Article Citation: Ojieh, Chukwuemeka Ojione (2019). Evaluating the Elements of Nigerian Government and Politics in the Challenges of Nation Building. DEGEL: The Journal of the Faculty of Arts and Islamic Studies, Vol. 17, No. 2. ISSN 0794-9316
EVALUATING THE
ELEMENTS OF NIGERIAN GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS IN THE CHALLENGES OF NATION
BUILDING
By
Ojieh, Chukwuemeka Ojione
Abstract
Beginning with
the formal administration of Lagos as a British colony in 1861, nearly all the
rest of Nigerian peoples who had existed as independent political entities,
were by 1900, virtually administered by representatives of the British
government as colonial territories. With the amalgamation of the Northern and
Southern Protectorates in 1914, all the hitherto, pre-colonial autonomous
ethnic and tribal groups of over two hundred and fifty, were forcefully brought
under one colony called Nigeria. Since independence on October 1, 1960,
successive Nigerian governments have to grapple with the problem of integrating
these divergent peoples into a nation. It is in light of the foregoing, that it
becomes relevant to evaluate the basic elements that have characterized
Nigeria’s government and politics with a view to discussing the underlying
challenges of nation building. Using the methodological tool of historical
description and analysis, this paper interrogates the variety of elements in
Nigerian government and politics as explanatory variables to the challenges of
nation building. The article is a chronicle of the process of Nigerian
governance since the 1914 Amalgamation. It concludes that rather than being an
asset, the diversity which characterize the Nigerian peoples have been
obnoxiously put to parochial and primordial usages to become cog in the wheel
of nation building.
Introduction
The various
tribal/ethnic components that make up the present Nigerian state had in the
pre-colonial era, existed as independent political entities. This was the case
for instance, among such major tribal/ethnic groups as the Igbo, Hausa and
Yoruba as well as among the minority peoples of Angas, Birom, Edo, Efik, Ijaw,
Ukwuani, Urhobo, etc. After conquest by the British, the various Nigerian
peoples came under colonial rule which first started in 1861 when Lagos
formally became a British Colony. By 1900, nearly all parts of modern Nigeria
were virtually administered by representatives of the British government as
colonial territories that were, split into three sections. These were; the
Lagos Colony, the Protectorate of Southern Nigeria and the Protectorate of
Northern Nigeria. In 1906, the Lagos Colony and the Protectorate of Southern
Nigeria were merged into one as the Colony and Protectorate of Southern Nigeria
popularly called the Protectorate of Southern Nigeria. On January 1, 1914, the
Southern and Northern Protectorates were amalgamated for administrative
convenience into a single entity called Nigeria and were under a
Governor-General, with Fredrick Lugard, as the first Governor General.
British conquest of Nigerian peoples did not occur in
one fell swoop. After the fall of Lagos in 1851 and its subsequent annexation
in 1861, other Nigerian peoples submitted to British overlord-ship both with
stiff or little resistance and sometimes with no resistance at all. Actually,
some of the peoples did not put up any resistance because as Afigbo
(1973:20-21) noted with the example of Uzuakoli in Igbo land, it was “decided
not to offer open resistance” given that the British had conquered some of
their (Uzuakoli) neighbours who were “anciently famed warrior clans”. Thus,
As the [British] troops entered the town [of Uzuakoli]
they were met by bands of dancing women who said they were happy the white man
at last thought it fit to visit them. Meanwhile the men had erected shades for
the troops in the central local market and provided food and water (Afigbo,
21).
However, even
though, in some instances, British conquest met resistance as exemplified in
Lagos, Benin, Borgu and Ezionum in the Ukwuani country, etc. by 1905, full
scale colonial authority had become visible everywhere and by 1914 all of
present day Nigeria had come under one colonial administration.
The structure
of colonial administration consisted of the Governor-General who was at the
helm of the affairs of the entire country as amalgamated in 1914. The country
was split into three administrative units reflecting, the former Colony of
Lagos with headquarters in Lagos, the two former Protectorates which were
re-designated Provinces of Southern and Northern Nigeria, with headquarters in
Enugu and Kaduna respectively and were headed by Lieutenant-Generals. The
Lieutenant-Generals, together with the Commissioner of Lagos, were answerable
to the Governor-General. This level of administration was followed by the
Divisions headed by the Residents who were directly under the
Lieutenant-Generals. Finally, were the Districts, headed by the District
Officers who were answerable to the Residents. Broadly speaking, this was the
structure of colonial administration but without prejudice to a couple of
ancillary creations here and there, for example, the Native Authorities which
were presided over by the natural rulers.
The overall aim
of the British Colonial Government “of training the people for eventual
self-government” (Awolowo 1968:26), coupled with the people’s actual demand to
see this actualized through representative legislation, resulted in the
enactment of several constitutional provisions by the colonial administration.
This climaxed in the Independence Constitution of 1958 which granted
independence to Nigeria on October 1, 1960. With independence, Nigeria became a
sovereign nation with the freedom to conduct its affairs – local and
international without recourse to any other authority or power.
Post-Independence structure of governance has seen the country being governed
first, as three regions – the Northern, Western and Eastern as inherited from
the colonialists. Then as four regions in 1963; the twelve structure, etc. down
to the present thirty-six states and the Federal Capital Territory in Abuja. In
all these stages of governance which had witnessed both military and
democratic/civilian administrations, the attention of government had focused on
the process of nation building. Needless to say however, that the process has
been fraught with diverse challenges and thus, requiring an evaluation of the
basic elements of the governance of the Nigerian state in explaining the
challenges of nation building.
Evaluating the
elements of Nigerian government and politics will address the main features of
the governance of Nigeria since 1914. This is because, even though the
sovereign entity called Nigeria came into being at independence in 1960, the
amalgamation of 1914, had forcefully brought the hitherto pre-colonial
autonomous tribal/ethnic groups into one entity called Nigeria under British
colonial administration with the consequent challenges of nation building. This
article therefore, is about the basic features of colonial and post-colonial
administrations in Nigeria. In this regard, the main features of the governance
of the political entity called Nigeria that come to mind include: the process
of constitutional development, party politics with the attendant primordial and
ethnic considerations; the federal structure of the Nigerian state; the
practice of democracy, military rule, and others.
Constitutional Development, Party
Politics and the Challenges of National Building
The World Wars
beginning with the First, led to the re-awakening of national consciousness on
the part of colonized peoples which resulted in the decolonization of colonial
states. Increased nationalist pressure on the colonial government resulted in
the granting of additional representation to colonial peoples in the process of
their governance. To this end, Sir Hugh Clifford who had replaced Lugard as
Governor-General of Nigeria in 1920, promulgated the Clifford Constitution in
1922. Its major highlight was that it provided for the first time in the
history of Nigeria, the principle of election to the legislature in which four
Africans (though, unofficial members) – 3 from Lagos and 1 from Calabar, were
to be elected into the Legislative Council. In all, there were 21 unofficial
and 31 official members (Awolowo 1968:27). The elective provisions of this
constitution did not only stimulate the formation of political parties but
also, made Nigeria to lead “the way in the achievement of elective principle in
Tropical Africa” (Olusanya 1984:524).
As
anti-colonial agitations of the nationalist increased, subsequent colonial
constitutional provisions further sought to increase Nigerians’ participation
in their governance. Thus following Clifford’s Constitution was the Richard’s
Constitution of 1946, which highlights were to promote the unity of Nigeria and
secure increased participation for Nigerians in governance. It increased the
membership of the Legislative Council from 28 unofficial members of which 3 and
1 were elected from Lagos and Calabar respectively in addition to 21 official
members (Awolowo 1968:30). It also created regional legislative councils for
the three administrative regions – Northern, Western, Eastern and with a House
of Chiefs for the Northern Region. In response to further agitations, Sir John
Macpherson who had succeeded Sir Arthur Richards as Governor-General introduced
a new constitution in 1951. It was radically different from the earlier ones
being a product of wide input from Nigerians. It increased membership of the
Central Legislative Council to 148 out of which 136 were to be elected by
Nigerians – 68 (North), 34 each (East and West). It also, gave the Western
Region a House of Chiefs and granted the regional legislatures the power to
make certain laws for their respective regions. It did not provide for the
principle of universal adult suffrage as against the principle of indirect
elections. Also, the Governor-General still wielded enormous veto power. The
Southern elite criticized the imbalance in representation between the Northern
and Southern Regions. These were aggravated by the Kano riots of 1953.
Subsequently, after two constitutional conferences in London and Lagos in 1953
and 1954 respectively, and in which the Nigerian elite actively participated,
the Littleton Constitution was promulgated in 1954. Its highlight was the
formal endorsement of Nigeria as a federal state – with increased autonomy for
the regions and Lagos was made the federal capital.
Let it be noted
that the British government had been under pressure to relinquish its imperial
enterprise. In fact, a Select Committee of 1865 had so recommended and the
unrelenting nationalists’ agitations in the same vein had made compliance
inevitable. Note worthy too, is that overtime, the Nigerian country had rapidly
moved towards independence and it had been agreed that the 1954 constitution
would be reviewed after three years. To this effect, the process leading to
British colonial disengagement from Nigeria reached great heights when at the
constitutional conferences held between September and October 1958, the date
for Nigeria’s independence was agreed on, first, for 1959 and later, for 1960.
On October 1, 1960, Nigeria became an independent sovereign federation of three
regions with a Westminster-type administration.
In all, the
major fallout of the constitutional provisions was the formation of political
parties as platforms for seeking elective offices to participate in the
governance of an eventual independent Nigeria. The first of these was the
Nigerian National Democratic Party (NNDP) formed in 1923 and led by Herbert
Macaulay. Since then, several political parties have existed in Nigeria through
the First, Second, (aborted) Third and Fourth Republics. But from the point of
view of party systems theory, political parties in Nigeria, with very few
exceptions, “have been unable to function as truly national parties … because
of the constraints imposed by … ethnicity, regionalism and religion … [and are
hence,] perceived as harbingers of negativities and herein lay their democratic
deficit” (Ojieh 2019:251) and the attendant challenge to nation building.
As Nigerians
prepared to take power from the departing colonial administrators at
independence, ethnic-based political parties had emerged to contest the control
of the state power apparatus. Examples in this regard are shown below where the
major political parties reflected ethno-regional bias across the three regions.
In the Northern Region of Hausa/Fulani ethnic group emerged two political
parties; the Northern Peoples’ Congress (NPC) led by Sir Ahmadu Bello – a
Northerner and the Northern Elements Progressive Union (NEPU) which was led by
Alhaji Aminu Kano also, a Northerner. In the Western Region, the two dominant
political parties; the Action Group (AG) and the Nigerian National Democratic
Party (NNDP) led by two Yoruba chieftains Chief Obafemi Awolowo and Chief
Samuel Akintola respectively, were essentially Western regional (Yoruba)
parties. The Eastern region was not different with two Igbo-based political
parties holding sway. These were the National Council of Nigerian Citizens
(NCNC) led by Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe an Igbo and the Dynamic Party (DP) led by Dr.
Chike Obi also, an Igbo. Afterwards, the foregoing became the pattern of
political party formation across the country; with parties’ catchment areas and
leadership structures being largely defined by ethno-regional considerations.
Election results have therefore, often shown political parties being victorious
in their regions and ethnic areas of dominance so that most election results in
Nigeria have been flawed and hence nothing but “attestations of the compromise
stance of the ruling elite” (Ojieh 2019:252).
In all, because
political parties in Nigeria exist with the principal aim of winning elections
at all cost, their efforts have been geared mainly towards pursuing elite and
primordial sentiments. Amuchiazi (2008:63-64) talks of Nigerian political
parties to have “developed to champion less than national causes” so that the
role of political parties as core facilitators of modern democratic governance
in Nigeria has left much to be desired and further posing a challenge to the
process of nation building.
The Federal and Democratic Structures of Nigeria
The federal principle first manifested in Nigeria’s
governance through the Richards Constitution of 1946, with the creation of
regional legislative councils and a House of Chiefs for the Northern Region.
This was further enshrined by subsequent constitutions and Nigeria became
independent as a federation – that is, a country where the powers of governance
are shared between the central and composite/federating units/regions/states.
Worthy to note that after amalgamation in 1914, the individual identities of
the various ethnic/tribal groups that make up the Nigeria of today were not
lost. This required that at independence, they be brought under a system of
government where such primordial identities could still be expressed, at least
at the regional level of governance with considerable autonomous jurisdiction
within the overall framework of the federal system. Thus, the chief
consideration in adopting the federal structure was the geo-ethnic and
historical diversities of the Nigerian state.
The main
features of Nigerian Federalism are a central government with its seat first in
Lagos between 1960 and 1999, then in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja since
December 12, 1999. There have also, been the composite or federating units made
up of;
(a) Three
Regions (Northern, Eastern and Western) between 1960 – 1963,
(b) Four
Regions (Northern, Eastern, Western and Mid-Western) between 1963 – 1967,
(c) Twelve
States between 1967 – 1976,
(d) Nineteen
States between 1976 – 1987,
(e) Twenty-one
States between 1987 – 1991,
(f) Thirty
States between 1991 – 1995 and
(g) Thirty-six
States Since – 1995.
In this
arrangement, the centre and the federating units (regions or states) are of
coordinate status – sharing power amicably, in their aim of “striking a balance
between the desire for a union and the desire for autonomy” (Idahosa 2013:50).
In it, unity is vital but such unity is the unity in diversity. This is so
because, managing a plural society requires minimum consensus. For the federal
system to thrive, there have to be minimum friction and maximum effectiveness
through a balanced development of the federating units. This can be done
through a de-emphasizing of the elements of diversity of the component units
that are not essential to maintaining the system.
This
notwithstanding, Nigerian federalism is fraught with several problems which
have challenged the process of nation building. These include;
(a) Unhealthy
intergovernmental relations between the component units – the centre, state and
local governments where frictions frequently arise,
(b) Revenue
allocation where the issues of fiscal federalism/resource control have remained
thorny,
(c) North/South,
Muslim/Christian dichotomy which has gravely polarized the country,
(d) Minority
agitations, inter-ethnic rivalries/wars, indigenes/settlers controversies, etc.
(e) Others
such as power-sharing, economic marginalization, educational imbalance, federal
character, terrorist activities of the Islamic fundamentalists – Boko Haram,
etc.
A federal
system of government is often contemporaneous with a democracy. A democratic
system of governance is that, where decision making is by consensus through the
representatives of the people. The selling point of a democracy is the notion
of popular power, that is, the people’s ownership of power because it secures a
role “for the underlying population in the making of rules” (Barrington
1967:414). Generally, the superiority of democratic regimes over other forms of
governance is unequalled given that they provide “more organized political
institutions through which different opinions could be expressed” (Aluko
1981:189-91) and therefore, are responsive to the people’s interest or
yearnings in policy formulations” (Ojieh 2015:30).
Unfortunately,
however, in Nigeria, the inherent benefits of democracy have been in deficit –
a situation that has gravely challenged the process of nation building. While
this affirms “the common aphorism that the existence of a macro framework of a
democratic regime does not necessarily guarantee democratic realities”
(Oyovbaire 2008:4), it does not take away from “the popular wisdom stating that
the worst of civil democracies is preferred to the most benevolent military
dictatorships [and] justifies and perpetuates failing democracies” including
Nigeria’s (Ojieh 2015:29).
The Politics of Transition from Military to Civilian
Rule
A military
regime “is one in which the armed forces have made a coup, established a
government in which the main executive post is held by a military person”
(McKinlay & Cohan 1975:1). For a long time, the greatest threat to
Nigeria’s democracy had been the intrusions of the military into Nigerian’s
political ferment. The military has been so much implicated in this regard that
it is concluded that no matter how popular they may be nor how “nationalist
their programmes may be, they can never be substitutes for democratic regimes”
(Babatope 1981:164).
It is true that
no one logic or central argument can explain military interventions in politics
and even though, each coup-day broadcast gives reasons for the military
takeover, the fact remained that the factors which predisposed the Nigerian
military to coup were barely improved upon as every new military regime
relapsed into similar or even worse offences. Several of their promises,
particularly the ones on a brief and transitional tenure were not kept. Arising
from this, the military in Nigeria contended with legitimacy crisis in their
twenty-nine years of rule out of Nigeria’s thirty-nine years of independence up
to 1999, when they were forced by citizens’ agitations to relinquish power to
the current civilian leadership.
Civilian
intolerance for military regimes in Nigeria reached its climax after the
annulment of the June 12, 1993, presidential election by the military regime of
General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida on June 23, 1993. This action of the
Babangida regime was against an election, which was and is still adjudged free
and fair in Nigeria’s history. The winner – Chief M. K. O. Abiola was already
being determined from the substantial votes counted before the annulment was
announced. This incurred for the military the ire of the civilian populace
which somehow, was generally agreed on an end to military regimes in Nigeria. General
Abdusalam Abubakar (the last military ruler) therefore, knew better than
withhold a handover to a democratically elected regime on October 1, 1999. In
all, as shown below, there were seven military regimes in Nigeria since the
first one in 1966. These include the regimes of; Maj. General Aguiyi Thomas
Ironsi (16th January, 1966 – 29th July, 1966); General
Yakubu Gowon (1st July, 1966 – 29th July, 1975); General
Murtala Mohammed (29th July, 1975 to 13th Feb, 1976)/
General Olusegun Obasanjo (up to 1st Oct., 1979); Maj. General
Muhammadu Buhari (31st Dec, 1983 – 27th August, 1985);
General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida (27th August, 1985 – 27th
August, 1993); General Sani Abacha (17th November, 1993 – 7th
June, 1998) and General Abdusalam Abubakar (8th June, 1998 – 1st
October, 1999). Over all, the
military in Nigerian politics was an anathema and have been chided for the
country’s nation building trajectory.
Ethnicity and Nigerian Politics
In addition to
earlier references to ethnicity as a constraining variable to nation building
in Nigeria, it requires an additional mention here, because it has been
severely implicated as cog on the wheel of Nigeria’s development. To be ethnic
is to be composed into groups based on “social formations distinguished by the communal
character of the boundaries” (Nnoli 1978:5) with the relevant factors being
language, culture or both. In itself, there is nothing untoward in being
ethnic. Rather, it is the deployment of ethnic elements into an unhealthy
struggle for the control of the state power apparatus that makes ethnicity a
constraining variable in the process of nation building in post-independence
Nigeria. Acutely disturbing in this regard is that it is the elite that have
put ethnic cleavages into obnoxious uses thereby, polarizing the Nigerian
polity. In consequence therefore, while on the eve of independence ethnic based
political parties emerged to ensure that their own ethnic people inherited
power from the departing colonial administrators, the trend has not significantly
altered afterwards and this remains a cog in the wheel of Nigeria’s development
and as such constitutes a major challenge to nation building.
Conclusion
This article
aimed at providing basic knowledge of the relevant issues and features of
government and politics in the geopolitical entity called Nigeria as
explanatory variables to the challenges of nation building. In doing this, it
adopted the 1914 amalgamation date as the beginning of the existence of the
modern Nigerian state. In this regard, the elements of Nigerian politics both
in the colonial and independence era were evaluated. The outcome is a rich and
panoramic discourse of the diversity of themes and issues contained herein. It
concludes that the diversity which characterizes the peoples of Nigeria, rather
than being an asset has been obnoxiously put into parochial and primordial
usages thereby driving a wedge in the wheel of nation building in Nigeria.
References
Afigbo, A. E. (1973). Patterns of Igbo Resistance to British Conquest. Tarikh, 4(3), 14-23.
Aluko Olajide (1981). Essays in Nigerian Foreign Policy. London:
George Allen & Unwin.
Amuchiazi, E. (2008). Party System and Party Politics. In Oyovbaire, S.
(ed.). Governance and Politics in Nigeria: The IBB and OBJ Years
(57-73). Ibadan: Spectrum.
Awolowo Obafemi, (1968). The
People’s Republic. Ibadan: Oxford University Press.
Babatope, E. (1981). Coups Africa and The Barrack
Revolts. Enugu: Fourth Dimension
Barrington, M. (1967). Social Origins of
Dictatorship and Democracy. Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World.
Boston: Beacon Press.
Coleman, James S. (1984). NIGERIA Background to Nationalism. Benin City: Broburg and Wistrӧm.
Idahosa Osaretin, (2013). The Dialectics of Federalism in Nigeria. In
Imobighe, T. A. and Ebohon, S. I. (eds.), Themes
and Issues in Nigerian Government and Politics (49-63). Kuru, Jos: National
Institute of Policy and Strategic Studies
McKinlay, R. D. and Cohan, A. S. (1975). A Comparative Analysis of the
Political and Economic Performance of Military and Civilian Regimes – A
Cross-National Aggregate Study. Comparative Politics, 8(1), 1-30.
Nnoli, O. (1976). Nigerian Policy Towards Southern Africa. Nigerian Journal of International Affairs,
2(1&2), 14-34.
Ojieh, Chukwuemeka (2015) Popular Diplomacy in an Autocracy – Public
Opinion and Foreign Policy Decision-Making under the Military in Nigeria, Ufahamu: A Journal of African Studies,
38(2), 29-54.
Ojieh, Chukwuemeka (2019). Political Parties’ Conducts and Ethnic
Considerations in Nigeria’s Democratic Experiment. FUDMA Journal of Arts (FUDJARTS). 3(2), 251-258.
Olusanya, G. O. (1986). Constitutional Developments In
Nigeria 1861-1960. In Ikime Obaro (ed.). Groundwork
of Nigerian History (518-544). Ibadan: Heinemann.
Oyovbaire Sam, (2008). Introduction. In Sam Oyovbaire (ed.). Governance and Politics in Nigeria. The IBB and OBJ Years (1-13). Ibadan: Spectrum.
The official website of the DEGEL Jounal is https://www.degeljournal.com
0 Comments