TABLE
OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE……………………………….……………..……..i
CERTIFICATION…………………………………….…..…….ii
DEDICATION…………………………………………..……iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT…………………………………..……iv
TABLE OF CONTENT………………………………....vi
CHAPTER ONE
VIEWS OF PHILOSOPHERS THROUGH THE AGES
1.1 Ancient Period………………………………………………………1
1.2 Medieval Period…………………………………………….5
1.3 Modern Period……………………………………………6
1.4 Contemporary Period……………………………….10
CHAPTER TWO
MEANING OF POLITICAL POWER IN JOHN LOCKE
2.1
Division of Political
Power……………………….17
2.1.1
Legislative Power……………………………………18
2.1.2 Executive Power……………………………………..20
2.1.3 Federative Power ……………………………………23
2.2 The Birth of Political
Society………………………...25
2.3 The Birth of Political
Power………………………. ...27
CHAPTER THREE
ABUSE OF POWER IN NIGERIA
3.1 Craze for Power………………………..……….41
3.2 Despotic Rule in
Nigeria…………………….…....45
3.3 Who Becomes the Leader……………………..…47
CHAPTER FOUR
EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION
4.1
Evaluation and
Analysis……………………..…49
4.2
Conclusion………………………………………...58
BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………..………………63
BACKGROUND OF STUDY
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
Throughout the
history man has always sought different methods of organizing himself into
political states. He needed these methods for the systematic organization of
himself according to what is befitting to his nature, since he is both a
political and a rational animal that is capable of realizing himself fully in a
well-organized political state. And so, the problem and question remains, how
well organized and secured is his political society? Which method of such
organization could be adopted? Thus, he has to seek ways to organize his
political society and ensure his security. Such questions are the problems,
which concerned political philosophies and philosophers. It can also be viewed
as the major problem of an ideal state as we can see in Plato’s political
philosophy. But as much as man’s nature yearns for this perfect and ideal
state, where there would be equal right and justice, the idea of the ideal
society has almost always eluded him, owing to the complexity of man’s nature.
That this yearning has led him to evolve several methods and systems aimed at
the ideal political state is very evident in man’s effort to develop numerous
political groups and elites. This is also very clear as regards different
political parties that are formed by the political elites in Nigerian
situation, today.
In Nigeria
today, there are many political parties. And each group’s intentions are to
ensure a reliable and trustworthy party that is capable of presenting a strong
and sincere representative who will eventually run for them during elections.
However due to people’s wrong notion about politics, they could go to any
length provided their dreams are profitably actualized even if it warrants
stepping on others’ toes. Whichever means they employ to actualize their dreams,
it is important not to overlook the fact that they have good and noble
intentions of moving Nigeria forward as it pertains to development and doing
away with all forms of corruption.
For over
forty-five years of the nation’s independence, since October 1, 1960, Nigeria
has struggled to entrench democracy and democratic values in the land. The
structural imbalance in the polity, which has an over-bloated bureaucratic
center, has created a desperate scramble amongst the power blocs to have access
to the center, which flows abundantly with milk and honey. This deadly scramble
has no doubt resulted in avoidable deaths and death games. The deaths of Harry
Marshal, the River state’s political strong man and the ANPP National Vice
chairman, Dr. Chuba Okadigbo, a sage, a politician, former Senate President in
the National Assembly and the running-mate to the presidential candidate of
ANPP, General Muhammadu Buhari in 2003 general elections are eloquent testimony
to these facts.
Therefore,
the political terrain is as murky and muddied as ever. The absence of a
normative order has occasioned the rise of individuals and new political
parties whose personal interests appear to be more important than the interest
of the state itself. This absence of a normative order could be seen as a
modern political absurdity, if ever there is any and a negation of a political
state. These individuals and parties annul national elections with impunity,
abduct or murder state officials with alacrity, rig elections with audacity and
raid the national treasury with tenacity. Before them the state is prostrate
and the nation is powerless. The abuses of political powers and the corruption
of our political elites is becoming the order of the day. And unless concrete
efforts are made to demystify governance and leadership, by redressing the rate
of injustices, abuses and corruption, the craze for power among our political
leaders and elites will not stop; it will continue to increase. Thus, Nigerians
must be made to imbibe the culture of a decent life and genuine, meaningful
access to wealth through hard work, which could equally exist outside political
offices and political power. Truly, the art of governance and leadership must
be demystified, in order to bring our elected political leaders to serve the
people who elected them to the office with sincerity instead of presenting
themselves as Kings and Princes.
It is
against this thought-provoking background that we are going to view Locke’s
Political Philosophy, in relation to his notion of Political Power and as it
concerns Nigerian leadership. John Locke views political state or society as an
association of persons with common consent and agreement. The civil state or
political society is instituted as a remedy for the inconveniences found in the
state of nature. Thus political power is established when the community gives
up their natural power and right of enforcing law, order and preservation of
property to the Legislative power. The nature of Government for Locke is that
of trust and embraces only such powers as were transferred at the time of the
change from a state of Nature into civil or political society. Hence it is part
of human civilization to aim at the perfect state.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
As a prelude
to the problem, we should understand the reason behind John Locke’s quest for
civil society and subsequent political power. It is due to the fact that
Shaftesbury’s plan, [Locke’s master], of revolution against the British
commercial imperialism, failed to yield its desired fruit. As the planned
revolution failed, Shaftesbury and his men [Organized Private Army] fled to
Holland with John Locke. While Locke was in exile, the then king James II of
England ruled the Nation with such an iron hand that the people rose in arms to
expel him and set King William and Queen Mary to the throne. The people’s
resolution to expel him was successful because of their unanimous agreement, as
well as for the fact that the Catholics dominated their government for a long
time. Thus, the latter successful revolution could be called the Glorious
Revolution of 1688. With this revolution, Locke returned from exile and wrote
his work: Two Treatises of Government.
In this work he expressed the view that Reason was God’s voice in every man;
hence, there could be no real conflict between faith and reason.
In his
treatises on Government, therefore, Locke proposed a Social contract, which
gave every citizen a right of a say in the government. This is the right to
leadership of the civil society. But this right is exercised maximally by the
legislature. The legislature has the supreme power of maintaining law and
order; to regulate the institution of property by judging between conflicting
claims. It exercises, equally, the right and power of ensuring the preservation
of lives, properties and estates. As such, the right of a ruler is not only to
govern but also, to provide security of lives and property. However, this power
is established on trust to the legislature through the consent of the
community.
In short,
John Locke holds the view that political power exists and that it is exercised
only for the public good. The basis of government as we know is consent, and
the powers which are wielded by Princes and Rulers inhere in such consent; it
is not based on any absolute right found on grant, covenant or otherwise, but
on conditions of a trust, and under liability to forfeiture if the conditions
are not fulfilled. Following this idea, one could ask: how can this notion of
government, which is proposed by John Locke, be applied to Nigerian democracy
taking into account the incessant craze for power among our political elites?
Can Nigerian leaders perform well if Locke’s principles are well utilized and
practiced? Today’s political situation in the country makes the questions more
glaring when most of our political leaders are seriously making questionable
moves towards 2007 leadership race. There is no doubt that Locke has given us a
clear and reasonable view on how government should be run. We are not going to
take everything Locke proposed but make little critical analyses of his
propositions and, apply them suitably to Nigerian Democracy.
PURPOSE OF STUDY
The purpose of this thesis is specifically to study
John Locke’s political philosophy with particular reference to his notion of
“political power”. In order to do justice to this study, it is necessary to
establish a kind of background that will make the concept of political power in
Locke, understandingly, appreciable. As such, the work will examine the nature
of political society before examining political power because it is only when
we understand Locke’s notion about political society that we will be able to
comprehend his notion of political power. The above comprehension will assist
in relating it to Nigerian democracy as it pertains to Leadership problems and
the nature of political power. Ability to understand these will enable us to
see loopholes in Nigerian Leadership and also enable us to give reasonable
thought to how best the society should be governed.
SIGNIFICANCE
OF STUDY
Of course,
the study of John Locke’s political power has much relevance to the Nigerian
politics. The study will address many issues stemming from political, social
and the likes. Equally, the study is necessary because it presents a
well-established political society whereby important dimensions of political
life are discussed and normalized. The nature of political terrain in the
country today will inspire us to appreciate Locke’s theory well. There is no
doubt about it.
SCOPE OF STUDY
Following
the above-stated nagging issues, we should be limiting our study, specifically,
to the notion of political power. A look at the concept of political society
will enable us to understand it properly. As much as possible, the work will
concentrate, to a large extent, on the study of the analysis of political power
and its dimensions, not excluding its merits and demerits.
METHOD OF STUDY
The method is simply
expository with critical analysis of the concepts, as we earlier on pointed
out. We shall equally view critically the nature of Nigerian Leadership and as
much as possible, justify some justifiable positions. The thesis is divided
into four chapters with bibliography. The first chapter deals with the
literature review starting from the ancient to the contemporary philosophers.
The second chapter deals with the political philosophy of John Locke, more
especially, as it concerns our study. In chapter three, we shall establish its
relevance to Nigerian democracy and leadership. Effort will be made to see the
nature of leadership in Nigeria and how politicians or leaders come to power.
And lastly, we shall conclude with chapter four, taking into account the
critical analysis of the whole project.
CHAPTER ONE
VIEWS OF
PHILOSOPHERS THROUGH THE AGES
Perhaps
what has become so dominant in the affairs and the nature of man, almost
exclusively, is the need to be treated well. What seemed as latent but
constantly boiling in every individual of all ages is a quest to get a fair
share of one’s natural entitlement. In other words, man searches for justice.
Philosophers through the ages are not left out as they have contributed
tremendously to the development and reorganization of human society. Hence
their clarion calls for a better society. Thus it is on this note that we are
going to review the opinions of philosophers, both past and present, concerning
the political situation of any given society; paying more attention to the
nature of political power and its structural systems regarding the affairs of
the state in general.
1.1 Ancient
Period
This period
witnessed the concern of man to have a well ordered and organized state whereby
its citizens will uphold the issue of moral values, especially as it pertains
to the issue of justice and equity. As such, there are many philosophers in
this period that were involved in the reformation of the state, but we are
going to look at the contributions made by few of them. One of the philosophers
of this period we are going to see is Aristophanes. He opined in his political
philosophy that the system of governing the state should not be democracy but
communism. Therefore he criticized democracy saying that many unqualified and
lazy persons joined the legislative for the sake of financial rewards. And this
is very obvious with regard to Nigerian political situation which we are going
to see shortly. Thus many politicians are in politics simply because of money.
He goes further to say that “in democracy, people are given political posts
even if they were not equipped for it.”
In other words, many politicians are given certain positions they do not merit,
that is, those we can call political office seekers. Hence he argues for
communism as the best option for proper governance of the state. Communism for
him will incorporate every member of the state and proper justice will be
maintained.
Plato in his
view outlined five forms of government, namely, aristocracy, timocracy,
plutocracy, democracy and despotism, but he favours aristocracy. According to
him, aristocracy stands as the best form of government where only
Philosopher-kings should be rulers. He intended to establish an ideal society
where the state of affairs and the people’s moral conscience will rule.
However, he was deeply disenchanted with the type of politics practiced in
Athens, particularly with the way the Athenian government executed Socrates,
and had consistently failed to produce good leaders. Hence his clarion calls
for upholding morality and the agitation for Philosopher-kings to be rulers.
Moreover, his intention was to establish an ideal society where its leaders
would be guided by reason and justice maintained. He saw them (Philosopher-kings)
as the best option in the search for good leaders and the need to promote
morality especially among the youths who are future leaders. Thus, Plato
envisioned leaders with the aptitude for wisdom to govern the society and
legislate for it.
Aristotle in
his contribution viewed the state as the association of human beings where all
man’s needs are provided. The existence of the state is for the provision of
the natural needs of man; thus, the state is viewed as the natural association
of man. And man being a rational and political animal should best secure good
life in the society. ‘The good life’ here according to Aristotle includes
political good, economic independence and virtuous life. As regards power, he
said that, “the citizens at large administer the state for the common interest,
so that the government is called by the generic name, a constitution.”
The power of those in office should be controlled by the law since good laws
are supreme in the state. Aristotle as we could see in his politics elevated
the citizens to the level of the administration of the government and as it
pertains to the political power in the society. Equally, he opined that the
common interest matters as much as it gives everybody equal opportunity to
participate in the affairs of the government. Therefore he saw the government
as involving, virtually, every citizen, as it is called by a generic name. So
the constitution forms part and parcel of the government and it must be
properly established and executed.
1.2 Medieval Period
Having
seen the contributions made by some political philosophers in the preceding
period, let’s now talk of the medieval period. Here we have many philosophers
to consider, as it were, but we shall concentrate on a few of them. Among them
was St. Augustine.
He was not a political philosopher as such, but contributed immensely as far as
commonwealth and social order of any organized society are concerned. According
to him, true commonwealth can never exist if there is no real justice in the
community. “But”, he said, “true justice is found only in that whose founder
and ruler is Christ . . . we cannot deny that it is the ‘weal’ of the
community.” As
we can see, he is more of a theologian since he makes Christ the terminus ad quem of man’s existence.
Nevertheless his defense of commonwealth and justice are very much
indispensable in any political society. Hence for any meaningful political
society to exist there must be real justice and commonwealth. Lack of these two
principles of government characterizes the Nigerian democracy. And these, no
doubt, must have their foundation in Christ just as St. Augustine upholds.
However this justice must be equitably distributed and maintained. This, by
implication, means that the power holders must pay attention to the citizens’
well-being; and the citizens must not be found wanting in obedience to the
leaders. Secondly, Thomas Aquinas in his part also presented us with his
doctrine of justice which begets common good. These principles are never found
in a vacuum for they are within the reach of men with common good. For Aquinas,
the object of justice is “right.”
What this means is that every individual’s right ought to be respected.
Therefore, every member must respect his or her individual right and the right
of others. On this point Isidore opined that, “a man is said to be just because
he respects the rights of others.”
Finally Aquinas concluded that justice means rendering to an individual his
right, all for the common good of the political state.
1.3 Modern Period
From the
medieval to the modern period we have seen the contributions of some political
thinkers and their ideologies. We can see in those periods the indispensable
role of ethical values and how they contribute to the establishment of an ideal
state. It is their view that true justice contributes to the shaping of the
society, if well appreciated. However their thought appears to be more of
utopia than real, especially, when we consider the political philosophy of
Plato and Aristotle.
The modern
period could thus be seen as the high point of political theory and ideologies.
The philosophers of this period were so much concerned with the nature of
political states and their governance. They were so much interested in how best
a state could be governed through reasonable and courageous leaders, and at the
same time ensuring good relationship among its citizens. Let’s see the
political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, in this modern period, which was
summarized in the concept, SOCIAL
CONTRACT. The “Social contract”, according to him, “is a contract by which
men avoid the state of nature and enter into civil society…”
But prior to this civil society man was in a natural state that was
characterized by warfare; a situation, where because of man’s freedom, there
was struggle for glory, diffidence and urge for competition. A state of war, as
opined by Hobbes, where ‘men live without a common power to keep them all in
awe; they are in that condition which is called “war”. This happens when one
sheepishly follows his inclinations and dispositions. However it is in this
contract (social contract) that men surrender their powers and strength to
sovereignty to be governed and legislated for. Thus he says, “…by conferring
all their powers and strength upon one man, or upon an assembly of men, to bear
their person, to reduce all their will into one.”
This contract so enacted is called a commonwealth. The contract establishes an
absolute government. Commonwealth becomes the sovereign to whom the people
entrust their power to provide for their peace and security. The sovereign
exercises his authority by prescribing rules where every man may know what
goods he may enjoy and what actions he may perform without being molested by
any body. Summarily the sovereign exercises the political power, hearing and
deciding disputes.
John Locke was
also of the view that social contract should remain the best option for the
civil society. In fact he was one of the flag-bearers of social contract, just
as Hobbes. He did not see it as a situation of servitude on the part of the
citizens to their rulers. Rather the citizens submitted their legislative and
executive powers in order to be governed. Hence the pact makes them a “single
body politic”,
making them equal and free men, both the rulers and the ruled. It is important
to note that this power is a fiduciary power, which means that it is given on
trust. Therefore, the legislature must ensure good, justified governance,
otherwise dissolved. Consequently, “there remains in the people a supreme power
to remove or alter the legislative when they find the legislative act contrary
to the trust reposed in them.”
Since it is only a power on trust, it means that the people are still in
charge, unlike the absolute monarchy of Hobbes. Rousseau was also in this line
of thought when he was talking about the ‘General Will’, which he said, belongs
to the people. And so the people’s sovereignty cannot be alienated from them
for it belongs to them. Having seen this, let’s see the situation of politics
as it pertains to contemporary period.
1.4
Contemporary Period
Political
thought and theories continued up till the contemporary period. However, the
period witnessed a serious political crisis. There is less interest in politics
as long as this period is concerned; and Alfred Cobban viewed political
philosophy of this period as a discipline that has less attention. This view
does not mean that the philosophers of this period were not concerned with
political society and the system of governance during their time, but they
lacked the interest and the zeal in redirecting their thought towards political
situation of the society. In fact, there is a kind of decline as it pertains to
political philosophy. The philosophers rather, paid much of their attention to
the reality of the universe and the place of man’s existence in the world. They
questioned how best one can live an authentic life in the world, not excluding
the society, in which one lives. However these not withstanding, we shall see
how they directed their thought towards the shaping of the individual’s reason
in the society. Here we see John Stuart mill who began his essay “On Liberty”
by writing: “The subject of this essay is not the so-called Liberty of the
Will… but civil or social liberty: the nature and the limits of the power which
can be legitimately exercised by the society over the individual.”
This civil liberty offers every citizen an opportunity of participation in the
government. A liberty that involves: liberty of conscience, which is, of
expressing and publishing of opinions, liberty of association, and so on. As
regards democracy, he voted Representative Democracy as the best form of
government. The reason for this option is that it makes people more active and
gives the individual better opportunity for intellectual growth, virtue and
socially responsible life. Also the community, according to him, possesses the
power of governance. Therefore, everybody has legitimate freedom to take active
part in the government. Thus he says,
“the best form of government is that in which
the sovereignty or the supreme controlling power in the last resort is vested
in the entire aggregate of the community, every citizen not only having a voice
in the exercise of the ultimate sovereignty, but being, at least occasionally,
called on to take on actual part in the government, by the personal discharge
of some public function, local or general.”
This in no
doubt presents a true government that is devoid of tyranny and despotism. Power
is reasonably and considerably utilized.
The next
person is Karl Marx who brought about his theory of dialectical materialism.
According to him, the state is divided into two unequal parts, namely the
bourgeoisie and the proletariat classes. It is a state of class struggle and
conflict between the bourgeois class and the proletariat class. Such a state
could be referred to as “a state of the survival of the fittest”; each of the
classes struggling to survive. In fact, it is a situation, which involves a
serious struggle of opponents. Thus, the state, according to him, is the
society under the control of the bourgeois class. They, as the rulers, dictate
their will and interests in the state in the form of law and institutions. This
situation was viewed as characterized by struggle, antagonism, domination and
all sorts of inhuman treatment. Therefore, it is his dream that there will be a
time when everything will be normalized. This will eventually give birth to a
classless society of citizens with equal rights. This will come about when the
proletariat revolts against the ruling class and overthrow them in order to set
up communism. Then this state of equal right will give everybody equal
opportunity of participation in a true democracy. Communism according to Marx
is:
“The positive
transcendence of private property or human estrangement, the real appropriation
of the human essence by and for man…genuine resolution of the conflict between
man and nature, and between man and man…”
By communism Marx meant a
time when capitalism (the oppressive system), with its concomitant evils, will
be destroyed through revolution by the oppressed (masses). This will bring to
an end the exploitation of man by man, the end of alienation, the end of
conflicts and antagonism among men. Also, private property and private
ownership of the means of production will be abolished and the goods of the
society will be owned by all. The same revolution will introduce a classless
society where everybody will be equal and man determines for himself in his
natural state. With the disappearance of class distinction in this new society
which communism will usher in, the state will equally disappear since the state
is simply an instrument of class rule. Thus, the final goal of Marxism is to
set up “a classless and stateless communist society in which there will be no
more conflicts, antagonism among men, exploitation, poverty, everybody will be
free, happy and live in peace with his fellow man.” And so, the positive transcendence of
human estrangement which Marx is talking about is realized when man has been
able to subdue his tendency to keep acquiring, which is done through revolution
against capitalism. This will then give man the opportunity to use and make
real appropriation of the human resources to reach everybody in the communist
society.
Login To Comment