A democratic government has characteristics or features which include the
following:

The Conduct of Election

The conduct of free and fair periodic elections stands out as one of the
essential ingredients of democracy. The conduct of elections according to
agreed rules is the basis of consent and legitimacy which makes democracy
stand tall among other systems of government. Election in an exercise, which
involves the choosing of leaders through the ballot box. Its elements include:
the selection of representatives to fill predetermined public offices; the presence
of choice or option to select from a number of individuals or programmes; the
right of electors to make their choice independently or without consultation with
other electors (Alapiki, 1995:89-90). In a democracy, franchise defines the
electors.

Franchise
This is the right to vote at elections based on agreed criteria or
principles. In Nigeria, the franchise is granted to citizens aged 18
years and above. Minors (citizens below 18 years), lunatics,
persons disqualified for electoral or corrupt practices, and Nigerian
citizens who profess allegiance to another country are excluded. In
the initial stage of democratic practice, women were denied the
102
 right to vote. This ended in 1928 when the universal adult suffrage
extended the franchise to women.

In a democracy, the issue is not just the conduct of elections; the election
must be free and fair. This means that the outcome of an election must be
congruent with, or should reflect the choice or votes of the people. Free and
fair election is made possible by the following factors.

Transparency
Consensus among all stakeholders about the legislative and regulatory
framework of the elections and their implementation.

Inclusivity
All stakeholders must participate in the process, regardless of any inhibitory
factors. This refers to the inclusion of women, youth, rural voters and other
historically marginalized groups.

Accessibility
The electorate and representatives must have full access to the process
during all its stages – campaigning, registration, voting and counting – and have
the ability to reach all the voters by having sufficient means (funding) and
access.

Legitimacy
The electoral authority must have sufficient credibility to ensure that the
process is conducted according to the legislative framework that has been
agreed upon by the stakeholders and shows the willingness to deal in a non-
partisan manner with any dispute or conflicts that may emerge during the
election process (Essien-Ibok, 2004). Elections promote democracy when they
are free and fair.

Majority Rule: Majority rule means that the society submits itself
to the determination of the majority. This means that governmental
power is exercised by majority members of society, determined
through the ballot box. Majority is either simple or absolute.
Simple Majority: Here majority is determined by the highest vote
polled by an individual or party in an election. The different in
votes among contestants does not matter; thus a single vote
different earns an individual or party victory. For example, if in an
election involving A, B, C, E, and D, A scores 102 votes, B 145
and D77, E, emerges the winner.

103
 Absolute Majority: With absolute majority, an individual or party
wins an election with votes that are more than the combined votes
of all other contestants. For example, if 5 individuals contest an
election with a total vote cast of 800 electorates, the winner must
obtain 400 and above; that is 50 percent plus one (50% +1). This
means that the winner must score 401 and above. The electoral
system defines the majority. Electoral System prescribes the
methods or procedure of voting in an election, and defines how
votes translate to victory.

Protection of Minority Rights

Democracy is majority rule. The majority that governs must protect the
rights of the minority. The majority holds government as a trust for all members
of society. The minority could be ethnic, political or religious.

Freedom
This implies the right of citizens to do whatever they want within the limits
of the law. This means that the rights of individuals and groups must not be
interfered with except sanctioned by law. This is the basis of choice in a
democracy.

Actualization Citizen’s Aspirations

This means that the government must exist for the people. It must be
responsive to the duties it owes the citizens.

Constitutional Rule
This means acceptance of the principle of government by law. This is
government defined by the dictates of the constitution (Joof & Mezieobi, 1995).

The Conditions/Structures that Promotes Democracy

The democratic system of government is anchored on a number of structures
or conditions that sustain it. These are discussed below:

The Rule of Law

Democracy is a constitutional system of government, and to that extent, it is
governed by law. Democracy survives and stands tall only when it is governed
by law. This explains the relevance of the doctrine of the rule of law to the
sustenance of democracy. The rule of law is associated with A.V. Dicey and it
simply means that state and statesmen are below the law because the law is
supreme. It insists that what governs is the law, and therefore, people must not
be subject to the arbitrary will of leadership/rulers, but the law.

104
 The rule of law is made up of three fundamental components – supremacy
of the law, equality before the law and the guarantee of Human Rights.

Supremacy of the Law

This means that the law is supreme, and above every other thing in society
– including the state and government. It requires that the actions of states and
statesmen must be in compliance with the laws of the state. This simply means
constitutionalism or government based on law.

Equality before the Law

This implies that the law is no respecter of persons. All men, rich, poor,
clergy, state official, etc, are equal in the eyes of the law. Put differently, the
law treats all men equally. This implies that the law is not biased in favour of,
or against any individual or group. The provisions of the law, its interpretation,
and execution must not favour some people or put others in a disadvantaged
position. This requires that the laws of the state must be standard and judges
must be impartial in their judicial pronouncements or decisions.

Human Rights
Human rights are seen to be moral rights belonging to all people by virtue
of their humanity and which seek to guarantee the equal worth of each
individual life (Aaron and Ibaba, 2004; Enemuo, 1999; O’Byrne, 2004). The
1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights took the first step to define and
legalize human rights and obligations (Grutto, 2002). Considered to be
universal. These rights are categorized as shown in table one below:
Table 1: Categorization of Human Rights
Civil and Political Rights Economic, Social and Collective or Solidarity
Cultural Rights Rights

Right to life, expression, Right to work, just conditions Environmental and

association, privacy, of work, fair remuneration, ecological rights; right to
movement, thought adequate standard of living, peace and security; right to
conscience, religion, and collective bargaining, political, cultural and
freedom from torture, property, education, health, economic self
inhuman treatment, slavery housing, social security, determination, and right to
and forced labour. housing, and free development and
participation in the cultural humanitarian assistance
life.

Source: Adapted from Enemuo, 1999: 141-155; Aaron and Ibaba 2004: 151-152;
Gutto, 2002.

Human Rights become fundamental Human rights when they are recognized
and guaranteed by the constitution. In Nigeria, chapter 4, section 33-46 of the

105
1999 constitution guarantees the following fundamental rights: Right to life;
Right to dignity of human person; Right to personal liberty; Right to fair
hearing; Right to private and family life; Right to freedom of thought,
conscience and religion; Right to freedom of expression and press; Right to
peaceful assembly and association; Right to freedom of movement; Right to
acquire and own immovable property anywhere in Nigeria; and Protection
against the compulsory acquisition of property.
It is compulsory for the state to guarantee fundamental human rights; thus
individuals can make demands on the state in respect of these rights. But it is
imperative to note that the civil and political rights are justiciable, while the
other two categories are non-justiciable (Agomo, 2004). Equally noteworthy
is the fact that the guarantee of Human Rights promotes freedom, and freedom
is the hallmark of democracy. Freedom sustains democracy, and democracy in
turn promotes freedom. Significantly, freedom can only be promoted when the
rule of law is respected.
The freedom granted by the rule of law is not a license to do whatever one
likes; rather, it is exercised having regard to other people’s rights and within the
confines of law. The right to freedom of religion does not give an individual
the right to undermine the right to freedom of thought of another man. Equally,
an individual can be deprived or alienated from his rights for the safety of the
state and the protection of other people’s rights. Thus insane persons can be
deprived of their rights of freedom of movement if such freedom poses a danger
to the lives of others. And so could persons who are incarcerated for criminal
acts.
Two crucial issues should be noted here. First is the fact that the guarantee
of fundamental human rights is limited or inhibited by the lack of respect for
the principles of the rule of law. Second, the failure to guarantee Human Rights
is a constraint on freedom. This undermines or weakens democracy.

Limitations to the Rule of Law

The rule of law has limitations, which reduces its utility to democracy,
particularly in emerging democracies. These include:

Diplomatic Immunity
Foreign diplomats (Ambassadors and High Commissioners for instance) are
exempted from prosecution by their host government or country. They can only
be declared persona non grata (undesirable person) and asked to leave, if they
breach the laws of the host country.

Immunity Granted to Public Officers

Some public officers (President and Governors for example) are exempted
from criminal prosecution while in office. Thus, for example, the 1999
106
constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, in section 308 (1-3) precludes
the President, Vice President, Governors and Deputy Governors from
prosecution, or imprisonment during their tenure of office.
Therefore, no matter the gravity of offence, the public officers mentioned
above cannot be prosecuted; indeed they cannot be arrested. This provision is,
however, not sacrosanct as for example, following judicial decisions, such
public officers can now be investigated for alleged offences, and also be made
to appear before a court for electoral charges. This immunity clause in the
Nigerian constitution is an albatross which endangers democracy. It is clear
that a public officer who lacks discipline, honesty and patriotism is likely to
abuse this provision.

Emergency Rule
Adherence to the rule of law is usually limited during periods of emergency
rule. This is due to the realities of the time, which require extraordinary
measures to maintain order. Emergency rule is determined by unusual
circumstances, and therefore, law is adapted to reflect the situation; in many
instances, the emergency authority sets aside provisions of existing laws, or
creates emergency laws which endanger the rule of law. This is, however,
justified by the need to impose order. In Nigeria for example, the 1999
constitution, and section 305 (3) prescribes emergency rule when:

1. The Federation is at war.

2. The Federation is in imminent danger of invasion or involvement in a state

of war.

3. There is actual breakdown of public order and public safety in the Federation
or any part thereof to such extent as to require extraordinary measures to restore
peace and stability.

4. There is a clear and present danger of an actual breakdown of public order

and public safety in the Federation or any part thereof requiring extraordinary
measures to avert such danger.

5. There is an occurrence or imminent danger, or the occurrence of any disaster

or natural calamity affecting the community or a section of the community in
the Federation.

It is clear here that the extraordinary measures required to maintain order

during a period of emergency, exceed the normal course of the law. For
example, during such periods, the state imposes restrictions on movement
107
through curfew. In addition, special security measures which provide for
detention without trial may be put in place.

Limited Autonomy of the State

When a State lacks autonomy or its autonomy is severely limited, the ruling
group controls and manipulates it to promote parochial interests. A
consequence of this is that public officers tend to place themselves above the
law. This sets in lawlessness which manifests as illegal detention of less
privileged citizens, defiance, disobedience and disregard of court order or
judgment.

The Absence of or Limited Judicial Independence

A judiciary that lacks independence, or only has limited independence is
partial in its decisions, and is therefore biased against some groups and
individuals. Thus, equality before the law, a principle of the rule of law suffers.
Also, the dominant/powerful groups and individuals who benefits from the
partiality of the judiciary tend to place themselves above the law thus
endangering the supremacy of the law.

The Ethnicisation/Privatization of Politics

When politics is ethnicised, the ethnic group that rules promotes its interests
through the law. What this means is that laws of the state reflect the interests
of those who govern and their ethnic homelands. This makes the law partial,
contrary to the principle of impartiality as required by the rule of law.
This is also true of the privatization of politics. Given that politics is seen
as enterprise, those in power direct the laws of the state to promote their
individual interests. In this regard, laws are made to exclude some individuals
and groups from national wealth and political power. The laws governing the
oil industry in Nigeria, which favour the ethnic majorities to the disadvantage
of the oil producing ethnic minorities is a classic example.

Importance of the Rule of Law to Democratic Governance

The rule of law is important to democratic governance in two main ways.
Firstly, it governs the process of leadership recruitment. The conduct of
elections to choose leaders in a democracy is based on clearly spelt out laws. A
democratic government is only legitimate when it upholds the enabling laws
guiding elections. Significantly, legitimacy strengthens the efficiency and
stability of a democratic government. A government may be legitimate without
necessarily being efficient. A better way to link legitimacy and efficiency is
that because the government is legitimate, stability is guaranteed, which spares
the government of valuable resources it would otherwise have dissipated in a
struggle with dissenting forces.
108
 Second, the rule of law is the basis for transparency and accountability in
democratic governance. This is also true of the freedom, democracy professes
to promote or guarantee. Transparency, accountability and freedom promote
the development of a society. This therefore, means that the rule of law
enhances the ability of a democratic government to actualize the aspirations of
the people.

Judicial Independence
An independent judiciary refers to a judiciary that is not subordinated to
either the executive or legislative arms of government, powerful individuals,
groups or institutions in society. It means that the judiciary must be free from
external control, impartiality and bias in the administration of justice
(Anifowose, 1999).
Democratic politics is governed by rules and regulations which are designed
to guide political actors. It is pertinent that political actors usually have
conflicts, requiring the judiciary to settle. For example in Nigeria, elections
almost always end in the law courts (election tribunals) due to disputes over
election results. The ability of the judiciary to interpret the laws and adjudicate
on issues in a manner that is congruent with the truth is a basis for the
maintenance of democracy. The independence of the judiciary is limited by a
number of factors which include the need to balance justice with political
stability and limited autonomy of the state and the associated lack of respect for
the rule of law.

Independent Electoral Body

The establishment and maintenance of democracy is facilitated by an
independent electoral body. The independence of this agency is necessary for
the conduct of free and fair elections. In an impartial and standard manner, this
independence is guaranteed by factors, which include the following:

1. Financial autonomy of the Agency, which will insulate it from manipulations,

particularly by the party in power.
2. The method of appointing members by the government of the day, as it is the
practice in Nigeria, undermines its independence. The South Africa example,
where the citizens through a graduated process of nomination, and selection
appoint members of the electoral body promotes independence.
3. A culture of politics that respects the rule of law.

The independence of the electoral body promotes democracy in the sense

that elections are conducted according to the lawful rules that are known.
Accordingly, the electoral process becomes transparent, and therefore, elections

109
results are hardly disputed. This strengthens the legitimacy of government, and
ultimately enhances an enduring democratic polity.

Electoral Body
This means the agency which organizes and conducts election (for
example, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)
in Nigeria).

An Autonomous State
An autonomous state is detached from the ruling class, and for this reason,
it is not manipulated to promote the parochial interests of the dominant class.
In this regard, the state is able to intervene and reconcile or mediate political
conflicts and thus creates an enabling environment for democracy to thrive.

A Politically Conscious Civil Society

A politically conscious civil society is a useful tool to the sustenance of
democracy. This is so because such groups are characterized by the cognitive
orientation and participant political culture. Their knowledge of politics makes
them detribalized, and enables them to make correct or rational judgments on
political issues. It also develops in citizens, a high sense of civic responsibility.

The Character of Political Leadership

A leadership that is honest, disciplined and patriotic usually strengthens
democracy. These qualities give rise to transparency and accountability, which
manifest as commitment/dedication to the actualization of national
development objectives. This promotes the aspirations of the people, and
makes them to have faith in democracy.

Development
Development in all its ramifications, particularly economic development,
helps to promote democracy. The advancement of the economic and social
well-being of the citizens, particularly poverty reduction, ensures total
identification between the people and the government. This enhances political
stability and therefore promotes an enduring democratic polity.

Unhindered Intra and Inter Party Politics

This requires that membership of political parties must be open, and all
members must have equal access to the opportunity structure of the political
party. Party leaders must therefore submit themselves to the rules and

110
regulations governing party activities. Political parties must be treated equally
by the electoral body and other agencies of the state – the press, police, etc.

The Variants of Democracy

Democracy can be categorized in two – direct democracy and indirect
democracy.

Direct Democracy
In its original form, democratic practice involved assembling all the adult
males at a point, to deliberate on matters of common interest in the society.
This type of democracy is known as direct democracy, and it originated in the
Greek City States. Sabine and Thorson (1973:21-22) notes that:
The whole body of male citizens formed the Assembly or Ecclesia, a state-
meeting which every Athenian was entitled to attend after he had reached the age
of twenty years…The act of this state-meeting correspond, as nearly as anything
in the system did, to modern enactments in which the whole public authority of
the body – politics is embodied.

Thus, direct democracy is widely seen as a form of government where the

right to make political decision is exercised by the whole body of citizens,
acting under procedures of majority rule (Babarinde, 1995). Decisions of the
Assembly are reached through majority support. Sabine and Thorson (1973:22)
however, opine that:

…the formation of policies and the effective discussion of measures did not take
place in the body. Direct democracy conducted by the whole people assembled
is rather a political myth than a form of government. Moreso, all forms of Greek
government (except extra legal dictatorship) whether aristocratic or democratic,
included some sort of assembly of the people, even though its share in
government might actually be small.

It stands to reason here that Sabine and Thorson disagree with the view that
in direct democracy, the people govern themselves directly, without
intermediaries (Alapiki, 2000). It is clear that in all forms of human collectivity,
there is a leadership that stands in between the people and their realizable
collective goals. This implies that even with direct democracy, there is a body
of men that directs the affairs of the people.
However, this body of men (that is government) is directly responsible to
the people. What this means is that it is not entirely independent of the people
in decision-making. In this regard, the people decide for the government,
through a direct process. Therefore, there are no intermediaries in policy-

111
making as the people decide for themselves. However, implementation was
through a body of men – an executive council of 500 persons.
The practice of direct democracy is anchored on a number of factors,
namely: The number of citizens must not be large. For example, the citizens in
the Greek City State numbered an average of 5,000. The territory should not
be unduly large; the society must be culturally homogenous. There should be
equality of men in terms of property and wealth; and government must not be
independent of the citizen’s will (Alapiki, 2000).
A major limitation of direct democracy is that it is not practicable with a
large population and expansive territory. This necessitates the practice of
indirect or representative democracy.

Representative/Indirect Democracy
This is a type of democracy whereby the citizens of a state take political
decisions and related issues through elected representatives. Unlike direct
democracy, citizens in a representative democracy do not partake directly in the
government process. They do so through individuals chosen by the people, and
assumed to be exercising the will of the people. Elections are, therefore, central
to representative democracy.
There are two variants of representative democracy – Liberal Democracy,
and Non-Liberal Democracy. Non-Liberal Democracy is further divided into
Communist Democracy and Third World or Underdeveloped democracy
(Macpherson, 1974).

Liberal-Democracy
Liberal-Democracy is the political correlate of capitalism. It is therefore
anchored on values of the capitalist system – freedom, competition,
individualism, formal equality and contractual relations.
Liberal – Democracy embodies all elements of democracy as discussed
above. However, it interprets majority as the party or individual who wins
majority votes in an election; irrespective of the objective realities of society,
which skews power in favor of the dominant group in society. However,
individuals and groups in society do not have equal access to the political
process and by extension political power.
Capitalist society is polarized into two classes of people – the bourgeoisie,
which is the dominant class, and the proletariat, which is the less privileged or
subordinate class. The bourgeoisie exercises both economic and political
power, whereas the proletariat exercises none. Essentially, therefore, liberal-
democracy is rule by the bourgeoisie or dominant group in a society. In Nigeria,
for example, although power is in the hands of the major ethnic groups, power
is actually exercised by the dominant class of these ethnic groups. Democracy

112
in this sense is, therefore, reduced to rule by the few, who are chosen by a
majority that can hardly rule.
A distinguishing feature of liberal democracy is its insistence that
democracy must be anchored on competition among political parties
(Macpherson, 1974:35). What this means is that the two-party or multi-party
system is the basis of democracy. It contends that any political system that has
only one political party cannot claim to be a democracy. Thus, democracy is
not independent of the party system.

Party System: The network of relationship among political parties

in a political system. Generally, the party system is classified into
three - The one-party, two-party and multi-party systems. The one-
party system also known as the single-party system is characterized
by one official party. All other political parties are outlawed. The
two-party system is made of two dominant political parties, and
power alternate between them. This implies that there are other
parties in the political system. The multi-party system is
characterized by multiple political parties. The general view is that
none of the parties in the multi-party system can win elections and
form government alone, thus necessitating coalition government.
This is not always true.

Non Liberal Democracy: The Communist Variant

This is based on the communist ideology, and essentially means rule by the
proletariat. It argues that majority rule is the basis of democracy, and since the
proletariat constitutes the majority in society, they should rule. It contends
further that the practice in liberal-democracy where a minority, but powerful
class (the bourgeoisie) exercises state power is a negation of the fundamental
principles of majority rule in a democracy.
Communist doctrine teaches that the end of capitalism, through the socialist
revolution, will mean the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the ascendancy of
the proletariat to power. Given that there would be no class below and above
the proletariat, and that the proletariat have a common interest, communist
democracy postulates a one-party democracy.
It posits that freedom, competition and equal access to the political process,
all ingredients of democracy, can be attained within a single party system.
Scholars conceded that this is conditionally possible. Thus, Macpherson
(1974:35) opined that:

113
 …a one-party state can in principle be democratic…provided that there is full
intra party democracy, that party membership is open, and that the price of
participation in the party is not a greater degree of activity than the average
person can reasonably be expected to contribute.

It is, therefore, possible to establish and maintain democracy on the basis of a

one-party system.

Non-Liberal Democracy: The Third World (Underdeveloped Variant)

This variant of democracy is patterned along the communist variant. It

assimilates the values of the traditional society and communist democracy. In
Africa for instance, society was organized along communal values that are
compatible with some of the principles of communism. At independence, some
African countries (Tanzania for instance) attempted to fuse these values with
modern governance in what is called African socialism.
Thus, there was a drive for socialism among countries of the Third World
who had attained independence newly. Third world variant of democracy was
developed as part of the process of development engineering. Its distinguishing
attributes from liberal democracy are that it rejects the competitive ethos of the
market society and see no need for the competitive system of political parties
(Macpherson, 1974: 36). In contrast, it is congruent with communist
democracy because it is also anchored on the one-party system. However,
Communist and Third World Democracy differ to the extent that, the Third
World Variant:

…rejects the communist idea that where a people have broken away from
capitalism the post revolutionary state must be a class state. It sees instead the
possibility of operating immediately as a classless society and state. Democracy
in this view becomes immediately rule by the general will (Macpherson,
1974:36).

The need to integrate society and strengthen leadership for the purpose of
actualizing the common interest of the political system, necessitates the Single
Party System. Macpherson (1974:25) locates this in colonization and the
struggle for independence. Hear him:

The dominance of a single-party or movement is...apt to be the immediate

aftermath of any revolution. When the revolution is made by a people largely
united in a single overriding will to throw off foreign control, the dominance of
a single-party is even more likely. When the people who are so united were not
sharply, class-divided among themselves, the single-party is still more likely.
And when, finally, their goal is not only to attain independence but thereafter to
modernize the society and to raise very substantially the level of material
productivity, the one-party system is almost irresistible.
114
 The need for collective rule was the major justification for single-party
democracy in Africa. Experience, however, shows that it was largely adopted
for selfish rule by African leaders who oppressed and excluded the majority of
their citizens from the democratic process.
The thread which runs through the above analysis of the three variants of
democracy, is that democracy is a state of the mind. This is so because
democracy is interpreted from different viewpoints, defined by ideological
underpinnings and existential reality. Similarly, the discussion shows that the
party system is not a necessary condition for democracy. This means that
democracy is independent of the party system.
Also noteworthy is the fact that all the three variants of democracy suffer
from contradictions or limitations which weaken all claims to be perfectly
democratic. For example, the equality of access to the political process, posited
by each variant, is not concrete in practical terms.

References

Aaron, K.K. and Ibaba, S.I. (2004), Analyzing the Social Sciences: Some
Contemporary Themes, in Aaron, K.K. (eds), Science in Social Relations:
An Introduction to the Social Sciences, Kemuela Publications, Port
Harcourt, Pp.142-160.

Ademoyega A. (1981), Why we Struck, Evans Brothers Limited, Ibadan

Ake, Claude,(2001) “The State in Contemporary Africa”, in H.E. Alapiki

(eds), The Nigerian Political Process, Emhai Printing and
Publishing Company, Port Harcourt

Ake, C. (1994) Democracy of Disempowerment in Africa, Mathouse Press

Ltd, Lagos.

Ake, C. (1996), Is Africa Democratizing?, Malthouse Press Ltd, Lagos

Alapiki, H. E, (1998), Political Parties and Political Integration in Nigeria,

Springfield Publishers, Owerri.

Alapiki, H. E (2000), Politics and Governance in Nigeria, Corporate

Impressions, Owerri

115
Dare, L. (1979), Perspectives on Federalism, in Akinyemi, a.b., Cole, p.d. and
Ofonagoro, W. (eds)Readings on Federalism, Nigeria
Institute of International Affairs (NIIA), Lagos

Enemuo, F.C. (1999) “Decentralization and Local Government: Models,

Principles and Purpose”, in Enemuo (eds), Elements of
Politics, Malthouse Press Ltd, Lagos

Enemuo, F.C. (1999) “Democracy, Human Rights and the Rule of Law”
Enemuo (eds), Elements of Politics, Malthouse Press Ltd,
Lagos

Essien-Ibok, A.J. (2004), “Political Thuggery and Corruption: How it affects

the Voting Process”, paper presented at Independent National
Electoral Commission Seminar, march 24-25, 2004,
Yenagoa, Bayelsa State.

Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 Constitution, Ministry of Information, Abuja

Gauba, O.P. (2003), An Introduction of Political Theory (4th edition),

Macmillan, India

Golding, L.(1975), Local Government, Holder and Stoughton, London,

Gutto, Shadrack (2002), Current Concepts, Core Principles, Dimension,

Processes and Institution of Democracy and the inter-relationship
between Democracy and Modern Human Rights, paper presented at
United Nations Seminar on the Interdependence between Democracy and
Human Rights, November 25-26, Geneva.

Ibodje, S.W.E (1999), Comparative Local Government, Eregha Publishers,

Warri, 1999.

Lazarus, A.(1997), “Resource Control in Federal States: A Comparative

Analysis” in Nigerian Journal of Oil and Politics, Vol.1,
No.1

116
Macpherson, C.B.(1974), The Real World of Democracy, Oxford University
Press, New York

O’Byrne, D.J. (2003), Human Rights: An Introduction, Pearson Education

Limited, Delhi, India.

Ofoeze, A.H.G., “Local Government and Development Administration: Issues

and Cases”, in O.O. Okereke (eds), Development
Administration in Nigeria: Issues and Strategies, Concave
Publishers, Owerri, 1999.

Ofoeze, A.H.G (1999), Federalism: A Comparative Perspective, John Jacob’s

Classic Publishers Ltd, Enugu

Ojo, O.J.B. (1999), “Federalism, Democratic Practices and Legislative

Procedures”, in SPDC Workshop on Legislative and
Leadership Skills, 18-19 August, 1999, Umuahia.

Rodee, C.L. Anderson, J.A.; Christol, C.Q. Greene, T.H (1976), Introduction
to Political Science, McGraw Hill, Kogakusha,

117
 CHAPTER 5

INSTRUMENTS OF POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

Introduction
This chapter introduces the reader to a discussion on selected instruments of
political participation. It proceeds by examining the issue of political
participation

Political participation
Political participation, the legitimization of leadership through consent and
the involvement of citizens in policy determination and implementation
(Gauba, 2003; Berg-Schlosser, 1982; Alapiki, 2000) is central to politics and
governance. Under the traditional system of governance, authority is derived
from the sanctity of tradition. Thus, leadership is legitimized by culture, norms,
beliefs and values that are tradition bound. Because it is in sync with the way
of life of the people, leadership is seen to be derived from the people. The
modes of participation in this context include attendance of family and village
or community meetings, participation in communal work (environmental
cleanliness, self-help development, security) and service to chiefs and elders.
The legitimization of leadership in modern system of governance is based
on rules and procedures. In this regard, political participation is widely seen to
be an essential characteristic of democratic governance, just as it is a feature of
all modern systems of governance (Berg-schlosser1982). It is noteworthy that
the modes, levels, determinants, and benefits of participation differ from one

118
society to another or is not the same for a particular society at all times. The
conventional methods of participation are presented below:

Table 5.1: Conventional Methods of Political Participation

Government Initiated Citizen Initiated

(i) Organizing elections (i) Citizen – Initiated Contact

(ii) Public Hearing (ii) Interest Group Activity
(iii) Formation Advisory Councils (iii) Political Campaign
(iv) Referendum (iv) Running for Public Office
(v) Registering to vote at elections
(vi) Voting at elections
( vii ) Initiative
( viii ) Recall
( ix) Community Service
(x) Discussion of National Issues and
events.
Source: Adapted from Gauba, 2003:445, Alapiki, 2000:95)

Determinants of political participation

Citizens’ participation in politics is predicated on a number of factors.

Alapiki (2000) identified four determinants of political participation as follows:
The socio-economic status of the individual; the psychological characteristics
of the individual; the expected benefits of participation; and the expected costs
of participation. It is commonly accepted that the level of an individual
participation in politics is defined by his placement on the ladder of material
success (level of education, income, etc). The argument is that the higher the
socio-economic status, the higher the level of participation, and vice versa. The
rich and the educated are therefore expected to be active citizens in
participation, while the poor and uneducated are dormant citizens in
participation. It is instructive to note the following issues .
Firstly, the voluntary political activities of citizens in high and low socio-
economic activities are not the same. For example in Nigeria, the poor are more
involved in political campaign than the rich. In like manner, the rich runs for
political office, while the poor only votes. Equally in Nigeria, University
Lecturers and Professors show apathy to either registering as a voter or the
actual voting itself.
The second point is that political consciousness of the individual, which is
not limited by socio-economic status, influences his/her political activity. The
point is that no single determinant can influence individuals in totality, in the
shaping of their political attitudes or orientation. For instance, the benefit an
individual expects from participation determines his level of activism. The
benefits of participation can be public or private. The public benefits of
119
participation are the socio-economic and political changes the individual
expects as a result of changes in the rate of participation. On the other hand,
private benefits include political appointments and the privileges attached to
them, the entertainment value of participation in political campaigns and
business contracts with governmental Agencies (Sproul – Jones and Hart
1973:180). Whereas public benefits driven participation promotes public good,
the same is not true of private benefit driven participation which ensures the
satisfaction of individual and private interests.
The cost of political participation also shapes the pattern of political
participation. Again, the costs can be private, the cost of time and effort spent
on participation, and public-welfare losses (Sproule – Jones and Hart,
1973:180-181). In Nigeria, the private cost of participation also includes loss
of job, victimization, exclusion, and denial of a fair share of the national
resources. The crucial point however, is the public cost of participation. The
loss of welfare obviously adds to the problems of underdevelopment.

Political Party
A democratic system is characterized by the presence of one or more
political parties. A political party has been defined in several ways. However,
it is generally agreed that a political party is an organized group or body of
people, with common or similar views and interests on fundamental political
issues in a political system and seek political power to actualize these interests
(Hearts-Ofoeze, 2001).
Political parties emerged in Europe in the 19th century in response to
“increased liberalism and participation, competitive electoral politics and
universal adult suffrage.” In Africa, the nationalist movements and fears of
domination motivated the formation of political parties (Ikelegbe, 2005).The
usefulness of the political party to democracy is predicated on the
characteristics and functions of political parties. These are discussed below.

Discipline
This takes two dimensions – adherence to party rules, regulations and
programmes, by its members; and subordination to the rule of law by the party
and its members. The first dimension creates party discipline, and to that extent,
promotes harmony within a party. It equally enhances political stability, and
helps to accelerate development and democratization.

Democratization
Democratization implies an open or inclusive democratic system.
Its essential elements include the non exclusion of citizens from
political participation on the basis of gender, race, ethnic group,
religion, social status and so on; respect for the rule of law; equity,
120
 justice and fair play; the non-alienation of citizens from
government and the responsiveness of government to the needs and
aspirations of the people. It is imperative to note that there could
be democracy without democratization. This happens when the
ingredients of democratization are absent in a democratic
government/or society. A major constraint to democratization in
Nigeria is the phenomenon of election rigging, ethnic-based
political domination, and privatization of the state and limited
judicial independence.

The second dimension creates a healthy competition for power, given that it
guides the political parties and their members, to contest for elections within a
lawful framework. This means that parties will not resort to election rigging,
thuggery, and the associated violence. Again, a disciplined party in power
abides by the rule of law, and consequently, directs state power to the benefit
of all.
However, when a party lacks discipline, it is prone to political instability.
For example, such parties are factionalized and fractionalized with each faction
up in arms against the other. On the other hand, undisciplined parties tend to
rig elections, a factor capable of setting off a chain of violence, insecurity and
instability

Ideology
Generally, political parties are anchored on one ideology or the other. This
provides a guide to political action, since an ideology serves as a map which
guides an individual to a point or destination. Although a party may or may not
have ideology (Ikelegbe 2005) having one provides a party with a clear idea of
where to direct a society. Thus, a party without a clear ideology is less likely
to lead the society decisively.

Ideology
This means a system of interacting ideas which governs human
conduct. It consists of values, norms and principles which gives
meaning to human action. At the level of politics, ideology is a
brief system anchored on a preferred order for the production and
distribution of a society’s resources.

Political parties in present day Nigeria lack a clear-cut ideology. This partly
explains their “amoebic” and “prostitute” character which undermine
democratic values.

121
The Capture of Political Power
The drive to capture political power stands out as one of the fundamental
objectives of a political party. This is a characteristic which distinguishes it
from other associations or groups, non-governmental organization, and so on.
Political parties seek power in accordance with the laws which govern
leadership recruitment in a country. Whenever they submit to these laws, they
help to promote political stability and democratization. The reverse is the case
when they violate the laws. The violations manifest as election rigging,
political thuggery and violence.

Hierarchical Organization
Political parties are organized into a hierarchical structure, with formal
distribution of powers/functions to different levels of authority. Thus, a political
party is a formal organization characterized by the Weberian principles of
anonymity, meritocracy, specialized and routine duties and rules/regulations
which govern action. The Nigerian experience, however, demonstrates that
there is a wide gap between the action of political party leaders/administrators
and the norms or values of the bureaucracy; this partly explains the rancorous
relationship among party members and the attendant instability.

Leadership
Like any other organization, a political party is characterized by leadership.
The leaders are either elected or appointed. The leadership directs the affairs
of the party towards election victory by ensuring that the party in power
promotes the aspirations of the people. The success of party leadership in
promoting the goals of a party is defined by factors which include dedication,
honesty, transparency and discipline. Also of note is cooperation among party
members, adequate finance, and an open and friendly political leadership
creates discipline in a political party, and by extension, the political process.
This enhances political stability.

The Role/Functions of a Political Party in a Democracy

As a structure or element of democracy, political parties perform very
important functions. These include:

Interest Aggregation/Articulation
The interest of individual citizens and groups differ in society. Since a
political party is an association of individuals/groups, it serves as a rallying
point for uniting diverse interests. Interest aggregation is primarily done as part
of the process of winning elections. Related to interest aggregation is interest
articulation, which involves the identification of the needs and problems of
citizens, and placing them on the public policy agenda of the country.
122
 Interest aggregation and articulation are related functions that are central to
the existence of a political party. Although they are similar in meaning, there
is a difference between them. According to Ofoeze, (2001:12-13) interest
aggregation entails:
…deliberate reconciliation, harmonization and bringing together numerous
interests and views of large number of the citizens with a view to fashioning out
a policy out of the gamut of the huge mass of often mutually antagonistic and
antithetical interests, and views of the citizens….In contrast, interest articulation
unites individual interest and thus…bring to the fore and on to the policy agenda
interests, views and opinions which, otherwise, would have remained unnoticed,
unattended to as mere private ideas, views and interests of specific individuals
and groups (Ofoeze, 2001:12).

Thus, whereas interest aggregation brings together known and incompatible

interests to make them realizable, interest articulation develops unknown (to the
public sphere) individual and group interests, and presents them clearly to
public policy makers for attention and action. Interest aggregation and
articulation are essential ingredients of democracy.

Political Socialization/Leadership Recruitment

A political party performs a political socialization function, and to that extent
inducts people into politics. In this respect, it presents people for election and
thus provides a forum for leadership recruitment. By presenting candidates for
election, political parties reduce to a manageable number, the candidates to
choose from in elections.
Related to political socialization in the function of political education
through campaigns, rallies, posters, workshops/seminars and manifestoes,
political parties educate citizens on how the political system works. All these
promote democratic politics.

Political Integration
Political parties also perform a political integration function. This is done
through interest aggregation which reconciles diverse conflicting interests, and
thus helps to bridge institutional and socio-cultural gaps (Alapiki 1998). It is
important to note that political integration strengthens democracy, as it enables
political actors to abandon primordial, ethnic or group loyalties in favour of
national identity.

Pressure/Interest Groups
A pressure/interest group refers to a body or collectivity of people with
common interests, and desire to actualize these interests by pressuring or
influencing government to act accordingly. Note that government is not the

123
only group that constitutes the focus of pressure groups; companies, schools,
associations and communities equally come under focus – for example, Youth
Bodies against Oil Companies in the Niger Delta, and Student Unions against
School authority. A pressure group is distinguished from a political party in
that it does not seek political power. There are four categories of pressure
groups as indicated in Table 5.1
Table 5.1: Categories of Pressure/Interest Groups
Type of Pressure Group Characteristics/Focus
Associational Group Exists to protect and promote interests of members.
Examples are labour and occupational groups such as
the Academic Staff Union of Universities, Nigeria
Sub Categories Medical Association, etc.
(a)Promotional or Attitude Pursues interests or policies that may have no direct
Group bearing on its members. For example, environmental
rights activists
(b)Peak Group Umbrella organization of several interest groups. For
example, The Trade Union Congress (TUC), Nigeria
Labour Congress, etc
Non-Associational Group Aggregation of large number of people, usually
unorganized, but have common interesst which they
pursue in similar and predictable ways
Institutional Group These are governmental or non-governmental groups
that seek to influence public policy from time to time
to pursue interests of its members and the larger
society. Churches, etc. are examples
Anomic These are unorganized and non-permanent reactionary
groups which emerge to challenge public policies and
actions of government considered to be against their
interests.
Source: Iklelegbe, 2005: 105

Membership of a pressure/interest group is voluntary (although not in all

cases) and it is anchored on a single or combination of interests. The
mechanisms through which they achieve their goals include: The lobbying of
governmental authorities and officers; campaigns through the mass media;
strikes, work stoppages and boycott of activities; peaceful demonstration;
appeal to public opinion; and sponsorship and support of candidates at
elections. When such persons win the election, they become the point-men of
the pressure group that sponsored their elections. Thus, they pursue their
interest in government.
Pressure groups are useful to democracy due to their role in interest
articulation, and the mobilization of public opinion in support of or against
government policy. This impacts on public policy-making, and therefore
promotes political participation and makes government more responsive to the
people.
124
Civil Society
What is civil society? This question has elicited different answers, but the
consensus on what it means is captured by Diamond (cited in Kukah, 1999)
who defines it as:

The realm of organized social life that is voluntary, self generating, self
supporting, autonomous from the state, and bound by the legal order or set of
shared values…It involves citizens acting collectively in a public sphere to
express their interests, passions, and ideas, exchange ideas, exchange
information, achieve mutual goals, make demands on the state, and hold state
officials accountable. It is an intermediary entity, standing between the private
sphere and the state.

The civil society is characterized by associational life, common interests and

identity, voluntary action and collective activity autonomous of the state and
family (Ikelegbe, 2001; Orvis, 2001).
The group basis of civil society manifests in the formation of civil Society
Organizations (CSOs) which are essentially non-governmental, not-for-profit,
and non-state actor organizations (World Bank, 2006; Ikelegbe, 2001).
Examples include the Red Cross, Doctors without Borders, Oxfarm, Action
Aid, and other numerous professional, health, rights groups, ethnic groups,
town unions, etc. Civil society plays critical roles in political participation and
democratization as indicated in Table 2.

Table 2: Civil Society Functions in Political Participation and Democratization

Civil Society Functions Activity
Protection Protection of rights of freedom, property
and life from attacks by the state.
Monitoring Monitoring and controlling state activities
and citizen’s rights.
Advocacy/public communication Articulating interests and bringing
relevant issues to the public agenda.
Socialization Forming democratic attitudes and habits,
tolerance and trust.
Social Cohesion Building social capital and bridging societal
cleavages.
Intermediation Balancing interests with the state.
Source: Adapted from Paffenholz and Spurk, 2006: 32

References
125
Alapiki, H.E. (2000), Politics and Governance in Nigeria, Corporate
Impressions, Owerri.

Berg – Schlosser, Dirk (1982), Modes and Meaning of Political Participation in

Kenya, Comparative Politics, Vol.14, No.4, July, pp.397-415.

Gauba, O.P. (2003), An Introduction to Political Theory (4th Edition)

Macmillan, India.

Ikelegbe, A.2001. Civil Society, Oil and Conflict in the Niger Delta Region of
Nigeria: Ramifications of Civil Society for a Regional Resource Struggle,
the Journal of Modern African Studies, Vol.39, No.3, pp.437-469.

Ikelegbe, A. (2005), Interest Groups and Political Parties, in Ikelgbe, A. (eds),

Introduction to Politics, Imprint Services, Benin

Kukah, H.K. ( 1999), Democracy and Civil Society in Nigeria, Spectrum Books
Limited, Ibadan

Ofoeze, A.H.G (2001), Political Parties and Pressure Groups: An Introduction

to Basic Structures of Democratic Politics, Willy Rose and
Appleseed Publishing Company, Abakaliki

Orvis, S. (2001), Civil Society in Africa or African Civil Society? JAAS

XXXXVI, 1,:17-398

Paffenholz, T. & Spurk, C. 2006. Civil Society, Civic Engagement and Peace-
Building, Social Development Papers, Conflict Prevention and
Reconstruction paper no. 36, October 2006

Sproule-Jones, Mark & Knneth D. Hart (1973), A Public Choice Model of

Political Participation, Canadian Journal of Political Science, Vol.6, No.2,
June, pp.175-194.
World Bank (2006), Civil Society and Peace building: Potential, Limitations
and Critical Factors, Report No. 36445 – GLB, December, 2006.

126
 CHAPTER 6
INTRODUCTION TO POLITICAL THEORY

What is Political Theory?

Political theory has been variously defined as the disciplined investigation
of political problems in order to show what a political practice is, and what it
means (Sabine & Thorson, 1973; Mukherjee & Ramaswamy, 2006). It studies
the state, its structure, nature, and purpose (Wayper, 1973), and understanding
127
of human perception and nature, and its relationship with the larger community
(Mukherjee & Ramaswamy, 2006). The context of political theory is located in
man’s adaptation to collective living. To survive, men (including women)
devices means and ways of dealing with nature, other men, and the inner man
or consciousness. To ensure effective adaptation to social and political
organisation, men deal with the problems of group life and social organisation.

Phases/strands of Political Theory

In broad terms, political theory is divided into the western and non-western
traditions. The western tradition which is further divided into Ancient,
Medieval and Modern political theory. African political theory represents one
form of the non-western tradition.

Ancient Political Theory

This is located from 15th BC to 5th AD. This was man centred and concerned
itself with how to achieve the good life for man - how to make man live
harmoniously with his fellow man, nature and the state. This is known as
anthropomorphism and philosophers like Plato, Aristole, the Stoics and others
fall under this category.

Medieval Political Theory

The medieval period started from 400 AD to 1400 AD and was marked by
the power of the church. Philosophy was a monopoly of the church, and
accordingly, it was written from the standpoint of the church. The medieval
period was broken into two:

1. 400 AD to the 6th century when philosophy had to defend the faith against
paganism and make people accept the validity of the revelation.

2. From 11th century to 1400 AD when philosophy tried to establish the validity
of the Christian revelation.

Modern Political Theory

This is periodised from the 16th century till date. It is anthropomorphic and
is linked to the industrial revolution. Philosophy is a reflection of a form of
consciousness or social existence, and modern political theory is said to be a
reflection of the capitalist system. The context is that the industrial revolution
gave birth to industrial capitalism which came with new socio-political values
- liberalism and the modern state. Political philosophers responded to the new
consciousness by writing to defend, reform, or change it.

Industrial Revolution and Modern Political Theory

128
The Industrial Revolution remains one of the most significant events in human
history. It began in Britain, spread to the European continent and ultimately the
World as a whole (Litchteim, 1970). It effectively took place between 1760
and 1840 and threw up many changes in society. According to Kemp (1978:9):

It shifted the basis of production from agriculture to industry and opened up

boundless possibilities for increasing the productivity of mankind. This
process…brought into existence those forms of labour and styles of living
distinguishing the modern world from the past…

Indeed, the literature on the Industrial Revolution clearly shows that it

opened the gateway to the modern world. It brought about material changes
which ushered in new modes of life, economic processes, thoughts and
advancement in the mastery (understanding and control) of nature. It provided
the scientific basis of modern social science; more importantly, the radical
changes ushered in industrial capitalism and the modern state. Gamble
(1981:32) opine that:

…the rise of capitalism lies at the heart of the social revolution which has
transformed the whole world…The problems around which Western though
became organized in the 19th century were different from those in the preceding
two centuries. The political vocabulary changed, political action changed,
society and economy were transformed worldwide.

What is discernible from the above is that the Industrial Revolution brought
into being a new form of social existence which enthroned new values that
became the focus of political thinkers and philosophers. The radical changes
thrown up by the Industrial Revolution is the focus here. Following the
Industrial Revolution, there was a transition from the feudal mode of production
to capitalism, a new form of social existence and consciousness came that with
new ideas, values and practices.
This gave birth to liberalism which became the focus of modern political
theory. The objective of the paper is to demonstrate that political ideas is a set
of ideas on how best to govern and distribute resources (Gauba, 2003) and are
not independent of social existence or reality. The discussion proceeds with an
examination of pre-industrial society.

Pre-Industrial Society
The society before the Industrial Revolution was medieval and dominated
by the feudal mode of production. Being medieval, it was a God centred
society. Men were tradition and superstition bound. The society and science
were fused together and thoughts were subdued by metaphysics. Phenomena
were explained in terms of superstitious beliefs just as religion held sway over

129
the thoughts of men. Indeed, the church was the pillar of stability and thus
constituted the ultimate authority on economic and other matters. The dominant
idea in society was not economics but religion. The church, which had
overwhelming influence over social, political and economic matters, was shy
of business.
This was premised on the belief that God disliked the merchant. The church
was, therefore, concerned with the idea of the “just price”. This meant that a
merchant must sell an article at a price for which he bought it; that is selling a
thing for its worth. It was, therefore, considered sinful to make profit (Nna,
1989, Sabine & Thorson, 1973).
The church’s view of economics was defined by its deep-rooted belief in the
transient nature of earthly life and the importance of preparing for the life after.
This view was informed by the nature and character of social existence as
informed by religious ideas. Not surprising, therefore, philosophical thought,
like the ideas of Aquinas, revolved around the Christian religion.
As indicated earlier, pre-industrial society was dominated by the feudal
mode of production. Then production was based on land and the family was
the basic unit of production. Kinship was the basis of social organization and
this defined the scope of social relationships, devoid of atomization. The
collective interest was more important than the individual.
In the feudal mode, land, the major means of production was collectively
owned. Production was geared primarily but not exclusively towards
consumption. In other words, there was some form of exchange, although
rudimentary. By and large, the main aim of production was not for exchange
or profit. Moreover, the feudal order was characterized by the Guild system of
manufacture. Essentially, production was done with simple tools owned by
workmen and consisted of long, sometimes complex chain of processes often
carried out at home.
The Guild system was characterized by excessive constraints, as it was
replete with regulations considered to be tedious and frustrating. Of
significance also was the fact that the Guild system tendered towards
mercantilism which philosophically held that trade is the basis of wealth and
that money is usually enclosed in an economy or society. To this end,
mercantilism sought to protect spheres of trade. The Guild system and the
mercantilist philosophy were, therefore, protective and restrictive. It could thus
be seen that the economic organization of pre-industrial society was replete with
controls.
At the political level, there was a generally decentralized political authority
among a hierarchy of persons who exercised State power. Given the nature and
character of the State – rudimentary with territories governed as if they were
private property – operators of the State exercised power in their own interests.
The manorial lords exploited the serfs. On the whole, pre-industrial society had
130
an economic system that was restrictive and protective. Further, the collective
psyche was hostile to science. On the other hand, the political structure was
dispersed. Consequently, this defined the scope of social existence regarding
man’s adaptation to nature and other men, and his own consciousness generally.
Nevertheless, the values held by the feudal society were undermined by the
Industrial Revolution. This was made possible by the disintegration of the
feudal mode, and the coming into being of industrial capitalism. Significantly,
the collapse of the feudal mode was facilitated by factors which include the
activities of itinerant merchants, the emergence of new towns and villages, the
evolution of the market society, exploration, the collapse of the manorial
system, and the monetization of the economy. The changes ushered in by the
Industrial Revolution are discussed below.

The Industrial Revolution

The Industrial Revolution meant the emergence of industrial capitalism, and
this was also made possible by the changes which accompanied it. The changes
were orientational, scientific, technological, production, agricultural, social and
political. A major outcome of the Industrial Revolution was what can be termed
a scientific revolution. With the Industrial Revolution, science was liberated
from religion and superstition. Thought freed itself from metaphysics and
emphasis was placed on experimentation and observation. The liberation of
science from metaphysics was the result of the works of Newton, Boyle and
Bacon, who believed that man could attain mastery over nature by observation
and experimentation.
With the change in scientific orientation, men ceased to be tradition-bound.
Science was separated from religion, and secular attitudes began to blossom.
Men began to question values; they were no longer dogmatic as they were in
the medieval era. Furthermore, science was practically applied, leading to
technological inventions. One of the most momentous events was the invention
of the steam engine by James Watts. Clearly, it brought about a major change
in peoples orientation from superstition to science, and thereby enhancing
ability to exercise control over his environment. Ultimately, science and
technology were applied to production, marking a turning point in human
history. Production shifted from the home to the factory.
A major impact of this was the drift of population to urban centres. The
urban centres thus became the point of economic activity as against the home.
Labour was in such abundance that it became a commodity. In consequence,
the direct producer was alienated from the means of production. This was made
possible by the enclosure movement which forced the peasants off the land and
turned them to Proletariats (Hills, 1961). Many people were compelled to
migrate to the new urban centres in order to work in the factories; and this meant
a change in human relationships. This led to an uprootment of the oldest
131
intellectual perspectives and social attachments of mankind which had been
built up over tens of thousands of years of human experience (Gamble, 1981).
The Industrial Revolution changed the nature and character of the
relationships that had existed among men. The communal life based on kinship
was destroyed. Thus men who owned little property in the form of land, a
cottage or animals became property-less. More significantly, the concentration
of workers in the factory system created a new work environment which in turn
led to pervasive and possessive individualism that was absent in pre-industrial
society.
Faced with having to compete for the scarce socio-economic resources in
the urban centres, the workers who came from different social backgrounds
began to think more of themselves. As such they identified and protected
individual interests which though seemingly incompatible, crisscrossed each
other. What is deducible here is that the Industrial Revolution atomized the
individual and made him highly self-centred. There were other actual and
potential antagonisms resulting from clash of interest. As we had pointed out
earlier, the actual producers were alienated from the means of production which
were not owned by another social group. Inevitably this created class divisions.
The above situation tended towards anarchy; and in the view of Kemp
(1978), it has been the source of conflicts and problems which faced and
continue to face the world. The Industrial Revolution ushered in individualism,
and this became antithetical to the development of the new order as it bred
conflicts, which were counterproductive. There was need for law and order, a
need that became the concern of political thinkers and philosophers. It was this
scenario that inspired thoughts that eventually resulted in the emergence of the
modern state. As part of the changes which followed the Industrial Revolution,
the factory system of production sub-merged the individual under the machine,
making him more of a machine operator than a producer of goods. This
ultimately cut off the direct link which had existed between the individual
producer and his product under the pre-industrial era.
It is important to note that the factory system engendered growth of
individualism which led to anonymity. As an outcome of this, man became a
homo-economics (an economic man) stripped of all social attributes.
Consequently, he based relationships on a callous calculation of self-interest.
A significant impact of this was the enthronement of materialism and the profit
motive as the driving force behind all industrial activities (Kemp, 1974).
However, the profit motive was in existence during the classical period,
although it was less developed when compared with its influence during and
after the Industrial Revolution (Nna, 1989). On the whole, however, the
paramount place occupied by social responsibility in the acquisition and use of
wealth, as obtained in the pre-industrial era, was swept away. Thus, the moral
law governing economic activity was replaced by book keeping; and economic
132
life became more impersonalized. Therefore, personal relations were
supplanted by the “cash nexus”.
Clearly, the Industrial Revolution created new economic processes. For
instance, the expansion of manufacturing and commerce led to the development
of credit institutions such as the modern commercial banks, the underwriting
syndicate, the modern stock exchange and the insurance industry. Similarly, it
led to the evolution of better methods of business organizations. Again,
partnership and the Joint Stock Company proved inadequate and thus the
corporation with a legal entity came into being.
The Industrial Revolution led to the growth of capitalist ideas and practices.
Values such as proprietorship, freedom, equality, right, individualism and self-
seeking, anonymity or lack of affection, and competition became dominant.
This explains the emergence and triumph of the Bourgeoisie and the
corresponding increase in the number and importance of the Industrial
Proletariat (Nna, 1998).
Interestingly, the Bourgeoisie who became the ruling class developed an
ideology to propagate its viewpoints, and equally needed a state that would
establish its position. The modern state thus was born. The modern state,
therefore, arose in response to the complex civilization which accompanied the
Industrial Revolution. These changes necessarily and importantly required a
vast increase in state intervention, and accordingly extended state control over
an ever-larger number of activities.
It is noteworthy that the modern state emerged against the background of a
regulated economy. For example, the urban crafts were regulated by guilds and
corporations while in the agrarian sector most of the peasant population was in
some kind of bonded status. What this means is that the growth of the market
economy took place within a framework of control, of accepted traditional
restraints and limits. Kemp (1961:10) writes that:

The course of industrialization itself imposed on the state new and wider
functions…In the first place, the state was called upon to remove the barriers to
the free orientation of market forces, especially by creating the conditions for a
free market in the factors of production and to dismantle much of the old
apparatus of the control. But hardly had this process been completed than new
forms of interventionism were required to deal with the social consequences of
the operation of the market on labour and to some extent on the consumer…

The modern state, therefore, emerged to facilitate the establishment of the

capitalist order which resulted from the Industrial Revolution. First, it removed
inhibitions in the way of industrial capitalism with policies such as the
enclosure movement; and second, by creating order in a conflict-ridden system
caused by the social consequences of the industrial revolution. Thus, it can be
argued that the modern state protects the interest of the capitalist.
133
 To be effective in its control and interventionist policies, the modern state
assumed a centralized administration. This marked a significant departure from
the decentralization and localization of the feudal period. A point of interest in
the emergence of the modern state is that the Bourgeoisie was apprehensive of
any intervention in economic activities, except where it was believed to further
capitalist interests.
Therefore, it developed the concept of liberalism to propagate and further
the economic gains of the class. Liberalism thus became its theory or ideology.
With the emergence of the middle class or the Bourgeoisie, new social ideas
were generated to entrench the values of the new order (capitalism), and thus to
make it effective, the modern state, which has now assumed the basis of social
organization was made to perform a legitimizing function.
The development of liberal democratic theory was essentially meant to
achieve this. Thus for instance, constitutionalism and laissez faire was given a
pride of place, so as to guarantee the performance of the political system and
ensure that the bourgeoisie and his business were free from government
intervention.
On the whole, liberalism which propagated the values of the capitalist
system enthroned by the Industrial Revolution reflected the economic, social
and political ambitions of the capitalists. These values include formal equality,
the legal protection of property, enforcement of contract, and laissez faire with
respect to economic activities, among others.
Consequently, this altered the political, social and economic thoughts of
men. Justice, democracy, liberty, rights and obligations took on new
significance. It is remarkable that the social ideas generated by the new social
order, capitalism, were expected to be given legitimacy by the state. In order
words, the state was to serve as the institutional basis for the entrenchment of
the new order. Thus, political philosophers and thinkers focused on the state.
Political thought had always concerned itself with the state. The peculiar
character of the modern state and the nature of social existence differed
radically from the past. Thus, modern theory assumes a decisive impact. By
and large, the enormous and fundamental changes ushered in by the Industrial
Revolution were responsible for modern social and political values which were
given expression by modern political theory. In this regard, modern political
theory can be seen as a correlate consciousness of a form of social existence
that is capitalism. It arose in the context of the quest by capitalism to gain
entrenchment and domination. Therefore, it explains, rationalizes, or criticizes
the capitalist system. From this point of view, there is a dialectical unity
between mainstream and radical political theory.
The writing of Smith, Locke, Hobbes, Rosseau, and so on sought to explain,
justify or entrench the values of the capitalist system. Conversely, Marx and
his followers criticized it and thereby sought to liquidate it. Writing at a time
134
when the feudal order was passing out and the capitalist system was coming in,
Smith advocated the adoption of capitalist values to hasten the collapse of the
feudal order. He propagated individualism, competition, exchange,
specialization, impersonality, contractual relations, property rights and minimal
government. In the Wealth of Nations, Smith declared that:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we
expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interests. We address
ourselves not to their humanity but to their self love and never talk to them of our
own necessities, but of their advantages. No one but a beggar choose to depend
chiefly upon the benevolence of their fellow citizens (1937:2 & 3).

Clearly, Smith was an apostle of the capitalist system. For him, the
government that governs least is the best. In this regard, the government was
to be liberated from the economy, only to act as an umpire, overseeing
competitors. Smith, therefore, supported law and order which were necessary
as the new order was ridden with conflicts. Hear him:

It is only under the shelter of the civil magistrate that the owner of that valuable
property which is acquired by the labour of many years, or perhaps of many
successive generations, can sleep a single night in security. The acquisition of
property necessarily requires the establishment of civil government (1937).

From the foregoing, we can see that Smith preached for the establishment of
a state which will serve as an institutional basis for the enthronement of
capitalist values, ushered in by the Industrial Revolution.
This position was also true of Hobbes. Behind his seeming absolutism, lies
liberalism. Thus, the Hobbessian state does not transform man; it only enforces
minimal rules for competition to go on. Even though the state had absolute
power, it does not intervene; it merely holds the reigns of society together for
people to act out (or compete for) their individual interests. In the words of
Hobbes (cited by Wayper, 1973:54 – 65):

…the use of laws is not to bind the people from all voluntary actions, but to direct
and keep them in such a motion, as not to hurt themselves by their own impetuous
desires, rashness, or indiscretion, as hedges are set, not to stop travelers, but to
keep them in their way.

What one can deduce from the above is that writing from a social context
characterized by conflict and disorder, he sought to bring into being a state that
would hold sway. However, he ended up rationalizing the theory of liberalism
associated with capitalism. In Hobbes’ science of politics, we can discern
capitalist values such as self-interest, constant motion, contractual relations,
property rights, equality, competition, rationality and the liberal state.

135
 It should be noted that philosophers like Hobbes, Locke and the utilitarian
(Bentham and Mill) viewed the state as a machine while Rousseau, Hegel and
Green saw it as an organism. For Marx and his followers like Lenin and Stalin,
the state is a class (Wayper, 1973, Borisov & Libman, 1985, Behrens & Rosen,
1988). As earlier mentioned, radical social science, exemplified by Marxism
criticized the very essence of the capitalist system.
For Marx, the alienation of the direct producer from the means of production
and the surplus thereof is unjust. In his view, the state rules only in the interest
of the Bourgeoisie, the dominant and ruling class. The interests of other
members of society are subjected to the self-interest of the Bourgeoisie.
Marxism, therefore, sought to liberate labour from bourgeois exploitation,
meaning that capitalism had to be liquidated.
On the whole, the Industrial Revolution ushered in new modes of thought.
Liberalism, principle of politics which insists on ‘liberty’ of individual as the
first and foremost goal of public policy (Gauba, 2003), which became the new
ideology was challenged by Marxism and led to the development of socialism.
A major implication of this is that social science theories of today are centred
around the two – capitalism and socialism. Theories of development,
democracy, imperialism and so on are all expressed within this medium, and
thus given different meanings and interpretations.
What is discernible from the above is that social ideas, ideologies and
theories are derived from social existence. In other words, the realities of a
particular form of social existence shape ideas and ideologies. Events occur,
and philosophers come up to explain, rationalize, or criticize. For as Hegel
(cited by Wayper, 1973) put it:

When philosophy paints its gray in gray, one form of life has become old, and by
means of its gray it cannot be rejuvenated but only known. The owl of Minerva
takes its flight only when the shadows of evening are fallen.

Thus, the feudal system collapsed while the capitalist system emerged. One
form of social existence passed away while another was enthroned. The drive
to propagate social ideas and ideologies to entrench the values of the new order
necessarily and importantly brought into being modern political theory. A
major implication of the dichotomous idea generated by modern political theory
was the emergence of the Liberal and Marxist interpretations of politics.

References

Behrens, Laurence, & Leonard J. Rosen, (1988), Hobbes and the Social
Contract, Marx and the Class Struggle, Scott Foresman and Company,
Boston, London.

136
Borisov, E. F. & G. I. Libman, (1985), A Reader on Social Sciences, Progress
Publishers, Moscow.

Gamble, Andrew, (1981), An Introduction to Modern Social and Political

Thought, Macmillan, London.

Gauba, O. P., (2003), An Introduction to Political Theory, (4th edition),

Macmillan, India.

Hills, C. P., (1961), British Economic and Social History, (1700 – 1939),
Edward Arnold Publishers, London.

Kemp, Tomp, (1978), Historical Patterns of Industrialization, Longman,

United States.

Litchteim, George, (1970), A Short History of Socialism, Praeger Publishers,

Great Britain.

Nna, Johnson, (1989), “The Implications of the Industrial Revolution, (Seminar

Paper), Department of Political/Administrative Studies, University of
Port Harcourt.

Nna, Johnson (1989), The Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism, (Seminar

Paper) Department of Political/Administrative Studies, University of
Port Harcourt.

Sabine, G. H. & Thomas L. Thorson, 1973, A History of Political Theory, (4th

edition), Oxford and IBH Publishing Company PVT. Limited, New
Delhi, India.
Smith, Adam, 1937, The Wealth of Nations, New York.

Varma, S. P., 1975, Modern Political Theory, Vikas Publishing House PVT.
Limited, Ghaziabad U. P., India.

Wayper, C. L (1973), Political Thought, English University Press, London.

137
 CHAPTER 7
CONTEMPORARY THEMES IN POLITICAL
STUDIES

Introduction
The dynamic and interdisciplinary nature of political science has always
necessitated the introduction of new concepts and themes. This chapter
discusses selected contemporary themes in political studies

Peace
Peace has been described as a relative condition of tranquilized conflict
(Otite, 2001:1-5); a process involving activities that are linked to increasing
development and reducing conflict (Ibeanu, 2006); justice and development,
respect and tolerance between people, harmony with the ecosystem, tranquility
or inner peace, ‘wholeness’ and ‘making whole’ and the absence of war (Mall,
2000).
However, the definitions or descriptions of peace outlined above appear to
describe conditions that promote peace. For example, it can be argued that for
there to be peace, there must be no war or that justice and development are the

138
basis for the attainment of peace. Again, the view that the promotion of
development and reduction of conflict is peace, appear to describe the
objectives of peace and not the state of peace. In like manner, the view that the
absence of war is peace or a condition for peace, fails to capture the
comprehensive view of peace. According to Ibeanu (2006:3):

…peace does exist independent of war. Thus, there can be peace even when
there is war, as in situations when there are peaceful interactions between
countries that are engaged in war. For instance, the Palestinians and Israelis
have been able to establish peaceful use of water resources, even as the war
between them has raged… War is only one form of violence… But there is
another form of violence… This has to do with social conditions such as
poverty, exclusion, intimidation, oppression, want, fear and many types of
psychological pressure… In other words, although war may not be going on
in a country where there is pervasive poverty, oppression of the poor by the
rich, police brutality, intimidation of ordinary people by those in power,
oppression of women or monopolization of resources and power by some
sections of the society, it will be wrong to say that there is peace in such a
country… It is quite possible not to have peace even when there is no war.

It is understanadable from the above reference that peace is relative, negative and
positive ( Rivera, 2004), and suggests that conditions of peace differ from one society
or country to another and even within the same society or country at different times or
periods.

Negative peace: an absence of war, civil disturbance and murder.

Positive peace: a condition of justice, tolerance and plenty.

The understanding of peace is enhanced when seen from the causes of conflict, as it
gives an indication of what is not peace or that which upsets peaceful existence. On
the whole, peace refers to harmonious existence among people, between the
individual and his inner self, and between humans and nature. Laue (1991, cited by
Oruwari, 2006, p. 5) views on peace captures this perspective. It states that peace is:

A process of continuous and constructive management of differences, towards

the goal of more mutually satisfying relations, the prevention of escalation of
violence, and the achievement of those conditions that exemplify the universal
well-being of human beings and their groups from the family to culture and the
state.
Peace is achieved through a number of means which include the rejection of violence,
the tackling of the root cause of conflicts, and the resolution of grievances through
dialogue and negotiation (Rivera, 2004).

139
Conflict
Conflict essentially means a clash of opposing interests and the struggle by
each side to actualize its interests (Dokun, 2005; Otite, 2001). Conflict theorists
have noted numerous causes of conflicts, and these are noted in Table 7.1.
Table 7.1: Selected Theories of Conflict

Type of Theory Explanation of Conflict

Structural Conflict Theory Blames conflict on the structure and organization of

societies and human reactions to it. For example,
peoples response to injustice, marginalization,
exploitation , poverty, etc.

Realist Theories This attributes conflict to man’s selfish nature which

reflects in his personalized pursuit of power for self
interest.

Frustration-Aggression Theory Attributes conflict to the outcome of frustration

triggered by the gap between needs expectation and
need attainment or what is referred to as the “want-
get-ratio”. People tend to be aggressive when what
they get falls below expectation.

Physiological Theories These theories notes that aggression is inherent in

human nature, but this only results in conflict if it is
activated by man’s environment and his responses to
failure, success or necessity.

Economic Theories Attributes conflict to resource scarcity and

competition, and the commoditization of violence.

Psycho-Cultural Conflict This explains conflict as the outcome of ethnic

Theory identity and culture of conflict.

Human Needs Theories These blame conflict on the competition to satisfy

human needs.

Systemic Theories Explains that conflict lies in the social context within
which it occurs, and is triggered by challenges to
human comfort and existence such as
unemployment, environmental degradation,
domination, etc.

Relational Theories Attribute conflict to the interdependence of

sociological, political, economic and historical
relationships among people. Examples include

140
 history of migration and stereotypes on inferiority-
superiority relationships and past conflicts.

Biological Theories Postulate that conflict is inherent in man due to

hormonal composition that is aggression prone.

Source: Ademola, 2006, pp.35-57

Peace-building
Peace building is a process that seeks to achieve sustainable peace. This is
done at three levels: (1) Conflict prevention through the eradication and control
of the root causes of conflict; (2) Conflict resolution through the adoption of
appropriate strategies; and (3) Post conflict management. This involves
reconciliation, rehabilitation, reconstruction, re-integration, and enforcement of
justice (Ibeanu, 2006; Francis, 2006; Otite & Albert, 2001).
Terrorism
Terrorism has been described as a tactic or strategy of using premeditated
violence to achieve political goals or change the outcome of political processes
(Sinai, 2008; Deutsch, 1998); the deliberate or intentional use of massive fear
to secure and maintain control over others (Cooper, 2011); and the use of force
or violence to compel a government to achieve political and social goals (Blum,
2003). Terrorism is a crime and tactic of warfare (Schmid, 2004), and
essentially uses violence to achieve socio-political, economic/financial/
religious and ethnic/cultural goals. But Forrest (2012, p.9) emphasize the role
of political objectives, noting in particular, the objectives of ‘‘regime change,
territorial change, policy change, social control and status quo maintenance’’.
The definitional elements of terrorism are myriad and include violence/use
of force, political motive, fear/terror, non-combatants as victims, and neglect of
humanitarian constraints ( Schmid & Jingman, 1988; Weinberg, Pedahzur &
Hrsch-Hoefler,2004) and has characteristics that are distinct from guerrilla and
conventional war-fare ( see Table 7.2).
Table 7.2: Characteristics of Terrorism, Guerrilla, and Conventional War

Conventional war Guerrilla Terrorism

Unit size in battle Large (armies, corps, Medium (platoons, Small (usually less
division) companies, battalions) than 10 persons)

141
Weapons Full range of military Mostly infantry-type light Hand-guns, hand
hardware (air force, weapons but sometimes grenades, assault
armour, artillery, etc.) artillery pieces as well rifles, and
specialized
weapons, e.g., car
bombs, remote-
control bombs,
barometric pressure
bombs

Tactics Usually joint operation Commando-type tactics Specialized tactics:

involving several kidnapping,
military branches assassinations, car
bombing, hijacking,
barricade-hostage,
etc.

Targets Mostly military units, Mostly military, police, State symbols,

industrial and and administration staff, as political opponents,
transportation well as political opponents and the public at
infrastructure large

Intended impact Physical destruction Mainly physical attrition Psychological

of the enemy coercion

Control of territory Yes Yes No

Uniform Wear uniform Often wear uniform Do not wear

uniform

Recognition of war War limited to War limited to the country No recognized war
zones recognized geographical in strife zones. Operations
zones carried out world-
wide

International legality Yes, if conducted by Yes, if conducted by rules No

rules

Domestic legality Yes No No

Source: Schmid, 2004, p.206

Climate Change
Climate change is seen as variation in the Earth’s global or regional climates
over-time (Etuonovbe, 2008, p.4), as a result of natural variability or
anthropogenic factors, caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases
(GHG) in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide or CO2 is largely blamed for this
warming. Other important greenhouse gases include water vapour (H2Ov),
chlorofluorocarbons, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and halocarbon which is
142
more commonly associated with the ozone layer and ultraviolet radiation
released from landfills and agriculture, and the loss of plants that would
otherwise store CO2.

Green House Gases

They are called greenhouse gases because they display effects
similar to that in a ‘greenhouse’. The glass in a ‘greenhouse’ allows
the sunlight to pass through but trapping the heat formed and
preventing it from escaping, thereby causing a rise in temperature.

The increasing concentration of chlorine and bromine atoms which originates

from man-induced emissions of chlorofluorocarbons (used in air conditioners,
refrigerators, aeroscis, foams, and sterilants) and haloes (used in fire
extinguishing equipments) significantly contributes to global warming by
exacerbating the thinning of the ozone layer meant to shield the planet from
excessive heat. These GHG trap the heat in the atmosphere by preventing
terrestrial re-radiation from escaping into space; thereby continuously warming
the atmosphere (GLCA, 2009; Onuoha & Gerald, 2010). Essentially, climate
change manifests as ‘‘ increases in global temperatures ( or global warming);
changes in cloud cover and precipitation particularly over lane; melting of ice
crops and glaciers; and reduced snow cover and increases in ocean temperatures
and ocean acidity’’ (Akinro, Opeyemi, & Ologunagba, 2008, p., 167).
References

Ademola, F. S. (2006), “Theories of Social Conflict”, in Shedrack Gaya Best (eds)

Introduction to Peace and Conflict Studies in West Africa: A Reader,
Ibadan, Nigeria: Spectrum Books Limited.

Akinro, A.O., Opeyemi, D.A. & Ologunagba, I.B. (2008), Climate Change
and Environmental Degradation in the Niger Delta of
Nigeria: Its Vulnerability, Impacts and Possible Mitigations,
Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol3, No.3, pp. 167- 173
Blum, W (2003), Killing Hope: US Military & CIA Interventions since World
War 11. London: Zed Books Limited
Cooper, H.H.A (2001), Terrorism: The Problem of Definition Revisited.
American Behavioural Scientists, Vol.44, No.6, pp. 881-893,

143
Deutsch, K.W. (1988), The Analysis of International Relations. USA: Prentice-
Hall, Inc,
Dokun, O. O.P. (2005), Conflict and Context of Conflict Resolution. Ile-Ife, Nigeria:
Obafemi Awolowo University Press,

Etuonovbe, A.K. (2008), Sustaining Coastal Management/Adaptation of

Climate Change and Sea Level Rise in the Niger Delta, Integration
Generation, FIG Workshop Week, June 14-19, Stockholm,
Sweden.

Forrest, J.J.F. (2012), Confronting the Terrorism of Boko Haram in Nigeria,

Joint Special Operations University (JSOU) Report 12-5, Florida,
United States, The JSOU Press,

Francis, D.J. (2006), Peace and Conflict Studies: An African Overview of

Basic Concepts, Best, S.G. (eds), Introduction to Peace and Conflict
Studies in West Africa, Spectrum Books Limited, Ibadan, Nigeria,
pp.15-34.
GLCA (2009) (Global Leadership for Climate Action) Facilitating an
International Agreement on Climate Change: Adaptation to
Climate Change, www.globalclimateaction.org
Ibeanu, O., (2006), Conceptualising Peace, Best, S.G. (eds) Introduction to
Peace and Conflict Studies in West Africa, Spectrum Books Limited,
Ibadan, Nigeria, pp.3-14.
Onuoha, F.C. & Gerald, G.E ( 2010) Climatic Change and National Security:
Exploring the Theoretical and Empirical Connections in Nigeria,
paper presented at the International Conference on Natural
Resource, Security and Development in the Niger Delta,
Organized by the Department of Political Science, Niger Delta
University, in Collaboration with the Centre for Applied
Environmental Research, Department of Geosciences,
University of Missouri Kansas City, USA, March 8-11, 2010,
Yenagoa, Bayelsa State, Nigeria
Oruwari, Y. ( 2006), Post-Conflict Peace Building and Democracy in an Oil
Region: The Role of Women’s’ Groups in the Delta Region, Nigeria,
Niger Delta Economies of Violence Working Papers, Working Paper,
No. 3

144
Otite, O. & I.O. Albert, I.O. (eds) ( 2001), Community Conflicts in Nigeria:
Management, Resolution, and Transformation, Spectrum Books
Limited, Ibadan, Nigeria.
Otite, O. ( 2001), “On Conflicts, Their Resolution, Transformation, and
Management” in Otite, Onigu and Albert I. O., Community Conflict in
Nigeria: Management, Resolution and Transformation. Ibadan,
Nigeria: Spectrum Books Limited
Rivera, De Joseph, (2004), ‘‘Assessing the Basis for a Culture of Peace in
Contemporary Society’’, Journal of Peace Research, Vol.41, No.5,pp532-548

Schmid, A.P & Jongman, A.J. (1988) Political Terrorism: A New Guide to
Actors, Authors, Concepts, Data Bases, Theories and Literature,
Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company

Schmid, A.P. (2004), ‘‘Frameworks for Conceptualising Terrorism’’,

Terrorism and Political Violence, Vol.16. No.2, pp. 197-221
Sinai, J (2008): How to Define Terrorism. Perspectives on Terrorism, Vol. II,
Issue 4
Weinberg, L, Pedahzur, A. & Hirsch-Hoefler, S. (2004), The Challenges of
Conceptualizing Terrorism. Terrorism and Political Violence Vol.16,
No.4, pp.777-794,

145
 INDEX

A C

Authority · 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 17, 23, 40, 49, 57, Charismatic Authority · 6, 7

58, 71, 72, 75, 87, 89, 91, 97, 98, 103, 106, Civilization · 18
107, 108, 112, 116, 123, 127, 129, 134, 135 Comparative Politics · 17, 55, 131
Absolute majority · 111 Capitalist mode of production · 33
Anglo-Saxon · 109 Charismatic Authority · 6, 7
Authority · 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 17, 23, 41, 50, 58, Citizen · 111, 127
60, 73, 74, 77, 89, 91, 93, 99, 100, 101, 105, Civil society · 12, 18, 51, 103, 118, 133
109, 111, 115, 119, 126, 130, 132, 138, 139 Civil Society · iv, 103, 118, 133, 134, 135
Civilization · 18
Class · 23, 30, 57, 81, 146
Class-consciousness · 30, 32, 34
B Colonization · 28, 122
Communism · 37
Communist mode · 35
Behaviouralists · 12
Comparative Politics · 18, 56, 134
Confederation · 100
Constitutionalism · 10, 19, 52, 112, 143

146
Council – manager system · 109
H

Historical Approach · 11
Human behaviour · 13
D Hypothesis · 14, 15

Development · 17, 55, 63, 68, 80, 115, 122,

131, 149 I
Decentralization · 104, 105, 106, 142
De-concentration · 105 Influence · 3
Democracy. · 19, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 117, Institutional Approach · 12
118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 131 Inter-Governmental Relations · 17
Democratic government · 5, 70, 75, 109, 116, International Politics · 17
117, 129 Ideology · 129, 130
Democratization · 129, 134 Imperialism · 20, 34, 56, 57, 77
Dependency · 77 Indirect Democracy · 120
Development · 17, 56, 64, 69, 70, 82, 118, 125, Industrial Revolution · iv, 33, 137, 138, 139,
135, 153 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146
Devolution · 105, 106 Influence · 3
Institutional Approach · 12
Interest articulation · 45
Interest Groups · 132, 134
E Inter-Governmental Relations · 17
International Politics · 17
Economics · 12, 16, 55
Elements of power · 4
Empirical method · 11, 12
Experimentation · 12, 14, 136 J

Judicial Independence · 116, 117

Federalism · 8, 89, 91, 93, 95, 98, 99, 100, 101 L

Federation · 93, 115
Feudalism · 32, 146 Legal – Rational/Bureaucratic Authority · 6
Forces of production · 29 Legal Approach · 11
Franchise · 110
Freedom · 64, 111, 113
O

Observation · 11, 12, 13, 14, 25, 136

G

Government · 2, 6, 8, 16, 25, 71, 72, 79, 81, P

82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 93, 95, 97, 98,
99, 101, 103, 104, 107, 121, 122, 124 Philosophical approach · 11
147
Parliamentary system of government · 88 Prefectorial system · 109
Party System · 121, 122 Presidential system of government · 87
Peasants · 51 Primitive communal mode · 31, 32
Philosophical approach · 11 Problem · 14, 153
Pluralism · iii, 52 Proletariat. · 33, 34
Political Culture Approach · iii, 47 Proletariats · 33, 140
Political Economy · 24, 35, 36, 56, 58, 81, 82 Public Administration · 17, 104
Political elites · 46
political participation · vi, 52, 126, 127, 128,
129, 133
Political participation · 126 R
Political Philosophy · 17
Political science · 1, 5, 10, 15, 18, 53, 57
Rule · 8, 108, 109, 111, 112, 113, 121
politics · 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17,
18, 19, 23, 24, 27, 28, 34, 35, 38, 39, 41, 43,
44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 59, 68,
S
70, 71, 75, 77, 81, 96, 97, 99, 100, 101, 113,
114, 115, 116, 123, 124, 125, 126, 128, 141,
142 Sociology, · 12, 56
Power · 3, 4, 5, 29, 54, 74, 87, 100, 127
Problem · 14, 149
Public Administration · 16, 102 T
Political Party · iv, 128, 131
Political Philosophy · 17 Theory · 10, 14, 15, 17, 19, 28, 29, 32, 34, 35,
Political science · 1, 5, 10, 15, 19, 54, 58 39, 53, 54, 60, 61, 63, 65, 72, 74, 86, 132,
Political socialization · 45 133, 134, 139, 141, 142
Politics · vi, 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, Traditional Authority · 6
18, 19, 23, 24, 27, 28, 35, 39, 40, 42, 44, 45,
46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 60, 61, 70,
72, 73, 77, 79, 83, 98, 100, 101, 102, 103, V
116, 117, 118, 119, 126, 127, 128, 130, 131,
132, 144, 145 Verification · 12, 14
Power · 3, 4, 5, 29, 55, 76, 89, 102, 130

Direct Democracy · 119

B
E
Behaviouralists · 12
Bourgeoisie · 33, 35, 141, 142, 145 Economics · 13, 16, 56
Elements of power · 4
Elite Theory · iii, 54
D Emergency rule · 115
Empirical method · 11, 12
Dialectical · 24, 25, 26, 27 Experimentation · 12, 14, 139
Dialectical materialism · 28, 36
148
G O

Globalization · 78 Observation · 11, 12, 14, 25, 139

Government · 2, 6, 8, 16, 25, 72, 74, 81, 83,
84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 95, 97, 100,
101, 103, 104, 105, 107, 109, 124, 125, 127 R

Relations of production · 29
H Rule · 8, 111, 112, 114, 116, 124

Historical Approach · 11
Historical materialism · 25, 38, 40 S
Human behaviour · 13
Human Rights · 75, 112, 113, 114, 124, 125 Slave mode · 32
Hypothesis · 14, 15 Social contract · 63
Socialist mode · 34, 35
Sociology, · 13, 57
L Sovereignty · 73, 74, 75
State · iii, vi, 2, 21, 28, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61,
Law · 54, 68, 69, 75, 112, 114, 116, 124 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73,
Legal – Rational/Bureaucratic Authority · 6 74, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88,
Legal Approach · 11 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 100,
Legitimacy · 5, 111 101, 102, 103, 108, 115, 118, 120, 123, 124,
Liberal-Democracy · 120 139, 151, 153
Liberalism · 52, 142, 145 Structural Functional Analysis · 44
Local government · 17, 76, 85, 99, 104, 105, Systemic stress · 42
106, 107, 108, 109 Systems Theory · iii, 40

M T

Majority rule · 111 The Executive · 84

Marx · 11, 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 34, 36, 38, 57, The Judiciary · 86
143, 145, 146 The Legislature · 85
Marxian political economy · 36 The rule of law · 112, 114, 116
Marxist approach · 23, 24, 38 The Unitary System of government · 101
Military government · 101 Theory · vi, 10, 14, 15, 17, 19, 28, 29, 33, 35,
Mode of Production · 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35 36, 40, 54, 55, 61, 62, 63, 65, 66, 67, 74, 76,
88, 136, 137, 138, 142, 143, 144, 145
Traditional Authority · 6
N True federalism · 99
Terrorism · 150, 151, 153, 154
Nation · 38, 79, 80, 102, 104, 107
Niger Delta · vi, 28, 132, 134, 152, 153, 154

149
 V W

Verification · 12, 14 Written constitution · 91

150

View publication stats