Sovereignty, Authority, and Power
A Brief History
In the earlier years of Nigeria's existence (around 1960), political legitimacy was basically nonexistent, what with multiple back-to-back revolts and coups. These conflicts culminated in the brutal Biafran Civil War (1967 - 1970), prompting military juntas to come into existence.
Essentially, political life during the rule of military juntas came down to the old axiom, "Might makes right." The age of the junta lasted from 1966 all the way through 1998 (minus a brief three year interruption from 1979-1983), seeing a variety of people take ‘power:’ Chukwuma Nzeogwu, Yakubu Gowon, Murtala Mohammed, Olusegen Obasanjo, Shehu Shagari, Muhammadu Buhari, Ibrahim Babangida, Ernest Shonekan, Sani Abacha, and finally Abdulsalami Abubakar. Obasanjo ended the junta after he was democratically elected in 1997 even though he had previously held power during the juntas. He then passed rule in 2007 to Umaru Musa Yar’adua, the second democratically elected president, who passed away in 2010. |
I. Type of State
Nigeria is close to being a failed state due to its low autonomy (demonstrated by the state being unable to hold its provinces from devolution), and low capacity in improving education and other infastructures alongside uneven distribution of wealth.
CAPACITY:
The state has little capacity. Since the Babangida years (Ibrahim Babangida was a military ruler of Nigeria during the junta age), there has been an unprecedented reduction of power of government. Reduction of financial powers and loss of state powers made the position of the state government difficult. But then, return of a constitutional government after 1993 might help reassert its autonomy. Recently, however, Nigeria privatized its electricity, and regional conflicts still go on without any sign of relaxation in the near future. Though the economy is relatively strong, infrastructure is still weak.
Perhaps worst of all, the military itself does not listen to the government. Periodic military coups are frequent, and ethnic tensions between the President and members of the military may cause alienation. Indeed, without a power element, the government has trouble getting anything done. Corruption is also a serious issue. Nigeria has highly corrupt officials who distribute wealth unevenly. In Nigeria, holding power means a guarantee of high incomes; corruption in the power holding group is significant. Due to the oil industry, Nigerian officials can afford great mansions and luxurious cars, while 70% of the state's people live below the poverty line, struggling for life. This showcases Nigeria's low capacity: Nigeria produces more oil than Texas, but local oil prices makes people's life difficult.
AUTONOMY:
Nigeria also has low autonomy. Nigeria strives to be a democracy in its governmental structure, apparent in its system clearly modeled after America's government. There is an executive branch, kept in check by a bicameral legislature and also a judiciary branch. This system by definition, however, offers the government relatively low autonomy as it is effectively forced to consider individual freedoms that can hinder policy making. The reason America's system functions well, however, is because the people themselves do not have relentless infighting caused by decades of ethnic and religious tensions. Nigeria's constant infighting and political turmoil causes decision making to be enormously difficult, as satisfying any one group often means displeasing the others.
CAPACITY:
The state has little capacity. Since the Babangida years (Ibrahim Babangida was a military ruler of Nigeria during the junta age), there has been an unprecedented reduction of power of government. Reduction of financial powers and loss of state powers made the position of the state government difficult. But then, return of a constitutional government after 1993 might help reassert its autonomy. Recently, however, Nigeria privatized its electricity, and regional conflicts still go on without any sign of relaxation in the near future. Though the economy is relatively strong, infrastructure is still weak.
Perhaps worst of all, the military itself does not listen to the government. Periodic military coups are frequent, and ethnic tensions between the President and members of the military may cause alienation. Indeed, without a power element, the government has trouble getting anything done. Corruption is also a serious issue. Nigeria has highly corrupt officials who distribute wealth unevenly. In Nigeria, holding power means a guarantee of high incomes; corruption in the power holding group is significant. Due to the oil industry, Nigerian officials can afford great mansions and luxurious cars, while 70% of the state's people live below the poverty line, struggling for life. This showcases Nigeria's low capacity: Nigeria produces more oil than Texas, but local oil prices makes people's life difficult.
AUTONOMY:
Nigeria also has low autonomy. Nigeria strives to be a democracy in its governmental structure, apparent in its system clearly modeled after America's government. There is an executive branch, kept in check by a bicameral legislature and also a judiciary branch. This system by definition, however, offers the government relatively low autonomy as it is effectively forced to consider individual freedoms that can hinder policy making. The reason America's system functions well, however, is because the people themselves do not have relentless infighting caused by decades of ethnic and religious tensions. Nigeria's constant infighting and political turmoil causes decision making to be enormously difficult, as satisfying any one group often means displeasing the others.
II. Political Culture
The political culture of Nigeria is dominated by a general sense of distrust. Because its ethnic groups were divided by the English imperialists, an irrevocable schism between the ethnic groups is the root of the lack of unity and support for the government that all Nigerians share. In a poll done in 1962, it was found that 16% of those sampled couldn't think of Nigeria in national terms. Only ¾ of the people sampled thought that Nigeria had made progress over the past five years. While most Nigerians do see themselves as Nigerians, ethnic identifications are not the source of pride. Instead, they cause dislike and division. There is almost never a consensus among the people of Nigeria when it comes to politics.
COERCION: In Nigeria, different ethnic groups have different ideas about politics. In the North, Hausa-Fulani culture’s Islamic roots greatly influence their views on the political and religious officials elected in their areas and the policies they consent to. The lack of consensus and centralization in the country has caused much tension between the people in the North, with one distrusting the other’s cultural values and economic practices. There are few shared concepts that the society possesses, making it very hard for an established political ideal to go well with any of the different groups present in the country. Therefore, coercion has become the only way for the government to exert its control on the country. There is no way that a consensus can be reached, seeing as there are more than 250 different ethnic groups in Nigeria, and all of them don't get along with each other. DEVOLUTION: As the graph on the right suggests, Nigerians believe that individualized states are the best solution for the country right now. Because there is so much religious and ethnic disparity in the country, the government is unable to carry out anything effectively without the people being discontent. There are 774 local government councils in Nigeria, making up 36 different states within the country. Many believe that with the power devolved from the center, not only will cost of governance decrease, duplication of roles between federal, state, and local governments will be decreased as well. Although the Nigerian government has not expressed any wishes of devolving its centralized power, the citizens of Nigeria view it as a plausible solution. FEDERALISM: Although Nigeria operates under a model of a Republic, where a strong executive is constrained by a system of checks and balances, a bicameral legislature, and an independent judicial branch, the political culture retains a lot of customary systems, like having shari’a courts in Muslim communities. Nigeria’s control of oil wealth has resulted in a skewed federalism where states enjoy nominal powers but are almost completely dependent on the central government. Federalism in Nigeria has been trying to equal the playing fields between their cultural pluralism, where lines are drawn economically, religiously, and ethnically, but not with much success. It runs under the label of a federalism while retaining a strong central government. |
III. Legitimacy
Nigeria's government is in a predicament when it comes to dealing with political legitimacy. The country's relative youth (founded in 1960) damages its credibility to the people, and considering also that the country was divided along entirely arbitrary lines that maximized ethnic tensions, elected officials have no chance of being supported by everybody. The major groups were, and still are, the Hausa, the Yoruba, and the Igbo.
SOURCES OF LEGITIMACY: Because elections are democratic, political legitimacy is derived largely from rational-legality and charisma. To be elected, candidates must be influential and likeable, particularly given the brutal ethnic/religious conflicts in the country. The elections, however, are technically rational-legal in their legitimacy since they are indeed based on supposedly neutral laws. Political legitimacy is not traditional, as the country is too young to have developed any form of traditional. POLITICAL EFFICACY: Though there is, indeed, a functional electoral system, there is little political efficacy. Citizens show little faith in their government due to corruption and turn to protests and revolts instead, demonstrating low external efficacy. Interestingly, however, voter turnout remains relatively high, suggesting a decent level of internal efficacy and understanding of politics. Despite this, political efficacy can still be considered low as the sole reason people participate is for their own self-interest: getting a member of their ethnic group to become the president. Low external efficacy also indicates low accountability on the government’s part. Few Nigerians, if any, truly believe that the government will act impartially in its treatment of the people or take the blame for any of the problems that do come up. Indeed, the dissatisfaction with the government is so prevalent that one can expect military coups as often as revolutions from the people. VEIL OF IGNORANCE: Using the philosophical veil of ignorance, circumstances are quite clear: the governmental system is unfair in that only those of the same ethnic group as the president will be favored. Politically, Nigeria is ranked the 35th most corrupt in the world according to Transparency Index, and a 2013 poll by Transparency International in Nigeria indicated that 84% of inhabitants believed the government had become more corrupt over the previous two years. The people, simply, don't have much of a right to know what the government is doing. |
|
TYPE OF STATE:
- A Country So Corrupt It Would Be Better to Burn Our Aid Money
- Nigeria Has Capacity But Lacks Will
- The Status of State Governments in Nigeria's Federalism
POLITICAL CULTURE:
- Political Culture and Participation in Nigeria
- Vital Inroads to a Political Culture in Nigeria
- Devolution of Power in Nigeria
- Nigeria Federalism and Devolution
LEGITIMACY:
- Sources of Legitimacy, Power, and Authority
- Nigeria: Low Voter Turnout
- A Country So Corrupt It Would Be Better to Burn Our Aid Money
- Nigeria Has Capacity But Lacks Will
- The Status of State Governments in Nigeria's Federalism
POLITICAL CULTURE:
- Political Culture and Participation in Nigeria
- Vital Inroads to a Political Culture in Nigeria
- Devolution of Power in Nigeria
- Nigeria Federalism and Devolution
LEGITIMACY:
- Sources of Legitimacy, Power, and Authority
- Nigeria: Low Voter Turnout