ABSTRACT
The problematic
issues between dictatorship and social civility in governance has been the
central focus of this study. Although, it appeared to be comparative in study
in its investigation and analysis but it is obvious to note that this two areas
are far apart and very different. For while the military thematism,
authocratism, sterotypism and command structure are enthroned as discussed, the
civil equality of rights as enshrined in democracy prevails hence it is
incomparable to evaluate as such, if not for the basic reasons that they are
both two kind of system of governance used in Nigeria. The study
in evaluating the above noted problems adopts the use of primary and secondary
data. The primary data, uses oral face to face interview among some retired and
serving military men, politicians and international political analyst and
international law pundits. It also examine
the necessary complains and pain experienced during military regimes and
bottleneck that exists during civil administration by interviewing the
citizenry. The study in its secondary
data made use of materials from archival library, Journal and, CD Rom,
necessary to form a good value judgment of the work. To enhance the further
study, the work used descriptive and content analysis approach. The
notes that many agrees that the military regime is aberration, autocratic and
abnormal. The study revealed that the worst civil regime is highly preferred by
the citizenry than a military regime. The study, therefore find the civil
regime of Yar’adua administration far better than the Gen Babangida military
regime. The study suggest that the idea of military regime should be out
rightly abhorred and negated while promoting social civilities and civil
governance.
Key Word: Civil
Regime, Military Regime, Autocratic, Aberration, Democracy
TABLE OF CONTENT
Title
Page i
Certification ii
Dedication iii
Acknowledgements iv
Table of
Contents v
Abstract vii
CHAPTER
ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.0 Background of the Study 1
1.2 Statements of the Problems 6
1.3 The Objectives of the Study 8
1.4 Significance of the Study 9
1.5 Research Methodology 9
1.6 Scope of the study 10
1.7 Limitation of the Study 11
1.8 Definitions of Terms 11
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Discussing Federalism
13
2.2 The Military
and Practice of Federalism Nigeria 19
CHAPTER THREE: HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
3.1 Federalism:Federal Character
Principles and Division of Powers 28
3.2 Creation of States and Balanced
Federalism
32
3.3 Revenue Allocation 34
3.4 Balanced Federalism
36
3.5 Issues in Military Regime
38
3.6 Issues in Civilian Regime 40
CHAPTER FOUR: GENERAL ANALYSIS
4.1
Public
Policies and Inter – Government
Relations During
Babangida Era 43
4.2
Musa
Yar’adua Era 52
4.3
Comparative
Analysis of Civil – Military Regime 53
In a Federal
States
CHAPTER FIVE:
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1
Summary 56
5.2
Recommendation 57
5.3 Conclusion 59
BIBLIOGRAPHY
61
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background To The Study
Nationalistic drive for Unity and
several other reasons might have arouse the basis and or also responsible for
federalism in Nigeria. In Nigeria, the colonial experienced and geographical
nearness of the various components of the units encouraged federalism. The
colonial masters in their efforts to exploit the various people of Nigeria, as
well as reduce their administrative involvements brought together hitherto
separate territories into the country. To this effect, the different component
units saw the act of federating as the only possible chances of remaining as a
one people under a union.
Meanwhile, drawing inference from
Wheare (1963) contention, which provided a leading treatise on the theory of
federalism where he merely elevates to the level of the American style of
federalism. He writes; “by the federal principles we mean the method of
dividing powers so that general and regional governments are each, within a
sphere co-ordinate and independent.” This legalistic/institutional orientation
to the study of federalism is one out of four approaches. Friederichs (1968) is
a leading scholar among those who view federalism beyond formal constitutional
division of powers to recognize cooperative relationships between levels of
government. He concludes that “some societal prevailing beliefs, values and
interests are continually changing in a society, the institutions and structure
of federalism would also change and these changes need not be unidirectional.”
The sociological approach to
federalism is led by William Livingstone. According to him “the essential
nature of federalism is to be sought not in the wording of legal constitutional
terminology but in the forces – economic, social, political, cultural that has
made the outward forms of federalism necessary”. The essence of federalism lies
not in the constitutional or institutional structure but in the society itself.
Finally the power notion approach
championed by Etzioni (1963) examines the place of power in a federal state.
This conceptualization of federalism focuses on the importance of power sharing
especially where heterogeneous groups undergoing the process of integration are
involved. He went ahead to writes, “Federalism is an attempt to cope with the
problem of power. Power is, however, not desired for its own end but as a means
of tackling the problems of society”. This Federalism not only guarantees the
maintenance of separate group identity within the same polity-the so-called
unity-in-diversity.
Deriving from the sociological
approach of William Livingstone other concepts have emerged. In examining
federalism and individual sovereignty, Buchanan (1968) further explored the
theory of competitive federalism and “partitioned sovereignty federalism”.
In explaining the theory of
competitive federalism, Buchanan writes, “Federalism offers a means of
introducing essential features of the market into politics … guaranteeing the
options of entry and exit to the citizen …“. (Buchanan, 1968). Partitioned
sovereignty federalism argues that the sovereignty of the individual, if it is
the objectives, can best be archived where the constituent units are small,
homogenous groups to enable the voice of the individual be heard. The smaller
the unit, the more effective the voice of the individual in contrast to large
units where the individual’s voice is drowned. Thus federalism does – but also
seeks to guarantee and protect the sovereignty of the individual within the
constituent units. In both cases, groups and individuals are protected from the
coercive forces of the central and state governments. This constitutes a form
of check on the abuse of the constitutional rights of groups and individuals.
Stretched too far, secession is implied. This extreme is often expressly stated
in the constitution with respect to its exercisability or not.
What has been described so far is the
common federalist ideal. However, for each federation there is a different
starting point in what may be called the “federalism spectrum” in which a
federal political structure stands at a point between a regime of fully
autonomous states on the one hand and a monolithic all powerful central
authority on the other hand.
Geographical nearness of the various
nationalities that make up the federation is an indispensable factor. In the
same vein, Wheare (1963) noted that the American federation was also largely
possible because of proximity of the first thirteen states that declared
independence from Britain in 1776, one can recall that the history of
federalism in Nigeria can be traceable to the Lytttleton constitution of 1956.
Nigeria was a federation of three regions then. The powers of governance of a
country were divided between the center and other levels of government such
that each level did not encroach in the sphere of administration of the other.
There existed the exclusive list, which deals on matters of national interest,
and the federal government had absolute jurisdiction on such. They included
defence, foreign policy, example, shipping among others, where the center and
component units could share powers like Agriculture, works, and education and
so on. We also have the residual powers, which were left with other levels of
government.
In 1963, Nigeria was divided into
four regions and subsequently into twelve state on 2nd May 1967.
Subsequently in 1976, Nigeria was further divided into nineteen states in
response to the recommendations of the political Bureau. The Babangida
administration increased the number of states by creating nine new states,
bringing the number of thirty.
The political bureau argued that it
was as a result of the need to promote a balanced and stable federation, the
growth of democratic culture, social justice and even development.
Gen. Abacha later created six more
states, bringing the number of thirty-six in 1996. The proliferation of states
and local governments especially by military regimes in Nigeria has enormously
affected the practice of federalism in Nigeria. This is not only in terms of
imbalance in the federal structure, but also in the area of inter-governmental
relations and management of the nation’s economy among the levels of
government. The absence of balance in power relations between the federal and
coordinate levels of government as well as the increase dependence on the other
has tended to vitiate some of the essential ingredients of the federalism.
The 10 years of democracy in Nigeria
is like a journey in which the travelers, both politicians and Nigerian in
general, have gone through with a mixed grill of experience when May 29, 1999.
Ushered in civilian administration, hopes were high that thing would change for
the better after a debilitating military era. Overtime, Nigerians have seen
such hopes dashed, reawakened and dashed again in the labyrinth of inconsistent
policies and abuse of rules and regulations that dotted the political and
economic landscape.
There has not been any dramatic
change in the quality of average Nigerian life since the military handed power
over to civilians. During the military regime, the quality of life of an
average Nigerian was dismally low, corruption was high, and water was not
running in taps in many homes.
Electricity was erratic. Unemployment
was high with no unemployment benefit. Today, nothing has changed much from the
reign of ex-president Olusegun Obasanjo to the incumbent president Umaru
Yar’Adua, the story of democratic governance has befuddled Nigerians. This is
because the ruling elite act with impurity and show blatant indifference to
providing the dividends of democracy to masses. Infrastructure such as roads,
power and other social amenities have not been provided and the available ones
are in a state of decay.
1.2
Statement of Problem
The statement of problem is based on
looking at how effective is the Nigerian federalism under the limitary and
civilian regime. Under the military “Babangida” he was the chief of Army Staff
and a member of the supreme military council (SMC) under the administration of
major General Muhammadu Buhari. Much was not achieved as he come into power in
a military coup promising to bring to an end the human rights abuses
perpetuated by Buhari’s government, and to hand over power to a civilian
government by 1990. Eventually, he perpetuated one of the worst human right
abuses and lots of unresolved political assassinations meanwhile, civilian
administration hopes were high that things would change for the better after a
military era. There has not been any dramatic change in the quality of life of
an average Nigerian was dismally low.
Civilian regime under Obasanjo promoted
the “Food first policy” and rowed that it would no longer be business as usual.
Nigeria ranked so out of 180 developing countries in human poverty index. There
was an attempt to tackle the hydra-healed corruption illness when the
government established the independent corrupt practices and other financial
crimes commission, ISPC, and the economic and financial crimes commission,
EFFC, ICPC is perceived as a toothless building while EFCC effectively tackled
the cases of 419 that pervaded the land. Obasanjo sent shivers down the spine
of Nigerians when EFCC arrested Fabian Osuji, former minister of education,
over a bribery scandal involving members of the National Assembly – the
administration also arrested and prosecuted Tafa Balogun, the former inspector
general of police, for embezzling police funds. Militarism and federalism are
two strange bed fellows and often a sure recipe to disaster. The result is that
military rule has affected the entire fabric of the Nigerian Nation but
civilian has been able to overthrow the military through its effort on
stability to the problems course during military era.
1.3
Objective of study
i)
To
critically evaluate the impact of military rule on Nigeria’s federalism
especially during the Babangida’s military era (1985-1993).
ii)
To
effectively look at what the civilian regime has achieved after taking over
from the military.
iii)
To
establish the nature of military rule and its implications to federalism.
iv)
To
suggest tenable solutions to some major problems militating against civilian
rule.
v)
To
contribute positively to scholarly works on Nigerians system of federalism.
1.4
Significance of the study
This research will be useful for the
political education of those in positions of political authority. It will also
be beneficial to policy analyst and military personnel in their arduous task of
nation building. It will also be as a relevant reference materials and catalyst
which would stimulate future studies in the field.
1.5.
METHODOLOGY
This
research will undertake both primary and secondary sources of data collections.
The
primary data will be obtained through the use of questionnaires, oral
face-to-face interviews and observations. In it, questionnaires were
administered to a sample of Lagos residents as well as personal interviews
within the community.
The
secondary data will be collected from text books, journals, conference papers
websites, newspaper reports and relevant materials.
In
all, two hundred (200) questionnaires were administered to the above mentioned
resident in different parts of the state.
Responses
to these questions would be collected and analyzed using sample percentage
rating. The research is a survey research. This research work is a descriptive
survey research in which only part of the residents were studied. The accessible
population for this study consisted of actual resident in the community.
The instrument for data collection was a questionnaire. The
questionnaire comprise of twenty items which reflected the six research questions Most items on the questionnaire contained negative and positive
questions to avoid leading questions.
This research was based on secondary
data, which are derived from existing works. The sources of these works include
research on internet, journal, textbooks, tell-magazines, newspaper among
others. The work adopts both primary and secondary data. The primary data
relied on in-depth interview method of oral face to face interview conducted
among telecommunication industries staffs like: MTN, Airtel, Global
communication and Etisalat Plc among others. It also examine the necessary
complains and pain experienced by consumer by interviewing them. The instrument
employed was in-depth interview method.
In the secondary data, the study utilizes materials from archival
library, Journal and, CD Rom, internet browsing and documentary news. These are
materials adequate and necessary to form a good value judgment of the work. To
enhance the further study, the work used descriptive and content analysis
approach. The work also employed analytical method in arriving at its goal.
1.6.
Scope of the study
This research work focus on Nigeria’s
federalism under the military and civilian regimes of Ibrahim Babangida’s regime
and Yar’Adua Administration. The study is examined between 1985-1993 and 2007 –
2011.
1.7.
Limitation of the study
The researcher encountered some
problems in the course of the research one of these problems encountered during
the period of the research was getting relevant resource materials. The
researcher also had problem of time and finance constraints. However, efforts
were made to ensure that the objectives of the research were attained.
1.8.
Operational Definition of Terms
Military – The military as an institution
includes the Army, Navy, Air force, police and other constitutionally
recognized agencies that have monopoly control over the coercive instrument of
force in nay nation.
Federalism: Federalism refers to the arrangement
where there exists a central authority that represent the whole in external
matters and internal issues of common interests, and component units that share
power with the center in defined fiscal and jurisdictional spheres.
Civilian: Civilian refers to the system
whereby democracy is the system adopted everyone is given the freedom of speech
to express and give it opinion on matters relating to public affairs. The
system also maintains a firm grip on political competition.
Centralisation: Centralisation implies that there is
only one source of authority – this means that political power is net divided
between central government and the constituent units in the country. All the
existing units in the country are under the direct control of the central
government.
Devolution: It is a situation whereby powers are
devolved such that local authorities can decide and act on their own initiative
on matters affecting the particular area. In other words, devolution means the
transfer of authority to local government units such that those units are
capable of making laws guiding them without interference from either the higher
level or other levels in the country.
Decentralization: According to Adamolekan (1984),
decentralization denotes the organization of government activity outside the
headquarters of the central government either as an administrative measure
involving the transfer of resources and responsibilities to agents of the
central government located outside the headquarters or as a political
arrangement involving the devolution of specific powers, functions and resource
by the central government to sub-national level government units.
Inter-governmental Relations-Inter-governmental relations refers
to the pattern of relationship between the federal and other levels of
government in a country. These relating determine to a large extent the
organization of the country in terms of type of government.
Click “DOWNLOAD NOW” below to get the complete Projects
FOR QUICK HELP CHAT WITH US NOW!
+(234) 0814 780 1594
Login To Comment