POLITICAL INSTABILITY IN NIGERIA

INTRODUCTION

Political instability is the likelihood of having demonstrations,

forms of violence, workers going on strike or the possibility of a

coup d'tat. It is also measured in terms of whether the

government may collapse or not.

According to the political theories of Max Weber, political stability

depends on the government's legitimate use of physical force. If

the government cannot ensure the basic services it provides for

people, such as security and the possibility of procuring food and

shelter, it loses the power to enforce laws and political instability

ensues. Political instability is associated with the concept of a

failed state.

Political instability can be caused by many factors, including

conflict between rival parties, insufficient resources and the

proximity to other nations in conflict. Political instability occurs

when there is a sudden change. This sudden change can leave

citizens in doubt about their nation's situation and may lead to

revolt.

As of 2014, many of the nations with the greatest amount of

political instability are found in Africa and the Middle East and

1
share several characteristics. Political instability can be caused by

the general population when they feel their rights are being

restricted or they are unhappy with their circumstances, such as

mass unemployment. A nation's leadership can be responsible for

political instability when they hold onto power for too long amidst

opposition or enact controversial legislation.

Political instability can also be caused by conflict between two or

more ethnic groups within a nation or region. An example of this

is the Balkans, most notably the conflict between Croatia and

Serbia. This conflict led to the disintegration of Yugoslavia and

remains a security issue for the other European nations. While the

solution to political instability varies by case, methods used to

reduce it include pressure from the international community and

improved educational systems.

Like most parts of Africa, Nigeria was also colonized by an

imperial foreign power. The present day Nigeria (plus or minus

some territories) came into existence with formal amalgamation

of conquered territories of the North and South by the British

Colonial Governor Lord Lugard in 1914. By this historic action

the numerous diverse peoples who constitute the new country

2
willy-nilly began the difficult and arduous journey towards building

a modern nation. The justifiable suspicions and mistrust between

the diverse ethnic groups were indeed real and palpable.

However, over the years, after the amalgamation, through the

spirit of give and take by the pioneer leaders and people at large,

a national spirit began to manifest to the point when the leaders

agreed to work together, if only to kick out the British in 1960. In

the 46 years of direct colonial rule, as would be expected, the

British designed and organized how the huge economic resources

of the colony should be harnessed and exploited. It is fair to

assert that the economy of Colonial Nigeria was organized

primarily to serve the interest of the imperial power. The

incidental benefits to the natives came in the form of residuals of

some out-moded infrastructures like the present narrow gauge

railway, port facilities and some road transport mainly used for

easy exploitation and export of agricultural and mining products

as well as imports and marketing of manufactured British goods.

As soon as the British realized that at some point, they would

have to relinquish direct political control to the natives, it became

imperative for them to plan a long term strategy to ensure

continued control and exploitation of their former colony long

3
after attainment of political independence. The British succeeded

in achieving its neo-colonial hold on Nigeria mainly through the

following instruments:Education System: Through their education

legacies they succeeded in entrenching a mental condition which

to-date continuesto deprive Nigerians of their self esteem, self

confidence and self-reliance. Political Legacy: They also left

behind a political system which to-date perpetuates national

instability and the resultant poor governance by few selfish elite.

Economy: Through the failure of our education and political

systems, the British and, now its numerous Capitalist countries

allies in the West, have been able to remain in control of the

commanding heights of Nigerian economy. Nigeria 1960 to-date

As already alluded to in the above paragraphs, it was anticipated

that political freedom at independence would ushers in new

thinking and new policies which together would bring rapid

transformation of Nigeria from exploitation and under-

development as a former colony. Nigerians were so optimistic

about the bright prospects of Nigeria becoming a country where

its citizenry will live in justice peace and prosperity as could be

found anywhere else in the world. Now that these aspirations

have been dashed 50 years after independence the present

4
generation of Nigerians must be confused as they should be

justified in asking the older generations for explanation. The rest

of this paper will attempt to offer some explanations even if many

of them are mere reputations and have been subject of endless

arguments over the years. I believe Nigerias poor development

performance could be explained from a number of perspectives

including: Political instability: From 1960 to date Nigeria had not

experienced the kind of stable political atmosphere necessary for

orderly continuity of good governance for development and

growth expected in truly democratic societies. Within a relatively

short period of 52 years, Nigeria has had 14 heads of state (an

average of three years each), and of this number nine were not

elected, and of the remaining five only on two occasions were

their election deemed free and fair. The political instability which

retarded Nigerias rapid development since independence in 1960

is rooted in the following main factors:

Tribalism/ethnicity/sectionalism: It is my contention that

tribalism, ethnicity and sectionalism played the most part of

Nigerias political instability. Most of the military interventions

experienced in Nigeria were inspired by tribal and ethnic

tendencies inherent in the countrys social diversity. The civil war,

5
the creation of states and local governments over the years have

simply been a response to continuing pressures arising from tribal

and ethic loyalties. The constitution of the country was changed

or amended several times since independence, and this was

largely to address political instability arising from tribalism,

ethnicity and sectional sentiments. Neo-colonialism after 1960

Nigerias colonial history and heritage unfortunately provide the

conducive atmosphere for neo-colonial interests to manifest and

thrive. These interest have been deeply entrenched and have so

far continued to undermine Nigerias self esteem and self

reliance. They have aggravated the countrys over-dependence

on foreign ideas and foreign technology. The overall consequence

of this is that the country has virtually lost control of the

commanding heights of its economy. That is why the country is

paradoxically both rich and poor at the same time!! Bad

governance/corruption et al: Instability in the Nigerian polity could

be both the cause and the effect of bad governance with all the

other attendant ills such as corruption, inept leadership, poverty

and general insecurity. The demise of the first republic marks the

beginning of political instability in Nigeria and the inevitable

consequences which arose from un-elected leaders-both military

6
and civilians. The only two occasions when Nigeria was about to

have good leaders with potential capacity to provide good

governance, which might have led the country to regional and

global greatness were quickly subverted by foreign neo-colonial

vested interests using their local agents. Good governance should

have meant that Nigeria and Nigerians would take their destiny in

their own hands, while the consequences of bad governance as

we have seen since 1960 mean the surrender of Nigerias

resources to foreign control leaving, as it were, the Nigerian

citizenry to wallow in abject poverty. Good governance in Nigeria

should have been freedom from control and manipulation of neo-

imperial agencies like the World Bank, IMF etc. Prognosis about

the future: While it is easy to look back into the history of Nigeria

and its development, it is far more difficult to look into its future in

the face of all the odds that have so far continued to challenge it

during the last 98 years. Let us start from the optimistic view

point that nations are not necessarily built overnight. Nations

usually evolve from the hard work, sacrifices and resilience of

their own peoples. We may also further argue there is nothing like

a perfect nationhood where every citizen is happy or is in

agreement with every happening in his country. So, from this

7
optimism, we may further argue that we are unfairly being

impatient with the failings of Nigeria and Nigerians only after a

relatively short period of 98 years of becoming a country. After all

the countries we are trying to copy to-day have taken much

longer than 100 years to arrive at where they are to-day. On the

less optimistic point of view it may be argued that Nigerians are

not deliberately working hard and diligently enough to make the

Nigeria project work. On the contrary while there may be those

who would genuinely believe in the Nigeria project, there are

those who believe that the Nigeria project could not possibly

succeed and therefore the sooner it is terminated the better for

its component parts. To support their position they point as

examples many countries with similar features and history as

Nigeria who tried but at the end failed to build and keep their

countries. For example the so-called oldest democracy in the

World, the United Kingdom, is still trying to keep the country

together after about 1000 years of trying. Scotland and Northern

Island are still asking to exit out of the United Kingdom. In 1948

India gained independence from Britain. A few years later it

became India and Pakistan, and yet in another few years

Bangladesh was born out of Pakistan. More recent examples are

8
Yugoslavia and the former super-power, the Soviet Union. Mention

could also be made of South Sudan-the youngest nation in the

world. The point here is that nothing should be taken for granted

about the future of Nigeria project. We cannot ignore the fact that

the most important factors against a politically stable Nigeria

since 1960 are becoming more virulent than ever before. These

factors are tribalism, ethnicity and sectionalism in our national

life. These core diseases which today deny good health for

Nigerian State are gradually being enlarged to incorporate

additional factors such as religious differences and exclusiveness

in the ownership of resources which in normal international law

and convention should be shared as common heritage regardless

of their location. EARSHOT- Media in the Nigerian Project Since

we are today celebrating one of the countrys best journalists, we

should also use the opportunity to appraise the role of the media

in the Nigeria project so far. At 73 I am in a position to know what

roles the media have so far played especially in the political and

social life of Nigeria. In the first republic you could easily predict

the home base of any newspaper by simply glancing at their main

headlines. The papers were replicas of the major political parties

in the three regions of the Federation, the NCNC in the Eastern

9
Region, the AG in the Western Region, and the NPC in the

Northern Region. Whatever issues were at stake, the newspapers

in these regions, regardless of their ownership, reported only the

partisan and parochial positions of their leadership and their

respective areas. The question now is whether there is any

significant change in Nigerian journalism today. The honest

answer in my opinion is NO. In fact it could be argued that there

is more parochial and divisive journalism today than in the first

republic. And there is no indication yet that the media will be

balanced and neutral in their reporting of events in Nigeria. It is

this sensational divisive reporting on Nigerian affairs by the

Nigerian media which gives foreign interests the materials with

which to project the likely disintegration of the country in not

too distant future. However in every general rule there is always

an exception no matter how small the margin of error.

The Nigerian State is a victim of high-level corruption, bad

governance, political instability and a cyclical legitimacy crisis.

Consequently, national development is retarded, and the political

environment uncertain. The countrys authoritarian leadership

faced a legitimacy crisis, political intrigues, in an ethnically -

differentiated polity, where ethnic competition for resources drove

10
much of the pervasive corruption and profligacy. While the

political gladiators constantly manipulated the people and the

political processes to advance their own selfish agenda, the

society remained pauperized, and the people wallowed in abject

poverty. This invariably led to weak legitimacy, as the citizens

lacked faith in their political leaders and by extension, the political

system. Participation in government was low because citizens

perceived it as irrelevant to their lives. In the absence of support

from civil society, the effective power of government was eroded.

Patron - client relationships took a prime role over the formal

aspects of politics, such as the rule of law, well-functioning

political parties, and a credible electoral system. In order to break

this cycle and ensure good governance, accountability and

transparency must be guaranteed.

One of the major factors responsible for political instability is the

failure of the political class to sufficiently adhere to the basic

tenets of democracy and constitutionalism (Kew, 2006). As

Harriman (2006:2) has rightly noted, this situation has given rise

to abuse of power, brazen corruption, disregard for due process

and the rule of law, intolerance of political opposition, abuse of

11
the electoral process and the weakening of institutions. This

contradicts the tenet of governance, which presupposes

the process of social engagement between the rulers and the

ruled in a political community (Adejumobi, 2004). Good

governance could be accomplished when the operation of

government is in line with the prevailing legal and ethical

principles of the political community. When this is the situation,

system affect will be high, and the people would

collectively aspire to participate in the activities of the state,

knowing fully well that adherence to the rules and procedures

would serve the interest of the greatest number of the population.

Deprivation of benefits and selective justice would not be

encouraged, as individuals rights would be protected within the

ambit of the law. Political leaders would hold dear the

watchwords: transparency and accountability in governance.

Successive governments in Nigeria have indicated their

awareness of this as a way of ensuring stability and legitimacy.

The Jaji Declaration of the Murtala/Obasanjo administration,

Ethical Re-orientation Campaign of Shagaris Second Republic,

War Against Indiscipline (WAI) of the Buhari/Idiagbon regime,

Babangidas Committee on Corruption and other Economic

12
Crimes, the numerous probe panels of the Abacha years and the

current War Against Corruption (Diamond, 1991; Bello-Imam,

2004), are a

faade of genuine measures to promote good governance through

the eradication of corrupt practices. Between 2000 and 2003, two

anti corruption agencies were established to complement

Obasanjos administrations crusade (Kew, 2006).

Scholars have described Nigeria, as an unfinished state, (Joseph

et al.,1996), and as a truculent African tragedy (Ayittey, 2006)

in the midst of abundant human and material resources, which

are propelled in the vicious cycle of poverty and autocracy. Efforts

at building a democratic polity further entrapped it at the

political cross-roads (Kew, 2006). With enormous wealth from oil

resources, and economic, social and political strength, Nigeria is

qualified to be called the giant of Africa.

As (Kew, 2006). has noted:

The giant was brought to its knees by 20 years of

brutal and corrupt military rule, which left a legacy of

executive dominance and a political corruption in t

he hands of Nigerias so-called godfathers-powerful

political bosses sitting atop vast patronage networks

13
who view the government primarily through the lens

of their own personal enrichment.

Because of this instability, the focus of the leadership became

parochial with the overriding consideration for personal survival

rather than national development. Attempts at promoting

democratic consolidation were hampered by the personality cult

of the emerging political gladiators who exploited the instrument

of state power to promote their personal agenda. Nigerias

political elites, as Sklar et al (2006) have rightly observed, vie for

power and control over the vast spoils of office. The centralized

political and economic structures made the military and civilian

individuals who controlled key state posts fabulously wealthy,

while 70% of Nigerians fell into abject poverty (Sklar et al.,

2006). These leaders have in common brazen disregard for the

rule of law, lack of an independent judiciary and the legislature.

Poor leadership has led to stagnation, and alienation of the

citizenry, causing a low level of system affect - the sense of

belonging to

and identifying with the political system (Mayer etal., 1996).

14
The International Day of Peace which was established by a U.N.

resolution in 1982, and is marked every year on September 21, is

a global event

whose activities are significant in highlighting the worldwide

efforts towards conflict resolution and peace building. This day is

however more relevant to the continent of Africa where most

conflicts have taken place, with some running into decades, with

limited solutions. Therefore seen from the perspective of political

instability and as a drifting continent, many questions come up,

which demand more than just simple answers, or repeated

mythical notions about Africas problems, as purely inherent in

the African way of doing things. That there are problems in Africa

for several decades even after many countries in the continent

went through transitions from colonialism to independence, is not

a deniable fact. However the African situation is not as bleak as

portrayed in the media or by Africanists. In terms of political

instability in Africa, it is also undeniable that the continent has

had some difficult moments during the last fifty years or so. But

what is still unexplained in the many analyses that have been

looking at events in Africa is the fact that in almost all the cases

of political instability in Africa, it is evident that the major problem

15
is leadership. In this context, Africa has seen its freedom heroes

turn into dictators, while plunder of natural resources, politics of

exclusion and

deprivation to tilt the balance of power continues to dominate the

public sphere. Moreover, these problems have been pointed out

and fought gallantly by ordinary Africans who have over the

years, expressed their discontent with regimes imposed upon

them, through the complicity of the

international community. To date, almost every country in Africa is

still haunted by historical injustices and oppressive structures that

were bequeathed to the post colonial leadership. This is an aspect

which informs

the weak institutions of the state, flawed legislative systems and

constant struggles for political power to the detriment of the well

being of many nations, which could have moved on a path of

development as part of modern societies. While the international

community, whose geo-security

and resource interests seem to benefit from the status quo in

Africa, has not been pro- the establishment of functioning systems

in Africa, instead, their involvement, continue to undermine

Africas stability through the militarization of conflicts for

16
accumulative purposes. Political instability in Africa may owe

much of its cause to internal factors, however the

interpenetration of internal and external factors especially geo-

political and economic interests of the international community

constantly play a significant role in undermining the very

processes and institutions that are expected to nurture

democracy and to instill a sense of stability for societal

development in Africa. In combination to such factors as unequal

development, poverty, disease, violence and the manipulative

tendencies of the local elite, political and economic stability in

Africa is constantly under threat. This threat is however not

emanating from within the continent but from external interests

whose thirst for African resources, continue to shape the

dynamics in areas related to governance. Resources in Africa if

well managed are capable of providing for its entire population,

hence the potentials for a more stable environment, however, it is

well documented that stolen wealth from Africa often end up in

banks abroad (Africa Focus Bulletin, 2006), be it money stolen by

the political elite (the case of Mobutu of Zaire, Abacha of Nigeria,

and Moi of Kenya, just to mention a few or the recent Kibaki

17
regime Anglo-leasing scandals in Kenya), they still end up in

banks in the western capitals.

Also problematic in the African context are the existing

institutions of the state and how they function. Despite the

existence of institutional frameworks that are supposed to guide

processes and delivery on essential services, the continued

weakening of these institutions, through political mechanization

and predatory nature of African elites, working in cohorts with

external interests also contributes further to the undermining of

stability in Africa. These tendencies exacerbate resources wars,

ethnic rivalry, and more recently, the emergence of electoral

violence as a characteristic of multi-party era elections in African.

Although many events and occurrences might give the impression

that African continent is still drifting, there are also positive

things taking place in the continent and the drift needs to be

analysed from several perspectives that capture both the positive

and negative developments and what informs the direction of

these developments. There are pull and push factors, which keep

shaping the internal dynamics in Africa. However, African people

have not remained static, even though there are some

retrogressive tendencies. The majority, whose perspectives are

18
hardly captured in western media or academia, have made great

leaps, in a number of areas, including their level of political

awareness and popular participation in the political processes.

The leadership dilemma and many other governance related

malpractices are being challenged more and more from within, as

people begin to understand the broader implications of bad

politics and the consequences of governance structures that are

autocratic and oppressive.

In order to address the theme of peace and the relevance of

peace day to Africa, there is need to reflect on and critically

analyse the view that Africa is a continent on drift. In the

foregoing, I argue in the paper that the view that Africa is a

continent on drift is a notion, which fails to recognise the positive

developments in Africa, but also the complex mix of factors at

local, national, regional and international levels that impact upon

governance in Africa. This view also fails to recognise the major

problem which underpinsall the problems in Africa, that is, the

leadership problem both in Africa and in the West. Furthermore

the notion that Africa is a continent on drift is a view point that

seems to confine Africa to a static position where it operates in a

vacuum and is indulgently involved in its the subject is too broad

19
to receive a fair treatise in this paper, focus will be given to a few

political developments in Africa, in order to highlight examples of

the complex mix of both internal and external factors in the

overall political and economic developments in Africa. These are

points that can also help explain the direction of the drift and

what its major causes are. In order to do so, the paper will briefly

look at the factors underpinning political stability in Africa, while

using, the issue of leadership, Africas economy and political

instability, political violence and emerging power sharing

arrangements, as points of reference. The paper also highlights

some perspectives on conflict resolution and peace building

initiatives, the relevance of the Diaspora input and on the issue of

peace building, migration and development.

The African political instability and other related problems is

basically a consequence of its leadership problem. At domestic

level, African governments are run in ways that have been

regarded as far from the modern western state systems,(Osei

Tutu, 2004) upon which they are modelled. However, it should be

noted that leadership per see is not a new concept to African

traditions or cultural practices. The forms and context could be

different, but systems of governance in many cultures had

20
characteristics that can be found in modern systems of

governance.

CONCLUSION

Most solutions that have been prescribed in recent times seem to

view Africa through the prism of the continents natural resources

and the competition to reap the benefit of their exploitation or as

an object of humanitarian or military concerns. However what

needs recognition is the fact that Africa is beginning to see the

emergence of new social actors, different form of social and

political mobilisation. In the process, the political and economic

play field is also changing. Long term solutions to Africa instability

problems will basically be determined by a new type

Of leadership both within Africa and in the western countries,

where policy issues whose repercussions heavily impact upon

development in Africa are made. It has been observed that

migration cannot be managed effectively through unilateral

action, therefore bilateral relations should be forged among the

various countries in regions and sub-regions, as well as

multilaterally through ECOWAS, SADC, EAC, the EU, the African,

Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group of countries (Adepoju,

21
2008:50). However such measures even though urgently needed,

they might not entail a complete overhaul of the status quo over

night, but a gradual process beginning with a change of attitude

and approach. Moreover, most important, is to secure the

political will and the will of the capital in the west. This is

based on the argument that it is in the best interests of the

Western countries if Africa goes through a transformation from its

current state of instability, to one in which the human security is

guaranteed. Although much expectation is placed on African

leadership as a solution to its perennial problems, Africas

partners in the West need to realise that marriage between Africa

and Europe, whether through default or reinforced further by an

integrated global economy and human security concerns, demand

a deeper understanding of African interest, which in essence

require supporting Africa to lead itself. Key to this process is

strengthening Africas institutions that promote democracy and

accountability with an input from the local perspectives.

Prescriptions which sideline local views have proved to be

unsuccessful. The continued ignorance of African views on how

they wish to solve their problems, inform the missteps that

22
continue to bog the political and economic policies, often touted

as good for Africa.

23