Notes on Forms and Organisation of Government

 

 

The Nature of Government and Politics

Introduction

As with most issues in the Social Sciences context, different explanations are ascribed to issues basically because of the difference in scholastic perception and operational environment. This chapter therefore seeks to illuminate the nature of Government, Politics and Political Science in order to construct acceptable definitions.

Government

First and foremost, Government is the whole establishment of the State or the whole machinery for carrying out the business of a country (Price; 1996:22). This refers to a situation as when we say ‘the Government of Nigeria is demonstrating concerted efforts to improve the economy’. Also, Government may also be employed to mean the executive organ of government of a State as inferred when we say ‘The Nigerian government has recognised the Kabila led Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo”.  In a similar vein, Government may connote the carrying out of the business of a country (as when we say ‘President Goodluck Jonathan of Nigeria found the burdens of government too heavy to sustain’), in other words, governing.

 

Concretely speaking, the word ‘Government’ can be ascribed with different meanings depending on the context in which it is used to describe the following:

(a)       An organization or institution of the state.

(b)        The process of governing.

(c)       An academic field of study.

 

Government as an organization or institution of the State

Government in this sense refers to the institutions or machinery through which the state policies are formulated and implemented. Government as used here connotes the executive, legislative and judicial institutions that make policies, execute them and adjudicate disputes arising from these processes.

As an instrument of managing the affair of people, government is expected to provide different services and infrastructures that can make living with one another within the state peaceful.

Such services include among others

(a)   Formulation of rules, policies and enforcement of the same.

(b)   Provision of security for lives and property.

(c)   Provision of social facilities like good roads, electricity and pipe-borne water.

(d)   Provision of health facilities like hospitals, clinics and drugs.

(e)   Provision of educational facilities and funding of educational programmes for       the citizens.

(f)    Mediating in conflicts arising from the co-existence of the people within a state.

(g)   To provide a conducive environment for productive activities within the state.

 

Government as the Process of Governing

Government as a process of governing embraces the activities carried out by the three arms of government, i.e., the executive, legislature and judiciary, to achieve the aims of government. Another way of expressing this is to say that government is the process of ruling. Government as a process of governing involves the task of taking decisions by different arms of government. These borders on law making, law execution and enforcement as well as interpretation of the laws made in matters of relationship between individuals and institutions existing within a state.

 

Government as an Academic Field of Study

Government is also the name of a subject of study just like History, mathematics, Geography, and Economics. This field of study deals with the institutions of governance and their interactions in the process of ruling, i.e, how they make and implement state policies. This starts from primary and secondary schools with subjects such as Civics, Social Studies and Government. Government as an academic discipline has great linkage with Political Science at the tertiary level with subsidiaries like Public Administration, Comparative Politics and International Relations.

           

Concretely speaking, Government is best explained as the agency or machinery through which the will of the State is formulated, expressed and realised.  The concept includes the sum total of the legislative, executive and judicial bodies in the State at all levels, and the activities of all those who are engaged in making, administering and interpreting law for the overall governance of a State.

 

Politics

The frontiers of Political inquiry have continued to expand overtime. The word “politics” is derived from the Greek word ‘Polis’, meaning a city.  In ancient Greece, the basic unit of human organisation, coterminous with the State, was the city. From ‘Polis ‘ came the word ‘Polities’ meaning ‘citizen’, and ‘Politikos’, an adjective meaning ‘appertaining to the city, the citizen, and citizenship’. (Khan, et al, 1987:3). From ‘Politikos’ is derived the English word “politics” which implies the study of the general principles on which government can be carried on successfully; in other words, the study of the exercise of power.

The truth remains that the entire gamut of human activities falls within the sphere of political control.  The above brings to fore the Aristotlean conception that ‘every man is a political animal’.  Not animal in the lower animal sense but simply because politics dictates man’s basic existence. The American Political Scientist, Robert Dahl (1990:1) puts it more succinctly: Politics is one of the unavoidable facts of human existence and if politics is inescapable, so are the consequences of politics”.

Thus, since politics is the concern of everybody, no one should ever pride himself as being ‘not interested in politics’.

 

Harold Lasswell conceives politics as “Who gets What, When and How?” (Lasswell, 1936).   The above definition conceives politics from the sense of people who are in power at a particular moment or those who can influence incumbents to determine how the power and resources of the State are appropriated. Also, George Kousolas (1981) limits the scope of politics to the State and its institutions by explaining it as “those activities that are closely related to the State and its structure of government” (Kousolas 1975:4). On the other hand, David Easton views the issue from the perspective of resource and value allocation by defining politics ‘as the authoritative allocation of values’. (Easton, 1965:50). It may be noted however, that all these divergent definitions and opinions about the concept of politics can be resolved by synthesizing all of them to posit politics as the conscious attempt to control the minds and resources of men and nations.

 

 

 

Fundamental concepts in Government and Politics

Introduction

An essential fact in Social Sciences inquiry is that we cannot think clearly in basic terms unless we know what these basic terms mean. This is fundamentally a question of communication. If someone writes a newspaper article, make a political speech or broadcast, or even take part in a friendly or acrimonious political discussion in a local bar, he cannot really communicate effectively with those to whom he is speaking unless they know precisely what he means by the words he uses. This underscores the importance of conceptual discussions.

 

Power: Power is the central issue in government and politics. A chairmanship candidate in a Local Government election is out to acquire power (political). A young man who schemes to marry from a wealthy family or vice versa is seeking power (economic), likewise, the military boys who frequently incur in African politics are out to exercise power ( military).  Naturally man loves power because of the benefits it carries and he will go to any extent to acquire it.

Thomas Hobbes assessed human life and saw it as tied to “a perpetual and restless desire of power after power that ceaseth only in death”. Power is the ability to get other individuals to do what perhaps ordinarily, they would not have done. As Kousoulas puts it,  it is “the capacity to make other human beings do what they would not ordinarily have done of their own accord”. (Kousoulas 1975:16).  In a similar vein, Schuman (1989: 272) explains power essentially as the ability to win friends and influence people, to evaluate sympathy and to command obedience. In other words, power is the ability to compel obedience.

Man acquires power principally through who he is (personality), what he has (property) and where he belongs to (organisation). Man also submits to power due to threat of punishment; promise of pecuniary reward and exercise of persuasion. Apart from the economic, military and political variants of power already mentioned above, others are industrial power, gender power, physical power and spiritual powers. Nevertheless, the most important variant which stands as the core of other powers is political power.  It is exercised in the context of the State.

 

Authority: Authority is the right to exercise power. Rais Khan et al are of the opinion that authority is the right to influence the behaviour of others. If power is the ability or capacity to compel obedience, it simply means that whoever possesses the right to compel obedience possesses authority.  It is power wrapped in legitimacy.

 

For instance, by virtue of the mandate given President Goodluck Jonathan in the recent constitutional power succession in Nigeria, he has acquired authority from the electorate to influence their behaviour for a given time, that is, until his mandate for governance expires. One important fact to note is that the person who is being influenced must accept that the person influencing him has the right to do so. The above probably influenced Robert Dahl to posit that “Legitimate power or influence is generally called authority” (Dahl, 1990:33).  In other words, authority provides legitimacy for power.

 

Legitimacy: Joseph LaPalombara stated the obvious when he declared: “Legitimacy is a state of the mind and not a condition of legality”  (LaPalombara, 1974:48). This is to say that an action simply becomes acceptable if it is legitimate. This concept has much to do with the conscience of an individual upon which certain actions are to be operated.

Corroborating the above is George Kousoulas, who opined that the extent to which citizens regard the State, its institutions, its policies and personnel as morally right and acceptable determines the legitimacy or otherwise of a State action (Kousoulas, 1975:73). The commonest test question that citizens employ in determining the moral acceptance of State action is “do I accept that the person exercising power over me has the basis to do so?”.

 

Political Culture: Every society has its own peculiar tradition, which is a kind of culture that encompasses a prevalent political attribute and orientation. It includes the opinion of citizens about the political system, the government, the political actors, political events and the capacity and capability of the political system to satisfy the political demands of the people. It is basically the perception and expectation of individuals from the political system.

According to De Gracia, political culture is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, custom and other capabilities and habits by man as a member of society (De Gracia, 1985:36). It is also the commonly accepted rules and commonly shared goals of politics (Macridis, 1982:31). Eric Rowe (1979:12) explained political culture as a pattern of individual values, beliefs and emotional attitudes. David Barber (1988: 50) defined the concept as the pattern of orientation in which every political system is embedded as well as people’s orientation towards political objects (which include the legislature, the executive, the judiciary, political parties, pressure groups, political actors, the constitution as well as any other object that makes an impact on the political system).

Political culture is therefore the totality of peoples view of the what, when and how of the politics of a particular place at a particular period of time. Thus, if an election takes place with low turn out; if citizens demonstrate on an issue or if people in a constituency attempt to recall their representative from government, such actions will simply be demonstrating the people’s orientation to the political system at that particular time.

 

Political Socialisation: Rodee,  et al (1983:84) explains political socialization as the process by which  individuals and the mass public, are introduced to a nation’s political culture. In other words, it is an avenue through which ideals; values and beliefs get transmitted from one generation to another. It is also the process and system of political learning. Each individual learns about the politics of his or her society because the methods of politics are not inborn. Although Aristotle in his book, Politics, opined, “all men are political animals” the strategy and tactics of politics are learned and acquired. Furthermore, because politics has to do with all facets of life, it makes all facets of life political.

 

Donald J. Devine for instance, in The Political Culture of the United States explained the core of American political culture to be the liberal tradition of American democracy. Therefore, an average American grows up cherising liberal democracy as a system of government. In contradistinction, in a country like Nigeria, the orientation has been toward the military way of life to the extent that even civilian leaders find it difficult to govern democratically.

The processes of transmitting ideas, values and beliefs from one generation to another are through parental or family influence; self or group participation; memorable events and environmental factors among others. In similar vein, the agencies that carry out these important transmissions are the family; the school; political parties; the mass media, peer groups and the character of the society.

 

Ideology: Leaders commonly employ this term to condition acceptance and obedience from their followers.   The concept simply means an exposition of ideas. Christenson, et al (1973:4) explained it as “science of ideas”.   An ideology is an action-related system of ideas. Ideologies typically contain a programme and a strategy for its realisation and their essential function is to unite organisations, which are built around them… Ideologies are sets of ideas relating to the existing political and social order and intended either to change it or defend it. (Friedrich, 1983:89).  It is a system of ideas that explains or justifies a particular social reality.

Ideologies are essential in every political system because of the functions they perform. First and foremost, an ideology performs the role of legitimation, that is, it accords the structures and government personnel the needed legitimacy. Secondly, it stimulates the citizens for more active participation in the political process, and as such, it stands out as an essential ingredient of mass mobilisation. Thirdly, it is an instrument of self identification; and lastly, it helps to foster national integration. As opined by David Krech et al (1980:402): the existence of a common ideology tends to minimise behavioural differences due to different wants among members. A common ideology does this by creating a core of common wants among members and by inducing a common method of expressing different wants.

 

Capitalism: economic system in which private individuals and business firms carry on the production and exchange of goods and services through a complex network of prices and markets. Although rooted in antiquity, capitalism is primarily European in its origins; it evolved through a number of stages, reaching its zenith in the 19th century. From Europe, and especially from England, capitalism spread throughout the world, largely unchallenged as the dominant economic and social system until World War I (1914-1918) ushered in modern communism (or Marxism) as a vigorous and hostile competing system.

The term capitalism was first introduced in the mid-19th century by Karl Marx, the founder of communism. Free enterprise and market system are terms also frequently employed to describe modern non-Communist economies. Sometimes the term mixed economy is used to designate the kind of economic system most often found in Western nations. The individual who comes closest to being the originator of contemporary capitalism is the Scottish philosopher Adam Smith, who first set forth the essential economic principles that underguard this system. In his classic An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776), Smith sought to show how it was possible to pursue private gain in ways that would further not just the interests of the individual but those of society as a whole. Society's interests are met by maximum production of the things that people want. In a now famous phrase, Smith said that the combination of self-interest, private property, and competition among sellers in markets will lead producers “as by an invisible hand” to an end that they did not intend, namely, the well-being of society.

 

Throughout its history, but especially during its ascendency in the 19th century, capitalism has had certain key characteristics. First, basic production facilities—land and capital—are privately owned. Capital in this sense means the buildings, machines, and other equipment used to produce goods and services that are ultimately consumed. Second, economic activity is organized and coordinated through the interaction of buyers and sellers (or producers) in markets. Third, owners of land and capital as well as the workers they employ are free to pursue their own self-interests in seeking maximum gain from the use of their resources and labor in production. Consumers are free to spend their incomes in ways that they believe will yield the greatest satisfaction. This principle, called consumer sovereignty, reflects the idea that under capitalism producers will be forced by competition to use their resources in ways that will best satisfy the wants of consumers. Self-interest and the pursuit of gain lead them to do this. Fourth, under this system a minimum of government supervision is required; if competition is present, economic activity will be self-regulating. Government will be necessary only to protect society from foreign attack, uphold the rights of private property, and guarantee contracts. This 19th-century view of government's role in the capitalist system was significantly modified by ideas and events of the 20th century.

 

For several decades after World War II, the mixture of Keynesian ideas with traditional forms of capitalism have proved extraordinarily successful. Western capitalist countries, including the defeated nations of World War II, enjoyed nearly uninterrupted growth, low rates of inflation, and rising living standards. Beginning in the late 1960s, however, inflation erupted nearly everywhere, and unemployment rose. In most capitalist countries the Keynesian formulas apparently no longer worked. Critical shortages and rising costs of energy, especially petroleum, played a major role in this change. New demands imposed on the economic system included ending environmental pollution, extending equal opportunities and rewards to women and minorities, and coping with the social costs of unsafe products and working conditions. At the same time, social-welfare spending by governments continued to grow; in the United States, these expenditures (along with those for defense) accounted for the overwhelming proportion of all federal spending.

 

The current situation needs to be seen in the perspective of the long history of capitalism, particularly its extraordinary versatility and flexibility. The events of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century show that modified “mixed” or “welfare” capitalism has succeeded in building a floor under the economy. It has so far been able to prevent economic downturns from gaining enough momentum to bring about a collapse of the magnitude of the 1930s. This is no small accomplishment, and it has been achieved without the surrender of personal liberty or political democracy. The elusive goal for capitalist nations is to secure, simultaneously, high employment and stable prices. This is a formidable task, but given the historical flexibility of capitalism, the goal is both reasonable and attainable.

 

 

Communism: This is a theory and system of social and political organization that was a major force in world politics for much of the 20th century. As a political movement, communism sought to overthrow capitalism through a workers’ revolution and establish a system in which property is owned by the community as a whole rather than by individuals. In theory, communism would create a classless society of abundance and freedom, in which all people enjoy equal social and economic status. Such a society would ultimately be governed by the principle of ‘from each according to his ability and to each according to his need’.

 

In practice, communist regimes have taken the form of coercive, authoritarian governments that cared little for the plight of the working class and sought above all else to preserve their own hold on power. The idea of a society based on common ownership of property and wealth stretches far back in Western thought. In its modern form, communism grew out of the socialist movement of 19th-century Europe. At that time, Europe was undergoing rapid industrialization and social change. As the Industrial Revolution advanced, socialist critics blamed capitalism for creating a new class of poor, urban factory workers who labored under harsh conditions, and for widening the gulf between rich and poor. Foremost among these critics were the German philosopher Karl Marx and his associate Friedrich Engels. Like other socialists, they sought an end to capitalism and the exploitation of workers. But whereas some reformers favored peaceful, longer-term social transformation, Marx and Engels believed that violent revolution was all but inevitable; in fact, they thought it was predicted by the scientific laws of history. They called their theory “scientific socialism,” or communism. In the last half of the 19th century the terms socialism and communism were often used interchangeably. However, Marx and Engels came to see socialism as merely an intermediate stage of society in which most industry and property were owned in common but some class differences remained. They reserved the term communism for a final stage of society in which class differences had disappeared, people lived in harmony, and government was no longer needed.

 

The meaning of the word communism shifted after 1917, when Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik Party seized power in Russia. The Bolsheviks changed their name to the Communist Party and installed a repressive, single-party regime devoted to the implementation of socialist policies. The Communists formed the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR, or Soviet Union) from the former Russian Empire and tried to spark a worldwide revolution to overthrow capitalism. Lenin’s successor, Joseph Stalin, turned the Soviet Union into a dictatorship based on total state control of the economy and the suppression of any form of opposition. As a result of Lenin’s and Stalin’s policies, many people came to associate the term communism with undemocratic or totalitarian governments that claimed allegiance to Marxist-Leninist ideals. The term Marxism-Leninism refers to Marx’s theories as amended and put into practice by Lenin.

 

After World War II (1939-1945), regimes calling themselves communist took power in China, Eastern Europe, and other regions. The spread of communism marked the beginning of the Cold War, in which the Soviet Union and the United States, and their respective allies, competed for political and military supremacy. By the early 1980s, almost one-third of the world’s population lived under communist regimes. These regimes shared certain basic features: an embrace of Marxism-Leninism, a rejection of private property and capitalism, state domination of economic activity, and absolute control of the government by one party, the communist party. The party’s influence in society was pervasive and often repressive. It controlled and censored the mass media, restricted religious worship, and silenced political dissent.

 

Communist societies encountered dramatic change in the late 1980s and early 1990s, as political and economic upheavals in the USSR, Eastern Europe, and elsewhere led to the disintegration of numerous communist regimes and severely weakened the power and influence of communist parties throughout the world. The collapse of the USSR effectively ended the Cold War. Today, single-party communist states are rare, existing only in China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam. Elsewhere, communist parties accept the principles of democracy and operate as part of multiparty systems.

 

 

 

Socialism: Socialism is an economic and social cum political doctrine that demands state ownership and control of the fundamental means of production and distribution of wealth, to be achieved by reconstruction of the existing capitalist or other political system of a country through peaceful, democratic, and parliamentary means. The doctrine specifically advocates nationalization of natural resources, basic industries, banking and credit facilities, and public utilities. It places special emphasis on the nationalization of monopolized branches of industry and trade, viewing monopolies as inimical to the public welfare. It also advocates state ownership of corporations in which the ownership function has passed from stockholders to managerial personnel. Smaller and less vital enterprises would be left under private ownership, and privately held cooperatives would be encouraged.

 

These are the tenets of the Socialist party of the U.S., the Labour party of Britain, and labor or social democratic parties of various other countries. Therefore they constitute the centrist position held by most socialists. Some political movements calling themselves socialist, however, insist on the complete abolition of the capitalist system and of private profit, and at the other extreme are socialist programs having objectives entailing even fewer changes in the social order than those outlined above. The ultimate goal of all socialists, however, is a classless cooperative commonwealth in every nation of the world.

 

The terms socialism and communism were once used interchangeably. Today, however, communism designates those theories and movements that, in accordance with one view of the teachings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, advocate the abolition of capitalism and all private profit, by means of violent revolution if necessary. Marx organized the International Workingmen's Association, or First International; when this congress met at Geneva in 1866, it was the first international forum for the promulgation of Communist doctrine. This doctrine was later explained by Lenin, who defined a socialist society as one in which the workers, free from capitalist exploitation, receive the full product of their labor. Most socialists deny the claim of Communists to have achieved socialism in the USSR, which they regarded as an authoritarian tyranny. But after World War II, many Communist-led political parties in the Soviet sphere of influence still used the designation socialist in their names. In East Germany (now part of the united Federal Republic of Germany), for example, the name adopted by the merged Communist and Social Democratic parties was the Socialist Unity party.

 

The modern socialist movement, as distinguished from communism, had its origin largely in the revisionist movement of the late 19th century. The worsening condition of the proletariat, or workers, and the class war predicted by Marx for Western Europe had not come about. Many socialist thinkers began to doubt the indispensability of revolution and to revise other basic tenets of Marxism. Led by the German writer Eduard Bernstein, they declared that socialism could best be attained by reformist, parliamentary, and evolutionary methods, including the support of the bourgeoisie.

 

Communalism: This is a socio-economic cum political arrangement that is hinged on the voluntary sharing of a way of life by a group of people who believe that they can live better together than they can alone. Under communalism, assets and liabilities are mutually owned and shared. In a commune, the welfare of the group is more important than the comfort of the individual. Communal groups sometimes strive to build durable institutions that will maintain utopian values. Utopian communities are based on the principles that people can achieve an ideal society by living and working together. This system of administration is still in practice in Aiyetoro community of Ilaje Local Government Area of Ondo State.

 

Human Rights: Human rights are the benchmark rights below, which no municipal or national law may fall. As UNESCO puts it,” human rights are neither a new morality, nor a lay religion and are much more than a language common to all mankind.” Human rights simply mean those rights that are essential to the realization of human aspirations; without them, life is meaningless and may be regarded as nasty, brutish and short.

 

These rights can now be classified into three categories.

These are:

1. Civil and Political Rights

2. Economic Social and Cultural Rights

3. Environmental Rights.

 

The first category enjoys prominence than the other two because it is the one the State finds politically convenient to enshrine in the constitution. The rights are extracted from the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1976; and with particular reference to Africa, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. This class of right is referred

to as Fundamental Rights as contained in the Chapter 4 of the 1999 constitution of Nigeria. The rights can be listed as follows:

Section 33-Right to life

Section 34-Right to dignity of human person

Section 35-Right to personal liberty

Section 36-Right to fair hearing

Section 37-Right to private and family life

Section 38-Right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion

Section 39-Right to freedom of expression and the press

Section 40-Right to peaceful assembly and association

Section 41-Right to freedom of movement

Section 42-Right to freedom from discrimination

Section 43-Right to acquire and own immovable property anywhere in Nigeria

Section 44-Compulsory acquisition of property.

 

It must be noted that what makes them fundamental is that the constitution makes them so and not that they are inherently fundamental. Indeed they are no more “fundamental” than the other categories. Consequently, it is improper to refer to this category of rights as “fundamental human rights” rather than “fundamental rights”

 

Economic, social and cultural rights will include right to gainful employment, right to a good standard of living, right to education and shelter among other things as provided for in the Chapter 2 of the 1999 constitution where they are presented as Fundamental Objectives and Principles of State Policy. These rights are however referred to as ‘non-justiciable’, that is the enforcement of these rights cannot be subject of litigation in court. Thus, the safeguard of these rights as it were, is at the grace of the Executive arm of Government.

 

Environmental rights are a new generation of rights. These posit the right to a clean environment as spelt out in the Federal Environmental Protection Act of 1990.

Prior the return to civilian rule in May 1999, the human rights situation in Nigeria was very poor. The esteemed Nobel laureate, Prof. Wole Soyinka once remarked that “I smell the sperm of tyranny before the rape of the nation”, (CDHR, 2001) in a bid to describe the excruciating human rights situation in Nigeria during the dark days of military rule. At present, the situation has improved but the drawbacks and ineptitude of the military interregnum still affects the human rights situation. This is because democracy has only succeeded in revealing the rot of the Human Rights situation.

 

At present, fundamental rights of citizens still come under attack despite the advent of democracy. For instance, the protection and enjoyment of the right to life and respect for human dignity is hampered by the non-availability of the necessary socio-economic infrastructures that can guarantee the realization and fulfillment of such rights. According to the CDHR report on Human Rights (ibid), “the traditional means by which the Nigerian rights to life and respect for human dignity were abused are: death penalty, extra-judicial killings including assassinations; arbitrary arrests and detention; disappearances; avoidable disaster and the poor administration of our prison system.” Apart from the above,” a new dimension has emerged and this have to do with the individuals and groups who were dissatisfied with the ineptitude of the state functionaries and the brazen killings and maiming of Nigerians by unconventional security organizations who hijacked the duty of maintaining laws and order from the Nigerian police and assumed the business of protecting lives and properties in various parts of Nigeria.”

 

Extra-judicial killings have also increased in the land against one of the twin pillars of natural justice, which requires that a person must be heard before any punitive measure can be taken against him. The Nigerian police and the numerous ethnic militia groups in Nigeria took unenviable lead in the killings and brutalities that took place across Nigeria and the truth in most case is that the rights of Nigerians (many of them mere suspects) were violated. Police and military task force brutality have also increased and the rights of innocent Nigerians are trampled upon whether in their homes, highways, offices or public places.

 

Although the military has gone back to the barracks for well over a decade, the human right situation has not really improved. It still presents the recurrent anomalies of extra-judicial killings, arbitrary arrest and detention without trial, torture and degrading treatment, which are perpetually perpetrated on a daily basis.

 

 

 

 

The State, Society and Nation.

State: This is another word which has several meanings in the English Language depending on the context in which it is employed.  It can simply mean a country, as when we say ‘War has broken out between the two States.’ It can mean a constituent unit, with its own government, of a Federal republic, as when we talk of Ondo State or Akwa- Ibom State of Nigeria. It can also mean the government of a country, as when we talk of State land, or State ownership of industry.

Actually, the State represents the level of organisation and civilisation in human societies. It is a well defined geographical territory with human population, government and sovereignty. This implies that a State must not only have distinct border demarcations, it must of necessity be occupied by people with a constituted machinery for the organisation and realisation of their individual and group interests.

State is also used to mean an association of men and women formed for specific purposes, with a clearly defined territory and an organised system of government.

 

The essential elements contained or implied in this sphere are:

(i)                 A definite territory (some states may exist without definite territories as evinced by Palestine).

A State must have a determinate geographical territory or boundary that is internationally recognized.  And importantly, any person within the boundaries of a state is be bound by the laws of such State. Geographical territory includes the land area, sea and water areas and outer space within the boundaries of a State.

 

(ii)              A government organised to achieve the purposes for which the State was set up.

This is the machinery by means of which law and order are maintained, and which carries out all functions on behalf of the State. Unusually government is said to consist of three branches or arms viz: the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. The three constitute the administrative organ of the State. Government runs the State for the common good of the members of society.

 

(iii)            Population  (A body of men and women having a purpose).

It is not merely a group of people.  Here population means a group of people organised to obey the same set of laws and distinguished from other peoples by their loyalty to the same central government.  Such a people may be of same or diverse cultures or races.

(iv)             A system of laws (A constitution)

This system of laws refers to the body of rules, which directly or indirectly regulates the arrangement, and the exercise of power in a State. It is the collection of principles upon which the powers of the Government, the rights of the governed and  the relations between the two are designed.

(v)               Sovereignty - the power of the State to make laws and enforce them with all the means of coercion it cares to employ; and the independence of the State from foreign control.

It has two aspects. The first aspect is the internal supremacy within the state and the second aspect is the external independence from direct political control by any other State or political authority. Legal sovereignty is the most important aspect of the State.  The ability and the right to manage one’s own internal and external affairs is what distinguishes a State from other units or entities such as an association, a union, a protectorate or the constituent part of a federation.

 

Theories of Origin of the State

Organic Theory: The organic theorists see the State as evolving naturally. Aristotle, a foremost scholar in this realm believes that the State emerged naturally because it is the evolutionary apex of the movement from the family to the village, the city and the ultimate culmination in the complex association of people – the State. Aristotle also believes that the State is ultimately a natural occurrence that hinges on human development and evolution. 

Also, Hegel sees the State as a natural creation because it exists on earth to symbolize law and order in a bid to govern the society.

Divine Theory: This theoretical perspective argues that States are divinely created by God. Thus, both spiritual and temporal authority comes from God. Appadorai (1960) summarized the position of these theorists in the following way: (1) the State has been established by an ordinance of God; (2) its rulers are divinely appointed, and (3) the rulers are not accountable to any other authority but God. This school of thought is greatly inspired by religion.

Patriarchal Theory: This school of thought argues that the unit of ancient societies is the family in which descendancy was traced through males. This school further argues that members of the patriarchal family should trace their genealogy to the male person and that it is the patriarchal affinity that formed the basis of the modern state.

Matriarchal Theory: This is the opposite of the Patriarchal theory. This theory posits that the State emerged out of blood relationships that are better traced to mothers. It argued that masculinity has limitations and that the ancient societies were firmly built by feminine bonds.

Force Theory: The thrust of this theory is the proposition that all contemporary political communities developed out of successful warfare. The State is thus founded when a leader with his army occupies a conquered territory and establishes control and authority. The continuation of such exploits according to some theorists, in some respect, culminates in the modern State.

The Social Contract Theory: This is the most popular theory of State formation. It was postulated and developed (with similar propositions) by the trio of John Locke (1690), Thomas Hobbes (1651) and Jean Jack Rousseau (1962). A common argument in their theoretical escapades is that the society emerged by a decision of men who agreed to be under the same political body with a superintending authority. The three scholars argued that men used to live in a state of nature where the hands of every man  was over every other man and life was said to be very short, brutal and nasty. In other words, the state of nature was a phenomenon under which might was considered to be right. The modern state is therefore a product of the contract between the people and the ruler, and both parties have responsibilities and obligations in accordance with the terms of the contract. The postulation of the social contract theorists can be summarized thus:

No man can make himself emperor or king;

a people sets a man over it to the end that

he may rule justly, giving to every man his

own, aiding good man and coercing bad; in

short, that he may give justice to all men.

If then he violates the agreement according

to which he was chosen, disturbing and

confounding the very things which he was

meant to put in order, reason dictates that

he absolves the people from their obedience;

especially when he has himself first broken the

faith which bound him and the people together

(Carlye, 1977).

 

Nation: The word Nation is often wrongly confused with the word State.  The two concepts however mean different things; Nation has a sort of inherent spiritual quality, which the concept, State does not have, and in consequence, it is very difficult to define. In fact, no single definition fits every conceivable circumstance in which it would be proper to use the term Nation.

The term ‘Nation’ is however obviously allied to nationality, both being from the same Latin root, ‘natus’, meaning birth.  Harold Laski defines it as “a population with ethnic unity, inhabiting a territory with geographic unity”. (Laski, 1970:28)  Khan, et al also explain it to be a body of people who feel themselves to be naturally linked together by certain affinities which are so strong and real for them that they can live happily together (Khan, 1987:31).

Basically, a Nation should be a group of men and women who have, or who feel that they have, some, all or more of the following things in common: a common ancestry; a common history or tradition; a common language; a common culture; a common religion; a common territory; and a common government.

 

Now the Yoruba of Nigeria for example have a common ancestry (in that traditionally they are descendants of Oduduwa), a common history and tradition, a common language, a common culture, a common traditional religion, and a common territory. But we become stucked because they do not have a common government, since there are Yoruba living under the governments of the six South- Western States of Oyo, Ondo, Ogun, Ekiti, Lagos and Osun as well as Edo, Kwara, and Kogi States in Nigeria. The Yorubas are also found in Togo and  Benin Republic. Whatever group of people we pick, we find out that in at least one respect, this definition gets inadequate.  Therefore, for all practical purposes the most reliable definition of a Nation is: a group of people who considers itself as having something in common that distinguishes it substantially or completely from all others.  It is therefore a concept whose content evolves over time.

 

While it has some political underpinning, the concept is usually suffused in culture, the important thing being that if a people believes that it is a nation, it will behave like a nation, as there are abundant opportunities to create a feeling of ‘nationhood’ or ‘togetherness’, a “we feeling” as it were, amongst previously separated people, as has happened for instance in the United States of America.

It must also be noted that while a state may consist of different nations, the psychological and cultural boundaries of a nation may transcend that of a State.  For example, whereas the Nigeria State is made up of many ethnic nations (Yoruba, Hausa, Fulani, Igbo, Ijaw, etc), the Kurdish nation is scattered over many countries in Europe and the Middle East.

 

Nation State: A nation-state is a territory controlled by a single government and inhabited by a distinct population with a common culture that shapes the identity of its citizens. All the essential elements of the modern state are also embedded in the nation-state. According to Oyeleye (2003), the difference between a state and nation-state cannot be found in these common elements; rather, the prominence of social coherence and nationalism in the state makes it a nation-state.

Society: A society is an association of human beings.  As a concept, it suggests the whole complex of relations of man to man.  It also consists of the complicated network of groups and institutions expressing human association. There are many groups in a society, among which are the family, the caste, the church, etc which influence social life in one way or the other. Social occurrences such as customs, values and norms are created by a society to guide human conduct.

The society focuses on social relationships, which cannot be approximated by the State or its government. Not minding the level of organisation or management, the concept society is applicable to all human communities whether primitive or modern.

 

Organisation of Government

Introduction

A common feature of modern States is the organisation of the dynamics of power among its citizens and its constituent parts. This framework is essential to foster unity and peace as well as to forestall anarchy and chaos. This chapter will highlight and discuss the essential frameworks upon which modern governments are organised.

 

Constitution

A constitution is a body of fundamental principles and rules by which a country is governed. It is a document that establishes the institutions of the government and defines their powers. It also contains rights and duties of citizens.

Features of a Constitution

Constitution differs from one country to another. The sources of constitutions are its features:

Historical experiences.

Class structure or social stratification.

Level of socio-economic development of the country

Leadership quality and ideology.

Ethnic composition of the state.

Certain fundamental aspects of government are clearly outlined by all constitutions. These are:

i. Preamble or National objectives

ii. Structure of government

iii description of how the powers of the state are to be distributed and exercised

iv Amendment process.

v. Human rights and freedom of individuals.

Source of Constitutional Rules

Constitutional rules come from four main sources:

Written laws

ii.         Organic laws

iii        Judicial decisions, and

iv         Customs and conventions

Written laws

The written laws are produced for the State by the Constitution Drafting committee (and constituent Assembly).

The Nigerian 1979 Constitution was drafted by the Constitutional Drafting Committee (CDC). The written document was later ratified by a Constituent assembly and promulgated by the military administration in power by then.

 

Organic laws

These are special laws that explain in detail, broad constitutional provisions. They are laws concerning the basic structural procedures by which the government will function. For example, the written constitution establishes the executive branch of government and public service. The particular ministries and department of government to be established are the result of organic laws made by the legislature. Organic laws therefore, give meaning to the constitution but are not directly part of it.

 

 

Judicial decision

The judiciary takes part in making constitutional rules in two ways:

Through Court decision, i.e. interpretations of provisions of the constitution.

Through Judicial review, i.e. review of acts based on the constitution.

Constitutional provisions are usually broad statements of law, so their application often leads to controversy. Such controversies are resolved by the court’s interpretation of the constitution thus forming part of the Constitution. Judicial review is the power of the courts to determine whether or not a legislative or executive act is constitutional and to declare such an act as null and void, that is, of no effect if it is found to be unconstitutional.

(iv) Customs and Conventions

  These are practices and observances (not written down as part of the constitution), which are, accepted as part of the way the government functions. They are usually obeyed as much as any written constitutional rule.

           

 

Types of constitution

All constitution falls into two broad categories namely:

(a)                   Written and unwritten constitution.

(b)          Rigid and flexible constitution.

 

Written constitution

This is a constitution in which the fundamental principles for the organization of government powers, the institutions established and the rights of the citizens are written down in one document. Examples of this type of constitution are those of Nigeria, Germany, Ghana and the United States of America. A main feature of the written constitution is that it is usually rigid. This means it demands a cumbersome procedure for its amendment. A written constitution gives the authority to interpret it to the Judiciary. This makes the Judiciary serve as a watchdog to see that the Constitution is observed.                 

 

Unwritten Constitution

The unwritten constitution is one in which the fundamental principles of the organization and powers of government are not codified in a single document. Also, an unwritten constitution is normally made up of conventions, court decisions and organic laws that have evolved over time. A perfect example of an unwritten constitution is that of Great Britain. Its most important feature is that it is flexible. It is easy to amend as the procedure for doing so is the same as for passing ordinary law. It should be noted that constitutions in general have both elements of being written and unwritten.

 

Rigid Constitution

A Constitution is said to be rigid:

If the procedure for its amendment is not the same as those for passing ordinary bills.

The element of rigidity is evident in the usually cumbersome and long process for its amendment.

 

However, rigid Constitution varies considerably in the methods lay down for amendment. The Constitution of Nigeria and the United State of America are examples of rigid constitutions. For example, to amend the 1999 Nigerian constitution, it needs the approval of two thirds majority of both houses of National Assembly, supported by at least two thirds of all States Houses of Assembly.

 

Flexible Constitution

A constitution is flexible if the amendment procedure is the same as that for the passing of ordinary laws. The British Constitution is the best example of a flexible constitution. The characteristic of a flexible constitution are the same as those of the unwritten constitution.

 

Constitutionalism

Constitutionalism means adherence to the constitution. In other words, it holds that those who govern must do so in accordance with the principle of the constitution. Furthermore, the concept of constitutionalism subscribes to limited governmental authority, respect for rule of law and human rights.

 

Relationship between constitution and constitutionalism

The points of difference between the two concepts involve the following:

While constitution is the document with which State governance is shaped, constitutionalism is the principle with which the document (constitution) is made to work.

Constitutionalism implies the limitations imposed on the actors in government identified by the constitution against excessiveness.

Constitutionalism is usually entrenched in every constitution of each state.

Constitutionalism involves the creation of constitutional order.

 

Federalism and Unitarism:

Federalism and Unitarism are the two most enduring modes of political arrangement in the world today. Federalism refers to a political arrangement that allows for at least two levels of government, in which case there is always the existence of a central government otherwise called the federal government and other States labelled variously as States, region, republic, canton, province or union. This form of political organisation is such that the central, or federal government, does not have unrestricted power, but shares it with the governments of the separate regions or States which make up the federation, and which have certain specified powers laid down by the constitution.

The commonest reasons for the adoption of federalism are: the need for a common defense; fall out of a colonial policy; a shared historical experience; attraction in economies of scale; administrative convenience and above all, political willingness on the part of the constituent units. The essential principles that enhance the workability of any federalism are a written constitution; bicameral parliament, supremacy of the judiciary and an indivisibility clause.

On the other hand, Unitarism, which connotes supremacy of the central government, is the system of government that centralises and concentrates political authority in one central government. This arrangement has no constitutionally recognised lower levels of administration, but in the opinion of Dipo Kolawole (1997: 162), the executive can delegate some powers or functions to the subordinate units, which can be withdrawn at will.

An essential fact worthy of note is that States that practice unitarism are usually homogeneous in their ethnic and cultural composition. Besides the homogeneity of unitary States, also unique to the system is the small size of the States, geographically and demographically. (Rodee, et al 1983:285). Examples of States, which have these features, which therefore made the unitary system of government expedient for them, are Britain, Denmark, Italy, France, Greece, Israel and Japan.

 

Parliamentary and Presidential Systems of Government

We describe the type of government where the President is simultaneously the Head of State and Head of Government (in other words, exercising executive power himself), as a presidential system of government. Nigeria under Shehu Shagari (1979-1983) and Olusegun Obasanjo (1999 - 2007), South Africa, and the United States of America are three examples of presidential systems of government.

On the other hand, where one has a titular Head of State, whether he is a King or a President, with the executive power of government in the hands of a Prime Minister working with a cabinet, we refer to this as a cabinet system of government. The United Kingdom is a good example of this system: The Queen is the titular Head of State, exercising no power whatsoever except on the advise of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister meanwhile is the Head of Government, who exercises all the executive authority of the State in collaboration with the cabinet, a group of senior ministers who share with him collective responsibility for policy making. From 1960 to 1966, Nigeria was administered in this way, the Governor General, and later the President (Dr. Nnamdi Azikwe), was the titular Head of State, occupying exactly the same position as the Queen of England. The Federal Prime Minister (Sir Tafawa Balewa) and his cabinet exercised the executive powers.

Proponents of the Cabinet system of government argue that by divorcing the functions of Head of State and Head of Government, one ensures that the former can personify the country in a dignified, non-political and non-contentious manner, without becoming in any way involved in or tarnished by party political squabble. At the same time, the continuity of the nation’s, institutions, despite changes of and  in government from time to time, is ensured by this device. Since no real political power is in the hands of the Head of State, it is not necessary that a visibly democratic process should select him. It is merely necessary that he/she should be acceptable to all sections of the community. In this way, the selection of the Queen of England by a mere accident of birth into a family, the legitimacy of which is undisputed, can be justified.

 

 

Arms of Government

In an attempt to accomplish its task as the machinery through which the purpose of the state are sought to be realized, government is made up of some basic institutions through which political control is affected.  Usually, government power is expressed in three forms, namely the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary.  These institutions exist in complementary forms and act as checks on one another.

The Legislature generally is the law-making branch of a representative government.  The Executive is the branch of government concerned with the implementation of the policies and laws made by the Legislature.  While the Judiciary is the branch concerned with the interpretation of the laws, and it is made up of the Courts, with the general objective to protect citizens from real and potential abuses by the other branches and personalities.  The bureaucracy which is different in category from these branches of government is the totality of government offices or bodies that constitute the permanent government of a state.  This body unlike the other arms of government enjoys permanence irrespective of changes in political leadership.

 

Legislature

The word “legislature” is often used synonymously with “Parliament’ and “Assembly.  The History of parliaments according to John Paxton is long.  As a political institution, it has a tradition reaching back into antiquity.  The early forms of modern legislative assemblies could be traced to the Lathing in Iceland (A.D. 930), the Cortez of the Castilian townsmen in Spain (12^th Century), the Risk day i.e. Sweden (A.D. 1434), and the Estates General in France.  The present forms of legislatures can be traced to the British. Beginning from the French Revolution of 1780, parliaments have been adopted in democratic European countries.  In Africa and other colonized countries, legislature is one of the migrated features of colonialism.  Though it must be underscored that most of the colonial legislative houses were far from being legislative.

 

Functions of the Legislature

* Representation and Law Making:

Legislature has the right to speak for and commit the whole country in its deliberations and decisions. Law making is the primary function of the Legislature.  Apart from initial open discussion of the bills/laws, and debating general principles, a legislature also operates committee system.  Each committee will closely scrutinize the various bills for consideration.  The committees are usually made up of small, specialist members and relatively permanent for a given legislative tenure.  However, there are some in which the committee systems are not well developed, where the committees are neither specialized nor permanent.

* Control over Finance:

Usually, it has become a rule that public money cannot be raised or spent by the Executive without the approval of the Legislature.

 

* Control over the Executive:

The legislature is saddled with the function of monitoring; questioning and checking the powers and operations of the Executive.  This entails some residual judicial functions such as impeachment.

 * Sounding board for Public Opinion:

Legislature serves as a fixed institutional link between government and people.   Through regular consultation with their constituencies, and opportunities to hear petitions from aggrieved persons against the executive, the legislature serves as a sounding board for public opinion.  It is also involved in publicizing issues i.e. by drawing the attention of the public to issues.

* Selection of some members of the Executive:

In some countries e.g. the United States and Nigeria, the Senate is required to approve some presidential appointments such as Ambassadors, Supreme Court Judges etc.

 

* Amendment to the Constitution:

They may initiate or enact constitutional rules or changes.

* Breeding Ground for Future National Leaders

It is an avenue for breeding leaders in executive positions as well as legislative positions at national level

* Enactment of Bills

Through enactment, proposals are transformed into a binding rule.

Types of Legislature

Usually, the legislature contains one or two chambers, on the basis of this, legislatures are categorized into unicameral and bicameral legislature.

Unicameral Legislature

A country’s legislature is said to be unicameral, when it has only one house, that is a single legislative chamber. This is the type of legislature in operation at the state level in Nigeria. All the 36 states have a legislative chamber each. A unicameral legislature is a legislative body having only one chamber and with its members usually elected directly Example of countries with unicameral legislature are Ghana, sierra-Leone, The Gambia, Kenya, New Zealand, Demark, Finland,  Greece, Turkey (before 1961).  Malta, Sweeden, Spain etc.

Merits

Ensure swiftness in the passing of decisions.

Reduces the length of legislature process of dual chambers.

Reduces cost which arises from paying allowance/salaries to members of two chambers.

It prevents a situation whereby a priviledged second

      chamber may super-impose its will on the public.

    

   Bicameral Legislature

Bicameral legislature refers to a two-chamber legislature. There is the lower house and the upper house. Membership of the lower house is by popular election. In some countries such as Nigeria and the United States of America, membership of the upper house is also by election. In some countries such as Britain, membership of the upper house is not by election. In Nigeria, bicameral legislature is being practiced only at the federal level. As such, we have the federal House of Representatives and the Senate. Other countries that practice this model are Australia, Canada, South Africa, Britain, United States, Italy, Belgium, France, West Germany, Ireland, Fihi, India, Japan, Brazil, Angestina, Netherlands, Norway, Malaysia, and South, Vietnam. In some other countries like Nigeria, members of the two chambers are directly elected.

Merits

The presence of the second chamber acts as a safeguard against the anticipated tyranny of a single chamber.  This reason is premised on the grounds that it would be rare for the two chambers to connive to conspire against the State.

The presence of a second chamber acts as a check upon hasty and ill-conceived legislation.

It serves as a means of providing adequate representation to certain interest groups.

The second chamber in Federal State allows for opportunity for providing equal representation to the component units.

 

Types of Legislation

Acts of parliament:  this refers to laws that are validly made by the legislature and signed into law by the head of state (president or monarch).

Decrees: These are laws made by military governments. In Nigeria, under the military regime the federal military government governed by Decrees. In some democratic countries, e.g. France and Russia, the president issues orders in the form of decrees.

Edicts: these are laws also associated with the military. During military regimes in Nigeria, the state military government ruled by edicts.

Bye-laws: these are laws made by local governments

 

 

The Executive

It may be defined as the arm of government which is saddled with the responsibility of carrying out the will of the people as enacted in its laws.  The term when used in a broad sense encompasses all the functionaries and agencies involved in executing the formulated functions of the government with the exception of the Legislature and the Judiciary. The concept when used in a narrower but more technical sense refers to the political heads of government such as the President or Prime Minister and his cabinet.

Usually when we use it as one of the three arms of government in Political Science we often refer to this narrower meaning in which we are referring to the organ that directs and supervises others to ensure that enacted laws or rules and policies are carried out for the achievement of.

Functions

In examining the functions of the Executive, it is important to state that these functions are sometimes different with type depending on the constitution and form of government.  However, we can however identify the following functions:

Administrative

This border on the direction and execution of governmental laws.  This underlines the possession of power to appoint and remove officials, directing their performance and enforcing discipline on them.  In some countries however, such appointment may need to be confirmed by the legislature.  Also the executive possess military power which makes the President to be the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. The Executive also have power to represent the government in its day to day relations and negotiation with other states.

Judicial Function

 The judicial function is embedded in the possession of the prerogative of mercy.   In addition to this, the executive also possesses some quasi-judicial power which makes it possible for it to try certain disputes between government and officials and private citizens.

3.         Legislative Function

The executive sometimes perform some legislative functions either directly or indirectly.  It has to initiate bills to the Legislature. It also possesses the power of delegated legislation which involves the power to issue statutory orders and rules.

 

 

 

Types of Executive:

Many types of executive can be identified; we shall adopt two types of classification.  These are:

Single and plural executive;

Parliamentary and Presidential or Non-Parliamentary Executives.

 

Single and Plural Executives:

Under this classification we can identify the single executive e.g the President of the U.S.A. where control is invested in only one individual.  Under this arrangement, the President has his ministers who are nominated by him.  These ministers are dependent on him and act as both agents and advisers to him.

In the plural executive, however, as typified by the President of the Federal Council of Switzerland, the President is just the Chairman of the Federal Council.  He only exercises the usual power of a Chairman as other members of the council are his colleagues and not agents.  Executive power relies with the whole council.

   Advantages of the Single Executives

It ensures promptness as there is unity of purpose.  This can be of very great advantage at a period of emergency.

The performance of an individual leader can easily be recognized.

Disadvantage of the Single Executives

In a multi-ethnic state, where there is mutual distrust for each other, there is always unhealthy rivalry for such position.

It may lead to tyrannical rule when an authoritarian personality is at the helm of affairs.

 

 

Advantage of Plural Executives

It make use of the intellect of a team rather than that of an individual, which goes to support the adage that two goods heads are better than one.

It reduces the tendency of the executive to be autocratic

 

 

 

Parliamentary and Presidential or Non-Parliamentary Executives

Under this classification we can identify the Parliamentary Executive typified by that of Britain and the Presidential typified by the U.S.A.

The Parliamentary Executive is made up of a cabinet chosen from among the Parliament.  Under this type, there is no strict separation of powers between the executive and legislative organs.  It is usually chosen from among elected representative of the majority political party or coalition group in the legislative house and usually headed by the leader of the majority party.  Under Presidential Executive, there is a clear separation of powers between the Executive and the Legislature.  The president under this system acts both as the Head of State and Head of Government.

Advantages of Parliamentary Executives:

There is higher co-operation and harmony between both the executive and the legislature.  This in no small measure ensure smoother legislation and prevents a situation where the executive may be crippled if it does not have its laws passed.

Efficiency of Administration maybe ensured by constantly bringing the government into constant touch with the legislature.

It prevents autocratic rule as the executive needs to be assured of the confidence of the legislature.  Thus, its policies must always reflect public opinion.

The ability of each member of the cabinet can easily be ascertained by the adoption of collective responsibility.

Disadvantages

It does not enjoy specified tenure of office.  It may be dissolved by a sweep of popular disfavor.

Since the choice of members of cabinet is limited to majority party in the Parliament or its coalition, merits may be sacrificed as some more competent individuals in the opposition are always excluded.

Legislative work may distract Ministers from the executive function.

 

            Advantages of Presidential Executive

There is in-built relative stability and freedom from the control of legislative majority.

Tenure is fixed by the constitution except in case where there is gross abuse of power which can warrant impeachment.  In time of emergency it can readily work with dispatch.

 

This discourse on the Executive arm of Government will be incomplete without a mention of the Public/Civil Service.

The Public Service represents the employees of government.  This refers to the set of people responsible for the functioning of government through the implementation of government policies. Often times, the term is used to indicate a scope that is wider than that of the civil service. In this usage, public service means the totality of services that are organised under public authority. The term could also be used in a more fundamental sense to refer to the idea or ideal of rendering service to the public. They are those responsible for the functioning of government through the implementation of government policies.

 

The Public Service is made up of workers in government ministries, parastatals, specialised agencies and institutions. Suffice to state that all workers in Government establishment will qualify to be personnel of the Nigerian Public Service. By this,  Doctors (in Public Hospitals), Public University lecturers, officers and men of the Armed forces, workers in Federal and State ministries and parastatals, employees of the Central Bank of Nigeria etc are all members of the Public Service. However, within the Public Service, we have the Civil Service, which constitute the inner core, or the heart of the public service.

Four fundamental principles guide the Public Service all over the world. The principles are:

(i) Principle of equality of treatment: This requires all public service to recognize the equality of citizens before the law. It also demands that persons in comparable situation vis-à-vis the administration shall be treated equally without any distinction whatsoever. It prohibits any discrimination based on place of origin, race, gender, religion, ethnic group, philosophical or political convictions.

(ii) Principle of legality: This stipulates that “public service shall be provided in strict compliance with the law” and that “administrative decisions shall be taken in conformity with existing regulations”.

(iii) Principle of neutrality: This requires the public service as a whole to remain neutral in respect to the government of the day. It also requires all administrations to respect and treat the principle as fundamental.

(iv) Principle of continuity: This provides that “public service shall be provided on an ongoing basis and in all its component parts, in accordance with the rules governing its operation”. 

On the other hand, the Civil Service refers to the entire service of government which is divided into departments that caters for one particular subject or programme of Government. According to Adebayo (1999), “a generally accepted definition of the civil Service is that it comprises all servants of the State, other than those holding political appointments, who are employed in civil capacity and whose remuneration is paid out of money voted by the Legislature”. In a similar vein, Adebayo (1992) opined that it refers to “the body of permanent officials appointed to assist the political executive in formulating and implementing governmental policies (civil servants) and the ministries and departments within which specific aspects of government work are carried out”.

 

Though an integral part of the Public Service, the Civil Service is qualified to be described as the major instrument used by government to manage development. The Civil Service has four main characteristics as presented below:

Expertise – Civil Servant possess expert training for the job they are employed to do. In fact, they are recruited on the basis of their training and special qualifications

Impartiality and Political Neutrality – The civil servant ensures that his own political views do not influence the performance of his duties.  He is impartial in his relationship with the political executive.

Anonymity – The Civil Servant does his work quietly behind the scenes. He does not take credit for the success of the ministerial responsibilities or blame for any failure or errors.

Permanence – The Civil Servant has a secure tenure in office until retirement. That is, the job of the civil servant does not depend on any government. He retains his job no matter how many times the government changes. This does not however stop him from being dismissed because of incapacity or misconduct.

In Nigeria as elsewhere, the Public Service and Civil Service are often used as synonyms whereas the two concepts are different in meaning although not much harm is done if the concepts are used interchangeably to reflect the affinity of their bureaucratic mandate.

 

The Judiciary

The judiciary is the arm of government saddled with the responsibility of interpreting the laws of a country, resolving disputes between the people and government, or among the people and imposing penalities where the law has been breached.  In other words, it is the body that protects the citizen from the real and potential abuses of their rights by the other branches of government, corporate bodies as well as individuals. The judiciary is made up of the Courts in general and all serving Judges.  The Judiciary is the basis of any constitutional government.  For the judiciary to effectively perform its functions, it must be independent.  That is why liberal democracies see judicial independence as a necessary condition for the operation of rule of law because it is a major safeguard of liberty.

 

Functions of the Judiciary

Primarily the judiciary is to interpret the law of the nation where there is ambiguity.  This would be as it affects government and individuals, or levels of government like between the Federal Government of Nigeria and the old Bendel State Government during the Second Republic.  It could also be between individuals, or individuals and institutions.

Upholding the supremacy of the constitution in a Federal State by declaring unconstitutional laws passed by the legislature as void once they are not in conformity with the constitution.

Settlement of Dispute: by the virtue of the competence it has in interpreting the law, it settles disputes between individuals or any warring parties.  It adjudicates to resolve disputes as prescribed by the law of the land.

Guardian of the Law:  It applies the law without fear or favour in order to safeguard the liberties of the individual so as to comply with the ‘spirit’ of the constitution.

 

 

Conditions Necessary for the Independence of Judiciary

Security of Tenure, this means judges must have security of tenure subject to good hebaviour and must not be removed from office at the instance of executive.

Selection of Judges should be based on professional competence and merit rather than political or personal considerations.

Political neutrality of judges: Judges should endeavour to immune themselves from political pressure once they have been appointed.

Fixed Remuneration.  Remuneration should not be subjected to variation in the hands of the executives so as to avoid a situation where it is used to victimize.

 

Rule of Law

Professor A.V. Dicey provided a clear formulation of the principle of the Rule of Law in his book titled Introduction to the Law of the Constitution. He gave three interpretations or essential meanings of the Rule of law.

These interpretations are summarized below:

a.         The supremacy of the ordinary law administered by ordinary court: This implies that power should not be used arbitrarily by state officials. Nobody should be punished or rejected to any form of suffering except he has broken the law and is convicted as such by the ordinary court of law precludes government from using arbitrary powers to detain a person. The law of the land is supreme and should be obeyed by all.

Equality before the law: According to this second meaning of the rule of law, everybody in the society, regardless of his position or status is equal before the law and should be subject to the same law. If the president or governor commits the same offence as a messenger, the two should be subjected to the same trial by the ordinary court. This presupposes that nobody is above the law. There should be no distinction between people in respect of law.

Fundamental liberty of the individual: This implies the existence of individual freedom which should not be infringed upon by the state. It connotes the freedom of the individual to pursue legitimate business, own property, and hold and express opinion, among others. Individual rights are recognised by the United Nations Organization and most countries in the world. Such rights include right to life, liberty, freedom of association, worship and movement. Other basic rights of individuals within a state include:

Right to education.

Right to social security.

Right to decent living and meaningful living.

 

Reasons for Upholding the Rule of Law

It is important that the Rule of Law be upheld in a State for the following reasons:

Protection of Human Rights of citizens: Adherence to the rule of law ensures that the rights of citizens as entrenched in the constitution are guaranteed.

Supremacy of law: It ensures that the law is supreme over all institution and persons. It also prevents the governance of a state on the basis of the whims and caprices of the ruler.

It guarantees equal treatment of citizens by the State since every one is regarded as equal before the law.

Protection against arbitrary rule: Where the rule of law prevails, citizens are protected from arbitrary exercise of power. When there is abuse, they can go to court and seek redress.

Check on dictatorial tendencies. An ambitious leader with dictatorial tendencies is less likely to achieve such ambitious intentions where the Rule of Law prevails.

It facilitates the achievement of good governance: The Rule of Law is conducive to an orderly society which in turn tends to promote good governance and development.

It boosts citizens’ confidence in the state. The predictability and stability guaranteed by the rule of law increases the confidence of citizens in the state.

 

 

Separation of powers

The principle of separation of powers states that not only should the three arms of government (namely executive, legislature and judiciary) be separated but also their functions should be performed by the different persons or a body of persons. For example a member of the Legislature should not simultaneously be a Minister nor should a Judge hold a cabinet post.

The doctrine of Separation of Powers was popularised by Montesquieu in his book Espirit de Lois in 1748. The doctrine is designed to check abuse of power by government operators.

Advantages

Protection of individual freedom and liberty. By dividing the powers of government among different persons or a body of persons, encroachment on individual liberty is minimised.

Prevention of tyranny. A concentration of power in one hand can lead to tyranny. Separation of power prevents this.

Check of abuse. It is said that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The doctrine of Separation of Powers prevents an individual or group from wielding absolute and unchecked power.

It prevents a person from presiding over his case. By allocating different persons, the doctrine prevents a person from being a Judge in his own case.

Effectiveness and efficiency is guaranteed: By allowing a kind of specialisation in the performance of government’s tasks, the doctrine of separation of powers encourages the effective and efficient performance of government functions.

Disadvantages

Possible conflict between arms of government. Excessive emphasis on power separation can lead to conflicts between different arms of government.

Isolationist tendency. Each arm of government may become scared of the apparent check that other arms poses; thereby attempting to isolate its operations.

 

The Doctrine of Checks and Balances

This is an arrangement whereby any arm of government serves as a check on another arm of government. This is to prevent abuse of power. What this means is that when the legislature makes laws, it is another arm of government that executes the law and another that interprets it.  The law made by the legislature may be declared null, unconstitutional and void by the Judiciary. As such, the Judiciary serves as a check on the legislature in the performance of its basic functions. This doctrine attempts to allow one organ of government to check the other so that one does not become too powerful or misuse one’s power.

 

 

POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

 

Every political system establishes a model of citizenship participation in its government. While some allow for mass participation, some others limit the number of able participants. This section will focus its attention on the patterns of cross national models of citizenship participation in government and politics.

 

 

Citizenship: Rights, Duties and Obligations

As is the case in most societies, for example a political party or a tennis club, a group has the right to make rules governing membership. In the case of the State, membership is known as citizenship. The commonest ways in which individuals acquire citizenship of a State are by being born to parents who are citizens of that State or by being born within the territory of that State. Individuals may change their citizenship by a voluntary process known as naturalisation; in other words they opt out of membership of one State and into membership of another. Some countries, however, do not recognise the right of the individual to renounce his citizenship of the State, and so you may find occasionally confused circumstances where a man may be the citizen of one country according to the laws of that country and the citizen of another country under the laws of the other.

 

Citizenship confers certain rights on the individual, and also imposes certain duties. Among the most important rights of a citizen are freedom from unlawful deprivation of life; freedom from subjection to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment, slavery or forced labour; freedom from deprivation of personal liberty except in accordance with the law; respect for private and family life; freedom of conscience; freedom of expression; freedom of association and peaceful assembly; freedom of movement and freedom from discrimination, whether religious, racial, political or sexual.

In return for the rights, which a citizen enjoys, he has to accept certain duties. Unless he does so, government would break down, and his rights would therefore be valueless.

 

A citizen’s primary duty is that of allegiance. According to David Barber (1988: 62), allegiance means loyalty to the community, which one belongs to. If citizens refuse to accept this duty of allegiance, the State would simply fall apart and cease to exist.

Again, a citizen has a duty to obey the law so that the society doesn’t break down into anarchy. One of the least popular duties of a citizen is the payment of taxes, both national and local. To sum up, the duties of the citizen are those minimum requirements, which will ensure the stability and orderliness of the community and its survival as a heritage to future generations.

The freedom of the individual, which is affected by the form of government under which he lives (that is the opportunity he has to participate): a citizen, for instance, is obviously freer under democracy than under an absolute monarchy or military dictatorship.

 

Raison d'être for obeying the State

Why do we tend to obey the state? Ought we to obey it? What are the possible sources of this political obligation? Does it matter if we don’t have an obligation to obey? What are the moral standards on which the authority of the state (its ‘right’ to rule) is dependent?

In terms of politics, obligations are requirements that it is necessary to fulfill. These are generally in the form of legal obligations, which incur a penalty for lack of fulfillment, although certain people are obligated to carry out certain actions for other reasons as well, which can be due to tradition or social reasons. Obligations vary from person to person, for example, a State Governor will generally have far more obligations than a mere adult citizen, who themselves will have more obligations than a young person. Obligations are generally granted in return for an increase in an individual’s rights or power.

Common legal obligations for citizens include the need to participate in the voting process or pay taxes, which is granted in return for the right to take part in decision-making and benefit from social infrastructure.  Another case in point is the obligation to participate in a census every ten years, which, like many legal obligations, often carries a heavy fine if not completed. Citizens obedience to the State therefore lies in an appreciation of the place of political obligation which is best explained as a social, legal, or moral requirement, such as a duty, contract, or promise that compels one to follow or avoid a particular course of action (Harmon, 1988:22).  It can also mean a course of action imposed by society, law, or conscience by which one is bound or restricted. 

Conditions for Disobedience to the State

Whether we like it or not, we are all subject to political power: we are governed. Furthermore, almost all of us have specific ideals and expectations about how we ought to be governed: how that power ought to be exercised, how our governments ought to treat us. Indeed, these ideals are often taken for granted by so many of us that we are not fully aware of precisely what they are. But when we condemn the way a state treats its citizens – when we complain about our voices not being heard or respected by politicians, about our liberties being infringed or the unfairness of a government’s welfare policies - such ideals come to the fore. It is in circumstances such as this that citizens disobey the state, not minding the structures put in place to compel obedience. Some of the conditions that may trigger disobedience on the part of citizens are discussed below.

 

Illegitimate Government: LaPalombara (1974:48) opined, “Legitimacy is a state of the mind and not a condition of legality”. By this, it means that legitimacy is a function of perception. In other words, citizens grant legitimacy to a government by considering the acceptance or otherwise that the person exercising power over them has the right to so do? Thus, a government that lacks legitimacy either through its mode of ascension to power or by its inability to meet up citizens expectations in terms of security of lives and properties, security of their country’s borders against invasion e.t.c will naturally breed disobedience from the citizens. Also, a government whose leaders disappoint the citizens in a way will no longer likely administer citizens that will completely obey its rule. For instance if a highly placed official of the state gets involved in corrupt practices and the powers that be decides to shield him or her, the citizens will definitely construe that action to be the legitimization of corruption and citizens may not abide by the anti-corruption laws any longer. In similar vein, a government that is formed without citizen’s popular participation in the selection process will not be considered as government “of the people” because the strict adherence to the procedures of democratic election are what gives governments a good part of its legitimacy.

 

Once the government lacks legitimacy, citizen’s obedience to its rule is hard to come by and a government that lacks legitimacy may not be able to weave the society together. Therefore for power to be effective and for the purposes of the stability of the political system, there is a need for power to have the base of authority and to be legitimate. Power without authority and legitimacy may trigger disobedience on the part of citizens.

 

State Softness: The concept of “a soft state” depicts a situation of the state’s unwillingness or inability “to minister to the basic needs of its citizens or to enforce voluntary compliance to its rule and regulations” (Oyediran and Agbaje, 1991). State softness is attributable not only to such factors as resources scarcity and limited regulatory and coercive capacity, but also to social incoherence, i.e, the lack of recurrent patterns of political exchange and reciprocity in the relations among social forces (Aghayere, et al, 2000:59). The above scenario is close to Bratton’s (1989) description of the state as a “lame leviathan” which strives to be excessively authoritarian in order to disguise the fact that it is inadequately authoritative.

 

A soft state is vulnerable to manipulation by the political elites and it translates to the disenchantment of the majority citizens to the state because of its inability to be just and fair in the authoritative allocation of resources.

 

Triumph of sub-national interests: Certain interests exist within the State that is detrimental to its existence and its capacity to compel obedience from the general public. These sub-national interests are often caused and influence by factors such as: ethnicity, religious bigotry, economic sabotage, denial of rights and external influences. For instance after four decades of political independence in Nigeria, ethnicity is more central than ever as a problem in the country’s political process. The interactions among the constituent ethnic groups have led to the formation of innumerable (overtly or covertly) structures of ethnic nationalism. Nigeria’s Fourth republic is remarkable with the manifestation of citizen’s inclinations to primordial attachments and this has implications for their allegiance to the state, nay their obedience to its rules and regulations.

 

Nigeria is also frequently categorized as a "deeply divided" society-divided by religion (a predominantly Muslim north and predominantly Christian south) and despite the constitutional provision for secularity, mutual suspicion continues to assert itself in the interactions of the different religious worldviews. The sad aspect of this relationship is the affront that State and institutional legislation suffers in the light of religious activism.

Remarkably, citizens disobey the state when they become disappointed in the system. Hagopian (1974:69) opined “relative deprivation manifests in the gap between expectations and capabilities”. In line with the above, citizens disobey the state when their expectations are not met.

 

Strategies for disobeying the State

What does it mean to be a ‘good citizen’? Should we care about being good citizens? When might we legitimately disobey the law and what forms might that disobedience take? Can political violence ever be justified? The strategies for disobeying the state can be both violent and non-violent.

Violent disobedience is an open affront on the state and its coercive machinery – the police, the army and other security apparatuses. It may take the form of rioting, vandalism, and physical harm to persons and revolution. Violent disobedience may be spontaneous or well planned. It is the refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in governmental policy or legislation, characterized by the use of proactive resistance or other violent means. It can also be explained as encompassing the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands and commands of a government by resorting to physical violence.

On the other hand, civil disobedience can be explained as deliberate disobedience of the law out of obedience to a higher authority such as religion, morality or an environmentalist ethic. It is the refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in governmental policy or legislation, characterized by the use of passive resistance or other nonviolent means. It can also be explained as encompassing the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands and commands of the State without resorting to physical violence. The philosophy behind civil disobedience goes back to classical and biblical sources. Perhaps its most influential exposition can be found in Henry David Thoreau’s On the Duty of Civil Disobedience (1849), in which he claims that the individual, who grants the state its power in the first place, must follow the dictates of conscience in opposing unjust laws. Thoreau's work had an enormous impact on Mohandas Gandhi and the techniques that he employed first to secure independence for India.

 

Meir (2000:34) explained that civil disobedience has existed in various forms for as long as people have lived in organized societies governed by the rule of law. According to him, its primary purpose is usually to change the law or society's views on a particular issue. He further stated that it is a public action intended to have a political effect. According to him, civil disobedience can be defined by certain criteria:
* It is employed only after other means have failed.
* It is non-violent.
* It is undertaken openly.
* Its participants are willing to submit to prosecution and punishment for breaking the 

    law.
* It is aimed at publicizing and challenging injustice.
* It is not employed for coercive or intimidating reasons.
* It is carried out by peaceful marches, violating an obnoxious law, protesting an unjust condition, public rallies, sit-in demonstrations, strikes, temporary occupation, boycotts, and many other non-violent expression of grievances against the state.

Civil disobedience is seen as morally justifiable if it contributes to the social good and is performed by someone who is well intentioned and well informed. Reasoned and thoughtful resistance through civil disobedience can often serve as a check on the political system and prevent serious departures from justice. 

Those who engage in civil disobedience should choose tactics that are as non-violent as possible, consonant with the effectiveness of their protest and the importance of the issue. There must be a reasonable relationship between the degree of disorder and the significance of the issue at stake.

 

 

Monarchy: The monarchy has been the earliest form of government making for a degree of participation. It is government by one individual not subject to any legal limitations, as the monarchy “does everything according to his own will” (Appadorai 1960:131). This is a form of government in which one person has the hereditary right to rule as head of state during his or her lifetime; the term is also applied to the state so governed. The power of the monarch varies from absolute to very limited; the latter is exemplified in modern-day constitutional monarchies. Monarchs include such rulers as Kings and Queens, Emperors and Empresses, Tsars, Oba’s, Emirs and Obis.

 

Throughout history many monarchs have wielded absolute power, sometimes based on their presumed divinity. In ancient Egypt, for example, the Pharaoh was deified, as were certain oriental rulers. By the Middle Ages the monarchical system of government had spread over Europe, often based on the need for a strong ruler who could raise and command military forces to defend the country. European monarchies as well as their African counterparts were often dynastic, with the throne usually being passed on to the eldest son or nearest male descendant.

The essence of monarchy is the personification of the majesty and sovereignty of the State in an individual. A common issue in monarchy is that the substance of power is not with the citizens, except in few cases like the constitutional monarchy of Britain, which is much the same in principle as a democratic government.

 

Theocracy: (Greek theokratia, “government by a god”), this is a form of Government in a polity or a country in which God is regarded as the sole sovereign and the laws of the realm are seen as divine commands. By extension a theocracy is a country in which control is in the hands of the clergy. The typical example of a theocracy is that established by the Hebrew lawgiver Moses. Later attempts to found theocratic societies were made by the French theologian John Calvin and the English soldier-statesman Oliver Cromwell. The caliphate, in Muslim communities, was a theocracy. The rule of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in Iran is an example of a theocratic government in modern times.

 

 

 

Aristocracy: Aristocracy is literally ‘government by the best citizens’. According to Karl Deutsch (1980:57) “a State governed by the best men, upon the most virtuous principles, has alone a right to be called an aristocracy”. Its principle is virtue, hinged upon the moral and intellectual superiority of the ruling class.

The distinction of quality, which ought to characterise an aristocracy, may be expressed through birth (aristocracy of family) culture and education (aristocracy of priests and scholars), age (aristocracy of elders), military distinction (aristocracy of knights), or property (aristocracy of landowners) (Preston, 1977:88).

 

In theory, aristocracy stresses quality as against quantity because it gives the community a ruling class, who inherit and bequeath to their posterity high traditions of public service, and who can be trusted to administer public affairs with complete personal integrity and honour. Nevertheless, aristocracies are conservative and in most cases they degenerate into oligarchies, that is, the selfish rule of the wealthy few, under which the privilege and exclusiveness of the few are used for the oppression of the common people who invariably are in the majority.

 

Democracy: Democracy stresses the principle of numerical equality. It asserts, as against monarchy or aristocracy, that the mere fact of free birth is sufficient to constitute a claim to a share in political power.  Abraham Lincoln, a former President of the United States of America stated what have become the simplest and arguably the most popular definition of the concept. “Government of the people, by the people and for the people”. However, the existing party and electoral system in Nigeria to all intents and purposes reflects a re-definition of Lincoln's view in the sense that democracy is pursued as nothing other than:  government 'off ' the people, ' buy ' the people and ' force ' the people. Apart from the above,  Reo Christenson, et.al. (1973:1979) conceives democracy as a “Political system in which the people voluntarily consent to and are major participants in their government”.

However, a preponderance of the literature defines democracy in relation to its basic features:  popular participation in the decision making process, open and fair competition within firmly and generally accepted rules of the game and a normative dimension that consists of the acceptance of majority rule, respect for the rule of law, protection of individual and minority rights and the safeguard of the interests of disadvantaged group. (Mimiko, 1995:1),

 

Democracy allows the majority to determine the direction of things, and accepts the rationality of the people in making decisions that affect them. It allows the majority to choose their leaders and decide when to change such leaders, the fundamental principles of democracy being freedom of the individual, popular sovereignty, human equality, majority rule and the principle of government by consent and contract.

In modern States, the clear expression of democracy is found in the equal rights of all normal adults to vote and to contest election; periodic elections; freedom of speech, publication, and association, public accountability rather than in specific institutional forms.

 

Military Rule: In the later half of the last century (1900-2000), the incidence of military intervention in politics, especially in the developing countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America, soared to an unimaginable proportion. The situation was so terrible that LaPalombara (1974:392) concluded that “coups--- are now the dominant form of political power transfer’ in these societies. The military takes over power through coup detat. Mark Hagopian (1974:3) presents it as “the sudden and drastic overturning of the existing structure of institutional power in favour of a particular group”.

Certain dangers are inherent in military rule. As it is usually stated, military rule is an aberration simply because the military is not trained for civil governance. The moment the military abandons its constitutional role of defending the State against internal and external attacks for the exercise of political power, its professionalism gets destroyed. Apart from the loss of professionalism, democratic values are destroyed because the military by nature and orientation cannot nurture the democratic spirit. Also, military rule distort the planning and execution of state policies as the military and its apologists prefer to execute policies that are of instant personal benefit to them rather than the ones that have long term benefits for the State.  In contemporary times, especially since the end of Cold War, any country under military rule is perceived as a pariah state and denied the respect accorded to other States in the international system.

 

It may be difficult to exhaust all the reasons responsible for military involvement in politics. What we have done here therefore is to highlight some of the most important reasons that had prompted the Nigerian military to intervene in the country’s political process.

Bad leadership: It is often said that the only way a coup d’etat can be stopped in Nigeria is through good leadership by the civilian leader. This is true to a large extent, since, what all ambitious soldiers wait for before they execute their coups is evidence that an incumbent civilian government is not ruling to the satisfaction of the majority of Nigerians. The issue of bad leadership has been a reason cited by all past coupists in Nigeria as constituting the basis of their action.

Political intolerance: One significant thing that has always accompanied the Nigerian political system is the high level of political intolerance amongst politicians. It is a zero-sum system in which the winner takes all, and the loser losses everything. This has brought about a great deal of intolerance that has manifested as the ruling government desire to damage the opposition, such that it would not constitute a credible alternative in the next round of election. Meanwhile, the party in opposition, or elements within it, does not hesitate to encourage the military to step back into power by overthrowing the ruling party.

Corruption: This is another reason usually advanced by the military as constituting the basis for their action. It is usually claimed that the level of corruption which the civil political administration perpetrates is too high to allow any form of development for the nation.

Politicisation of the military: When the military is exposed to civil life and duties, it tends to get easily corrupted in its values. Soldiers also get away with the impression that without them, the civil political leadership has no chance of remaining in office. This is why they had invariably turned to the civil leadership immediately after bringing such civil disturbances under control.

Economic difficulties: Soldiers tend to intervene in government during periods of economic crises. They usually blame the previous government for economic mismanagement and invariably make promises upon asuuming power to correct prevailing policy mistakes.

Ethnicity: A country may be ethnically polarised to such an extent that each ethnic group will be striving to gain some advantage by encouraging its soldiers to take over government through coup d’etat. Thus invariably the Armed Forces of a country that is characterized by strong ethnic distrust get polarized along ethnic lines. Nigeria’s case along this line is not an exemption.

Personal Ambition: Some soldiers are so ambitious that whatever the existing government does or fails to do, will not stop them to execute a coup d’etat in order to occupy political offices.

Contagion Effect: The history of coup d’etat in Africa has shown that as soon as a coup succeeds in a country, soldiers in other countries get encouraged to carry out their own coups.

 

 

Political Parties: Political parties constitute an important feature of modern government in that they are a veritable tool for citizen’s participation in the government and politics of any State. Nnoli (1986:140) opined, “political party is a group of people who share a common conception of how and why State power should be organised and used”. Of paramount importance to political party is the desire to gain, maintain and control power in order to effectively carry out public policy.  Indeed this is what distinguishes political parties from pressure groups.

Although, the classification of parties vary from Democratic parties; Mass Parties, Ideological Parties, Elitist parties and Pragmatic parties, e.t.c. the common function of interest aggregation and articulation, leadership recruitment; political education; mobilisation and organisation of government, which they perform, make them to be the most important agency for the growth and development of democracy.

Across the globe, party systems are usually categorised based on numerical basis.   The three most prominent systems are the one-party system   (a situation in which only one party is constitutionally permitted to exist and run government); the two-party system (the existence of two parties); and the multi-party system (where more than two recognised political parties are in existence).

There is always a linkage between the government and diverse groups in the State for effective communication between the governed and the government. This is essential for the purpose of peace and cohesion. Although, a State may co-ordinate the dynamics of power on its people through force, issuing decrees and compelling the people by force to obey them, this does not however, in the long run lead to stability.  For unless a government is pursuing policies, which are acceptable to its citizens, the latter sooner or later reaches such a pitch of resentment that they rise against the former in a revolution.  There is therefore the need for an input from the citizenry if the stability of the State is to be guaranteed and this is only possible through extensive political participation.

 

 

 

Pressure Groups: Pressure groups exert pressures on those who have the responsibility for making decisions on behalf of a community. Pressures are brought to bear on decision makers either to prevent the raising of issues that affects a pressure group or to take decisions favourable to that pressure group.

 

The decision not to raise an issue is by itself decision making. Groups that come together to exert pressure do so not only to influence public decision making and institutions but also private decisions and institutions. In general, pressure groups come into being to enhance or protect the interests of their members or groups. On many occasions, pressure groups are also called interest groups.

 

There are four types of pressure groups. These are:

Associational-pressure groups to which people belong out of their free will so as to protect certain interests. Sometimes people are compelled to join, examples of associational pressure groups are the Nigerian Bar Association, Market Women association.

Non-associational pressure groups in which people become members because they were born into the association. Examples include Yoruba, Hausa, Igbo, Edo, Itsekiri, Tiv, e.t.c

Institutional pressure groups which exist to protect the interests of important institutions within the society. A good example is the group of local government workers who lobby to get increased revenue from the federation account- the account in which all moneys to be shared by all levels of government are deposited and shared. Pensioners can protect their interest by lobbying the government for an increased pension.

Anomic pressure groups emerge spontaneously in response to an issue. After that issue is sorted out the group disperses. Demonstrators, mobs, rioters are good examples of this type of pressure group.

 

 

Functions of Pressure Groups

     

They serve as important avenues for individuals to realize set objectives

They improve the political education and political consciousness of citizens.

They make very important impact on the policy process through influencing public policies. By this the quality of decisions improves.

They bring together disparate individual interests into a manageable form. This is what is referred to as interest articulations.

 

 

 

 

Modes of Operation of Pressure Group

                                                                                           

Various methods are employed by pressure groups to achieve their objectives, these include:-

Lobbying

Manipulation of public opinion

Electioneering campaigns

Civil disobedience

Striking and Boycotts

Public demonstrations

Violence