By Anele Douglas
1. BACKGROUND ANALYSIS
Governance
is a very demanding vocation that requires the best qualities in humans to
ensure peace and security in the society. Moreover, given the peculiar nature
of human beings as the most highly evolved bipedal primate with intellectual,
emotional and spiritual attributes qualitatively different from what obtains in
the rest of the animal kingdom, the necessity of living in well-ordered
societies is incontrovertible. Long before the British philosopher, Thomas
Hobbes, postulated a hypothetical "state of nature," Aristotle had
argued that a person who does not need the society of others is either a god or
a beast. Therefore, the problem of determining the nature of governance and the
most suitable form of political arrangement for the fullest development of
human potentials in a peaceful and secure environment is coeval with the
emergence of civil society in antiquity. Consequently, political philosophers,
political scientists, jurists, theologians and others have formulated theories about
the best form of governance for the ideal state. Essentially, these theories
seek to identify and explain the origin and nature of civil society and the foundational
principles for constructing utopia on the basis of both implicit and explicit
assumptions about human nature and the appropriate values and social conditions
that promote optimum human development. Accordingly, while political
philosophers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke presume that humans in
"the state of nature" were benign and prescribe democracy as the most
suitable form of government, others, typified by Thomas Hobbes and G.W.F. Hegel,
believe strongly that totalitarianism is better given the egoistic and
fractious nature of human beings. In spite of different theoretical perspectives
on "the state of nature" and on the origin and necessity of organized
society, there is unanimity with respect to the conviction that as social
animals human beings must live together in organized groups.
However,
societies cannot function unless there are individuals to govern them. This is
where the complex problem of identifying the nature of leadership and the qualities
- physical, intellectual, emotional, spiritual - which those aspiring to lead or govern must
possess in order to do so effectively and responsibly. Next is the question of
institutional framework necessary for social development, given that well-organized
institutions, as carriers of traditions and values, are indispensable for
effective leadership. In an effort to establish standards for governance,
philosophers usually answer the question "Who should rule?" by enunciating
character traits and educational programmes for good leadership. Plato's
conception of the ideal state and his recommendation of guardians or
philosopher-kings to lead are typical in this regard. Since then, different schools
of thought on the subject have crystallized each with its own area of emphasis
and prescriptions for handling the complexities of social life.
Atrocities
committed by the dictatorial regimes of Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Benito
Mussolini among others and increased recognition of the crucial importance of democratic
institutions for safeguarding human rights and individual freedom within the
ambit of just laws have tended to make totalitarianism loathsome in
contemporary times. The consensus all over the world now is that democracy is
the most appropriate form of government despite its shortcomings. Having said
that, experience from established democracies like the United States of America
and Britain indicates that for democracy to work there has to be a robust
democratic culture which depends largely on continuous improvisation and
compromise among key political actors in the community. This requirement is yet
to be fulfilled, especially in emerging democracies like Nigeria where
democratic culture and institutions are yet to take root.
Given the
background sketched above, this paper examines the role of governance in
ensuring peace and security in Nigeria. It starts by explicating the idea of
governance and other concepts associated with it. The paper identifies essential
characteristics of peace and security, and deploys historical analysis to
assess how governance has affected both in the country during different
administrations at various times. In conclusion, the paper recommends ways of
improving security and peaceful coexistence among Nigerians through good
governance.
Key
words: governance, peace, security, power, authority, politics
2. THE IDEA OF GOVERNANCE AND ASSOCIATED
CONCEPTS
Chambers 20th Century Dictionary defines the verb 'govern' ' as "to
direct: to control: to rule with authority...to exercise authority: to
administer the laws" (Chambers,
1985, 543). Thus, "to govern" is necessarily related to 'government,'
which denotes a "...system of governing; the body of persons authorised to
administer the laws or to govern a state..." (loc. cit). To govern a given geopolitical entity means to exercise
authority over it, to administer extant laws therein in the best interests of
the citizens. It follows that in order to govern there must be authority. The term
'authority' connotes different things depending on the context in which it is
used. For instance, when someone is described as an authority in a particular
subject, it means the person in question has special knowledge or special
access to information on that very subject unavailable to those who accept the
person's status as an authority. Nevertheless, the sense of authority relevant
to our discourse is "the right or the capacity, or both, to have proposals
or prescriptions or instructions accepted without recourse to persuasion, bargaining
or force" (McLean & McMillan, 2003: 30-31).
In every
geopolitical setting, holders of authority are entitled to their status and
offices by a system of rules and conventions, particularly legal regulations,
which enables them to make decisions or issue instructions. These officials
have authority conferred on them by the rules and practices that constitute the
relevant activity (loc. cit). Briefly
stated, then, to govern is the capacity to exercise authority in a given
political space within the framework of laws and conventions accepted by the
community. Governance entails the totalising concept of government, which constitutes
the framework for legitimate exercise of authority. Hence, every discussion of
governance dovetails into analysis of government, because to govern is to be
part of a particular government that exercises power within a political
community.
Wherever
there is governance or government, there is power, or more precisely political
power. Consequently, governance and politics are inseparably connected.
Politics is a "social process characterised by activity involving rivalry
and cooperation in the exercise of power and culminating in the making of
decisions for a group" (Bluhm, 1965: 5).
Power exists in practically all human endeavours and institutions.
However, political power is a special subset of power. It deals with state
power and all other forms of power in the society yield to it or are
controllable by it. Because political power involves authoritative allocation
of resources in a given geopolitical space, the struggle for it by individuals
and groups has been intense since ancient times. Love of political power is the
major reason for coup d'états in Nigeria and the sight-tight mentality of several
African leaders. In general, politicians worldwide usually resort to bribery,
electoral malpractices, intimidation, blackmail and violence to secure and
retain power.
In his
work, Introduction to Politics,
Okwudiba Nnoli defines power as "all human activities that concern the use
of state power, the consolidation of state power, and the seizure of state
power" (Nnoli, 1986:80). Remi Anifowose, relying on the authority of
Reinhard Bendix, avers that political power derives from established authority that
allocates the right to command and the duty to obey (Anifowose, 1999:108).
Power, he says, is essentially a relationship among human beings, an
asymmetrical bilateral relation between the influencer and the influence. Wise leaders,
while exercising political power, take into consideration the needs, desires
and well-being of the citizens, whereas incompetent leaders such as the ones
that have been governing Nigeria since independence use power to achieve narrow
selfish interests especially primitive accumulation.
3. THE ROLE OF GOVERNANCE IN ENSURING PEACE
AND SECURITY IN NIGERIA: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS
Having clarified
some of the key concepts relevant to our discourse, the role of governance in
ensuring peace and security will be taken up straightway. It must be pointed
out at the outset that peace is not merely the absence of war, although absence
of violence and war is a necessary condition for peace. Genuine peace involves
the presence of political, economic and social conditions conducive to individual
freedom and voluntary participation in different aspects of private and public
life. This implies that a peaceful society is one in which members of that
society are free to be what they can be within the ambit of reasonable laws.
Justice, fairness, good laws and security are indispensable elements of a peaceful
society that depend heavily on good governance. Furthermore, ensuring security of
lives and property is one of the fundamental reasons for the existence of
government, without which human society will easily degenerate into anarchy,
confusion and brutality. Security is the condition, feeling and means of being
secure, the assurance that one can carry on legitimate activities without undue
let or hindrance except in the exercise of lawful duties by those authorised to
enforce the law. In all countries, the state controls instruments of coercion
and is obliged to deploy security agencies such as the army, the police and
paramilitary organisations to maintain peace and security.
Contrary
to popular belief, having reliable and efficient security agencies does not necessarily
guarantee peace and security, because the possibility of mistake or failure can
never be ruled out completely in the activities of human beings. Again, if the
leadership is mediocre such that the existential condition of people
deteriorates below a certain level, no amount of policing or military presence
would automatically bring about real peace - at best, it can only lead to peace
of the graveyard. Therefore, the best way to ensure lasting peace and security
is good governance predicated on knowledge, emotional intelligence, creative
imagination, selflessness and determination to do what is right.
For a
realistic appreciation of the role of governance in ensuring peace and security
in Nigeria, it is pertinent to highlight some of the defining moments in the
country's evolution as a geopolitical entity. This is because only an attentive
analysis of selected crucial events in Nigerian history can throw light on how
the processes of governance in different dispensations have influenced peace
and security in the country. Like virtually every modern state, Nigeria is an
artificial creation. In addition, like most African countries, Nigeria owes her
existence to a European colonial power - in this case Britain. Now, the idea of
establishing Nigeria through the amalgamation of Northern and Southern
Protectorates in 1914 was guided and dictated by existing unities ranging from
the geographical and historical to the economic and socio-cultural. Yet, it is
incontrovertible that the decisive factor in Lord Frederick Lugard's
imperialist calculus was the desire to accelerate economic exploitation of his
new creation to serve British interests. The main plank of colonial amalgamation
policy in Nigeria was the Indirect Rule system of native administration based
on an undemocratic hierarchical mode of operation (Akinyele, 1997:284-285, Nigeria's Golden Book, 2010:44-48). The
model was very successful in Northern Nigeria with its highly centralised
emirate system. In Western Nigeria, it was partially successful. Lugard mistakenly
thought that Yoruba states headed by Obas who traditionally owed some
allegiance to the Alafin of Oyo were analogous to the Northern emirates under
the Sultan of Sokoto. But the Alafin did not wield as much power as the Sultan.
Moreover, attempts to extend Indirect Rule to Egbaland failed because the
British government had already signed a treaty in 1893 granting a quasi-independent
status to Abeokuta where an influential class of western-educated elite had
emerged which was suspicious of British intentions. The resentment that
followed the imposition of the system there led to Egba riots in 1918. Indirect
Rule failed woefully in Eastern Nigeria. It was an inappropriate system of governance
for a people that had lived for millennia under complex systems of acephalous republicanism
in micro political units (Nwaubani, 2006:2-23). Hence, the Warrant Chiefs appointed
by the British and vested with arbitrary powers hitherto unknown in Igbo society
were very unpopular - most of them became tyrants who oppressed the people. The
use of these unpopular chiefs for taxation led to the Aba women riots of 1929,
and the principal targets of the attacks were Warrant Chiefs and the native
courts.
A
landmark event in the governance of pre-independence Nigeria, with implications
for peace and security, was the political reform of Donald Cameron, Governor of
Nigeria from 1931 to 1936. Indirect Rule, as we have seen, was a flawed
response to the difficult challenge of adapting colonial rule to the
imperatives of entrenched indigenous socio-political and cultural systems. Thus,
even in the North where it was applied successfully serious shortcomings in
governance were noticeable. For example, Indirect Rule did not encourage the evolution
of genuine modern system of governance. It was too narrowly focused on tax
collection and accentuated the separateness of Northern Nigeria from Southern
Nigeria. Still, Cameron improved the native administration by reforming the antiquated
emirate system to bring it in line with modern governance. He checked the
independence of Emirs, curtailed the jurisdiction of the Alkali courts, and
introduced a policy whereby Emirs were encouraged to travel abroad and visit
the Western and Eastern regions. In the West, Cameron halted the move to
elevate the Alafin of Oyo in Yorubaland and appointed educated indigenes as
members of Native Authority Councils. In the light of reports on the Aba riots,
efforts were made to evolve a system of local government harmonious with the
traditional socio-political organisation of the people.
Cameron also
carried out significant judicial reforms nationwide. For example, he abolished
the provincial courts and replaced them with an independent High Court for the
entire Protectorate and magistrate courts where lawyers could practice. Cameron's
reforms clarified the constitutional relation between the central government and
the native administration. Finally, the posts of Lieutenant Governors for the
Northern and Southern Protectorates were renamed Chief Commissioners to
emphasise the unity of Nigeria.
Although Cameron's
reforms improved governance throughout the country, nationalist agitations for
abolition of colonial rule created problems for British colonial administrators
who, understandably, opposed the independence aspirations of pioneer
nationalists such as Herbert Macaulay, Nnamdi Azikiwe and H. O. Davies among
others. The Richard Constitution of 1946, Macpherson Constitution of 1951, and
Lyttleton Constitution of 1954 provided roadmaps for the evolution of
regionalism in Nigeria, but the input of Nigerians in the process did not
satisfy the yearnings and aspirations of the nationalists. Moreover, the
colonial policy of separateness was inimical to the emergence of governance on
a nationalist platform principally because of fear of domination by different ethnic
groups. Thus, conflicts among Nigerians in the 1940s and 1950s, epitomised in
the Kano riots of 1953, were due to the inability of political leaders to come
together, make genuine compromises and promote unity-in-diversity. As the
movement towards independence gathered momentum prominent leaders of Northern
Nigeria wanted the process delayed mainly because of its very low
representation in the bureaucracy occasioned by the region's backwardness in
Western education, whereas their Southern counterparts wanted it as early as
1956 (Akinyeye, 329). Eventually, the day for independence was slated for
October 1, 1960, after several constitutional conferences in the late 1950s (Nigeria's Golden Book, 86).
The
problem of governance in Nigeria entered a new phase with the attainment of independence,
an occasion likened by Yomi Akinyeye to "the birth of a newborn baby with
no apparent defect [and] greeted with great jubilation and high
expectations" (Akinyeye, 327). The First Republic inaugurated shortly
afterwards adopted the British parliamentary model of governance. There was a
Prime Minister with executive powers, a ceremonial President and a bi-cameral
legislature consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The
judiciary consisted of a Supreme Court, High Courts and Magistrate Courts. In
the North, Islamic judicial system existed side-by-side with the judicial
system introduced by the British.
Political
independence meant that for the first time Nigerians were fully in charge of
the country. Nonetheless, the political atmosphere, already polluted with unnecessary
ethnic bickering arising from overemphasis on ethnicity at the detriment of
national interest, was ominous with clouds of uncertainty and unease. Dominant
political parties of the First Republic, namely, the National Council of
Nigeria and Cameroons (which was later renamed National Council of Nigerian
Citizens, NCNC), the Northern Peoples Congress (NPC) and the Action Group (AG)
wasted too much time squabbling over power at the centre instead of working
hard to provide effective governance in regions they controlled. A splinter
group, Northern Elements Progressive Union (NEPU), was formed from NPC by Aminu
Kano, while S.L. Akintola pulled some members of AG to form the Nigerian
National Democratic Party (NNDP). The crises that followed the controversial
census of 1962 and federal elections held in 1964 led to the breakdown of law
and order, especially in the West where the regional government which claimed
victory in a massively rigged election could not govern effectively due to
violent protests.
To be
candid, Tafawa Balewa's government lacked strategic intelligence, political
will and stamina needed to govern a fractious, pluralistic country like
Nigeria. Hence, as the world-renowned novelist, Chinua Achebe correctly observed:
Within six years of this
tragic colonial manipulation, Nigeria was a cesspool of corruption. Public
servants helped themselves to the nation's wealth. Elections were blatantly
rigged. The subsequent census was outrageously stage-managed; judges and
magistrates were manipulated by the politicians in power. The politicians were
pawns of foreign business interests (Achebe, 2012:51).
Given the
grim scenario painted by Achebe, it was not completely surprising when some
young military officers staged the first military coup on 15 January 1966. According
to its mastermind, Lt. Col. Chukwuemeka Nzeogwu, the intention behind the move
was to "rid Nigeria of corruption, nepotism and all other forms of
wrongdoing..." (Quoted in Iloegbunam, 1999:3). During the coup, Prime
Minister Balewa and some prominent politicians and military officers from the
North and West were assassinated. On the other hand, the relatively low number of
Southeastern politicians and military officers who lost their lives triggered
bitter resentment in other regions. In the pogrom that followed thousands of Ndigbo
were killed and their property destroyed, particularly in the North and to a
lesser degree in the West (Achebe, 68). When the First Republic collapsed, Maj.
Gen. J.T.U. Aguiyi-Ironsi became the military head of state. In order to
restore peace and security, Ironsi suspended the 1963 Constitution, abrogated
the regions and instituted a unitary government on the platform of territorial
areas called provinces (Iloegbunam, 122). His efforts to unify the country,
calm frayed nerves and govern effectively were vitiated by vitriolic ethnic
rivalry and hatred against the Igbo, who were blamed for the coup of January
15. On July 29, 1966, some Northern elements in the army, motivated by the need
for revenge, staged a counter coup. Ironsi and several military officers of
Igbo origin were brutally murdered. Afterwards, the political situation in the
country deteriorated very rapidly. Yakubu Gowon, took over power despite stiff
opposition from the military governor of Eastern province, Chukwuemeka Odumegwu
Ojukwu.
Gowon,
like his predecessor, was unable to stop the pogrom against the Igbo and
restore peace and security nationwide. After several attempts to reconcile the
East with the rest of Nigerian failed, Ojukwu, in consultation with the Eastern
Assembly, pulled Eastern Nigeria out of the federation. The civil war that
broke out as a result lasted from July 7, 1967 to January 15, 1970. The war is,
unarguably, the worst period in Nigeria's history as a modern state. Like every
war situation, governance was at its lowest ebb because enormous human and
material resources were channelled towards the war effort. Compared to the areas
controlled by Nigeria, Biafra was small and completely outnumbered and
blockaded. Again, most parts of Nigeria were relatively peaceful and secure
during the war, because Biafra did not have the military capability to mount
effective attacks inside Nigeria. The leadership of Biafra under Odumegwu
Ojukwu, notwithstanding tremendous odds while the bloody conflict lasted, tried
valiantly to govern effectively. Unfortunately, the war situation made peace
and security virtually impossible in the secessionist enclave. Southeastern
Nigeria was devastated by the time Biafra surrendered in January, 1970. Gowon
declared "No victor, no vanquished," and Inaugurated the programme of
reconciliation, reconstruction and rehabilitation.
Since the
war ended over forty-three years ago, Nigeria has been more or less peaceful,
except for occasional violent religious uprisings, inter-ethnic clashes and
internecine conflicts. Because conflict is perennial in human affairs, conflict
management and maintenance of peace and security has been a constant challenge
across different administrations. Aside from religious and ethnic violence,
military coups, poverty, unemployment, manipulation and outright repudiation of
elections and election results, coupled economic and social injustice - all of
which are caused by mediocre leadership - threaten the very foundation of a
peaceful and secure Nigeria.
The
record of performance by the federal government with respect to good governance
for peace and security is not impressive. Indeed, since 1970 the quality of
governance in several areas has gone down, while violence and insecurity has
increased in frequency, intensity, and destructiveness. These days public
officials at all levels in the three arms of government are more greedy, corrupt,
reckless and unpatriotic than their predecessors, just as the violence and destructiveness
unleashed by Niger Delta militants and Boko Haram terrorists is deadlier and
more widespread than what obtained in earlier decades.
According
to Achebe, bad leadership is the fundamental problem of Nigeria. Consequently,
there is need for positive change in leadership to enhance peaceful coexistence
and security in the country. However, since people in leadership positions were
ordinary citizens before becoming President, governor, minister etc., Nigerians
themselves must embark on critical self-examination to discover reasons for the
terrible decline of governance in the country. Largely, the issue boils down to
the challenge of identifying strong, enlightened and selfless leaders and
letting them govern to ensure peace and security nationwide. It is also the
question of strengthening existing institutions necessary for good governance.
As
already implied, the record of military rule is disappointing. A paradigm case
is Ibrahim Babangida's government, during which some of the most horrendous
acts of corruption at the highest levels of governance, shambolic economic
management, and the ill-advised annulment of June 12, 1993 presidential
election (which generated pockets of deadly violence especially in parts of
Yorubaland) occurred. Civilian administrations have also been profoundly
disappointing, a case of hope deferred yet again. Corruption and financial
rascality is rampant; several top government officials still act with impunity
like military dictators. Bad governance which compromised peace and security
when soldiers were in power continued in the administrations of Olusegun
Obasanjo, Umaru Musa Yar'Adua amd Goodluck Jonathan, except that in the
civilian dispensation there is improvement in adherence to the rule of law and
oversight of the executive by the legislature to check abuse of power. Unfortunately,
members of the legislature at all levels of governance and many judicial
officers are corrupt. Clearly, malignant corruption is the most formidable
obstacle to lasting peace and security in Nigeria.
In all
the instances of insecurity and disruption of peace we highlighted in this
paper the fundamental cause can be captured in a single word - misgovernance;
that is, the inability of political leaders to selflessly harness the abundant
human and material resources in the country for the wellbeing of all,
irrespective of ethnicity, religious affiliation, gender, socio-economic and
educational status. The first condition for peace and security in every society
is justice, followed by compassion. As we have seen, ethnic rivalry and
distrust has led to the breakdown of law and order on many occasions.
Incompetent leadership and Injustice exacerbate the problem. If Tafawa Balewa's
government had tackled corruption, ineptitude and economic mismanagement, ensured
equitable distribution of the country's revenue among the three regions, conducted
credible census in 1963 and free and fair elections in 1964 and 1965, perhaps
the first military coup of January 15, 1966 might not have happened. Supposing Gowon's
administration was fair to the Igbo by taking firm and prompt measures against
those perpetrated the pogroms in the mid 1960s and compensated the victims,
probably the conflict that led to the civil war would have been avoided. In
general, if subsequent administrations in the country since the civil war ended
had governed in a disciplined, just, selfless, accountable and responsible manner,
Nigeria would have been a much more peaceful and secure country than what it is
today.
The
desire of Nigerians to live in a peaceful and prosperous society has been
repeatedly disappointed by the leadership whose major preoccupation is
self-indulgent materialism. Good governance depends on reasonable, emotionally
intelligent, knowledgeable, enlightened and compassionate women and men with
determination and iron will to do what is right. Of course, individuals with
appropriate combination of attributes required for good leadership are rare. Such
people, if identified and allowed to lead, will promote peace and security
through good governance.
Given the
unpredictable political situation in the country and recurrent threat to peace
and security by Boko Haram and Niger Delta militants, Nigerians should start
reappraising their laidback attitude to politics because the quality of
leadership is a reflection of the dominant social character of the society. Achieving
a peaceful and secure society is a difficult and time-consuming challenge in
which the leaders and the citizens as a whole must be involved. Therefore, if
Nigerians really desire responsible governance, they should imbibe values and
habits that promote it. In otherwords, they need to cultivate the values of honesty,
discipline, responsibility, tolerance, selflessness, compassion and patriotism
because the leaders of tomorrow will emerge from among themselves. It is ironic
that vociferous critics of political office holders sometimes manifest the same
negative traits they were criticising. Certainly, it is necessary to criticise
leaders when they govern badly; it is equally essential to examine oneself to
ensure that one does not have the same bad attitudes as well.
4. CONCLUSION
The
essential role of governance in ensuring peace and security in a pluralistic
and immature democratic country such as Nigeria is beyond dispute. Good
governance depends on justice, fairness, knowledge, compassion and patriotism
especially in the leadership. It also requires strong social institutions run
by selfless individuals dedicated to the maintenance and improvement of traditions
that support such institutions. In the absence of good governance, society is
bound to degenerate into lawlessness, chaos, insecurity and arrested
development. Therefore, Nigerians must rise up to the challenge of creating an
enabling environment for good governance. Peace and security nationwide is
possible when leaders at every level and sphere of society, from the local
government council and states right up to the presidency, shun selfishness and
embrace patriotism and altruism. A good government takes maintenance of peace
and security in its area of jurisdiction very seriously. The key to actualising
that goal is responsible leadership founded on values for nation building
reiterated in this paper. Without adherence to these values, governance will
become a terrible burden on the people. Lasting peace and security cannot exist
in such a situation.
REFERENCES
2010. Nigeria's
Golden Book, Lagos: The Sun Publishing Ltd.
Achebe, C. (2012). There was a Country: A Personal History of Biafra, London: Penguin
Books.
Akinyeye, Y. (1997). "Nigeria since
Independence," A. Osuntokun & A. Olukoju (eds.) Nigerian People's and
Cultures, Ibadan: Davidson Press.
Iloegbunam, C. (1999). Ironside, Great Britain: Press Alliance Network Ltd.
McLean,
I. & McMillan, A. (2003). Oxford
Concise Dictionary of Politics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nnoli, O.
(1986). Introduction to Politics,
Lagos: Longman.
Nwaubani,
E. (2006). "Igbo Political Systems," Lagos Notes and Records, vol. XII.
Douglas I.O. Anele Ph.D.,
Department of Philosophy,
University of Lagos,
Akoka.
No comments:
Post a Comment