Political Elites and Development Crisis in Nigeria

POLITICAL ELITES AND DEVELOPMENT CRISIS IN NIGERIA

(A CASE STUDY OF SOUTHERN IJAW LGA OF BAYELSA STATE)

Abstract

Political elites aredecision-makers whose powers are not subject to control by any other body in the society.The members of a political elite group have important influence in shaping the values and attitudes held by their segment of society.

This research project is thus a search for political elites and development crisis in Nigeria.

Chapter one of the study lays an introduction for subsequent chapters. Following the background of the study, the problem statement and the objective of the study which provided basis for the significance of the study and the hypothesis were stated. The limitation of this study were also highlighted.

In the literature review as contained in chapter two, works of various authors, international and local journals were reviewed to elicit views on the roles of political elite and development crisis in Nigeria.

Chapter three, research methodology, description of population and sampling procedure for data collection were discussed. Methods of questionnaire design, determination of sampling size and questionnaire distribution were also highlighted.

Chapter four was based on analysis of data collected. This chapter was sub-divided into data analysis, hypothesis testing and summary. Percentage table, figure and narration were carefully employed for proper understanding and testing of hypothesis.

Finally, chapter five was divided into summary of findings, recommendation and conclusion.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page------i

Approval Page------ii

Declaration------iii

Dedication------iv

Acknowledgement------v

Abstract------vi

Table of Contents------vii

CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION

1.1Background of the Study-----1

1.2Statement of General Problem----5

1.3Objective of the Study------6

1.4Research Questions------6

1.5Significance of the Study-----7

1.6Scope of the Study------8

1.7Definition of Terms------8

CHAPTER TWO – REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1Introduction------10

2.2Theoretical Framework-----11

2.3The Concept of National Development---14

2.4Perspective of elite formation in Nigeria---16

2.5Summary of the Chapter-----16

CHAPTER THREE – RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1Introduction------32

3.2Research Design------32

3.3Area of the Study------32

3.4Population of Study------33

3.5Sample size and Sampling Techniques---33

3.6Instrument for Data Collection----33

3.7Validity of the Instrument-----33

3.8Reliability of the Instrument----34

3.9Method of Data Collection-----34

3.10Method of Data Analysis-----34

CHAPTER FOUR – DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS

4.0Introduction------36

4.1Data Presentation and Analysis----36

4.2Characteristics of the Respondents---36

4.3Data Analysis------39

4.4Testing Hypothesis------46

4.5Summary of Findings------51

4.6Discussion of Findings-----52

CHAPTER FIVE – SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.0Introduction------54

5.1Summary------54

5.2Conclusion------57

5.3Recommendations------58

References ------61

Appendix------62

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

Presently, the crisis of development is the most seriousproblem facing Nigeria and Africa as a whole. This is because the country hasremained largely underdeveloped despite the presence ofhuge mineral and human resources. Several decadesafter the end of colonialism, most parts of Africa with Nigeria inclusive is stillfighting with problems such as high poverty rate, lack ofbasic infrastructural facilities in all sectors of theeconomy, unemployment, high mortality rate, political instabilityand insecurity of lives and property. For example,Nigeria the most populous African country, according tothe United Nations human development report (2005),out of 177 countries, ranked 158 in human developmentindex,165 in life expectancy at birth,121 in combinedprimary, secondary and tertiary gross enrolment and 155in GDP per capital. Recently, Suberu (2007) also hadsaid of Nigeria that “it earned around US$500 billion in oilrevenues since the 1970s, yet remains mired in poverty,unemployment, a bourgeoning domestic debt, infrastructuralsqualor, abysmal health and educational services,and attendant social frustration and unrest’’.

Against the background of Nigeria’s development crisis,emanated the debate on how to solve the crisis of developmentin Nigeria. The political elites constitute the majority of the stakeholders that can facilitate state development leading to resolution of any crisis of development. According to Wikipedia (2015), the political elite is a small group of people who control a disproportionate amount of wealth or political power. In general, political elite means the more powerful group of people. It can be otherwise described as a selected part of a group that issuperior to the rest in terms of ability or qualities or has more privilege than the rest.

Political elite are the most influential and prestigious stratum in a society. The elite are those persons who are recognized as outstanding leaders in a given field. Thus, there are political, religious, scientific, business, and artistic elite. Ekeh (1983)has defined elite as small minorities who play an exceptionally influential part in the affairs of society in specific fields.He furtherdescribed political elite as decision-makers whose power is not subject to control by any other body in the society. Nnoli (1981) maintains that political elite are those who have an influence over the fate of the society because of their superiority.The members of anpolitical elite group have important influence in shaping the values and attitudes held by their segment of society. Falola (2005) has described them as those who make decisions having major consequences, who are able to realize their will even if others resist, and who have the most of what there is to have-money, power and prestige. However, the term does not apply to any one person but refers to a plurality, a collectivity of persons, however small it may be. This identifiable collectivity has certain attributes and skills which give it not only a certain superiority but also power of decision-making and influencing others.

The term political elite may also be defined as a group of high stratum decision-makers in political culture or concrete political structure which monopolizes political power, influences major political policies and occupies all important posts of political command. The main duty of political elite to the public as a whole is to reconstruct society by attempting to mobilise and tap available resources and political energies. Their attack on economic backwardness, in order to achieve material advancement, is through change in institutions and attitudes. The political party or governmental apparatus serves for them as the central instrument for modernization.However, the elite class in Nigeria seems to assumed dimension that is unusual of realistic functions in development context. Analysis of contemporary situations in Nigeria reveals that the country political elite class has no consistent and significant linkage to its national exploit. The formation and conduct of Nigerian’s political elite group have not been translated into a source of national development, despite the fact well observed by American political scientists John Purcell(1974) that powerful initiatives from within the political elite groups is critically important for national development (Ojo, 2006). However, the researcher seeks to identify the relationship between the political elites and the development crises in Nigeria.

Southern Ijawwhose political elite are directly under study in this research work is a Local Government Area of Bayelsa State, Nigeria. Its headquarters are in the town of Oporoma (or Osokoma) in the north of the area at4°48′17″N 6°04′44″E. The area has a coastline of approximately 60 km on the Bight of Benin. It is the second largest Local Government in Nigeria (Landscape) after Toro Local Government of Bauchi State. The people and their language are known as Izon. It has Institutions like The Niger Delta University(NDU) and the states airport in Amassoma and Federal Polytechnic Ekowe in Ekowe, it is the home of Kolu United FC of Koluama II. the first democratic governor chief DiepreyeAlamieyeseigha (DSP) and the former deputy surveyor general/director for urban development in Bayelsa state capital Mr C.B Ingibina is also from the Southern Ijaw LGA. It has an area of 2,682 km² and a population of 319,413 at the 2006 census (Wikipedia, 2015).

1.2STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Almond (1960) has used the term ‘power elite’ for the political elite who monopolies power and rule the country. Blanda (2001) has called them ‘governing elite’, Marx, referred to them as ‘ruling class’, Riesman as ‘veto group’, and Floyd Hunter as ‘top leaders’. The Nigeria political elite class had little disposition to contemplate the positive use of elite advantage as strategic instrument for engineering national development. Nigeria has realized very little of her potentials because of in effective mobilization of these potentials by the political elites.

Today the people (masses) have limited access to education, lack of good drinking water and adequate medical care. Millions of Nigerians are said to be suffering from various deadly diseases. There is a prevalence of poor income and unemployment, street trading by children, hazardous reproductive behaviours. However, the researcher will analyze the development related crises in Nigeria considering the role of political elites(Ake, 1995).

1.3OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The general objective of this study is to examine the relationship between the political elites and development crisis in Nigeria while the following are the specific objectives:

To examine the relationship between the political elites and development crisis in Nigeria.
To identify the developmental challenges and crisis in Nigeria.
To examine the role of Nigeria political elites in the national development process

1.4RESEARCH QUESTIONS

What is the relationship between the political elites and development crisis in Nigeria?
What are the developmental challenges and crisis in Nigeria?
What are the roles of Nigeria political elites in the national development process?

1.5HYPOTHESES

HO: There is no significant relationship between the political elites and development crisis in Nigeria

HA: There is significant relationship between the political elites and development crisis in Nigeria

1.6SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The following are considered to be the significances of this study:

This research will be a useful guide for political elite in Nigeria in identifying their roles and actively participating in the process of national development using their political power as the development facilitation tool.
This study will educate the general public on how political influences of some small group of people in the society can be used in resolving the developmental challenges faced in the society.
This research will be a contribution to the body of literature in the area of political elite and development crisis in Nigeria, thereby constituting the empirical literature for future research in the subject area.

1.7SCOPE/LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

This study on political elites and development crises in Nigeria will cover the relationship between the political elites and process of development in Nigeria. It will also examine the role of political bigwigs in facilitation of developmental projects in Nigeria.

LIMITATION OF STUDY

Financial constraint- Insufficient fund tends to impede the efficiency of the researcher in sourcing for the relevant materials, literature or information and in the process of data collection (internet, questionnaire and interview).

Time constraint- The researcher will simultaneously engage in this study with other academic work. This consequently will cut down on the time devoted for the research work.

1.8DEFINITION OF TERMS

Political elite- political elite are a small group of people who control a disproportionate amount of wealth or political power. In general, political elite means the more powerful group of people within the political structure.

Development- the act or process of growing or causing something to grow or become larger or more advanced.

Infrastructure- the basic physical and organizational structures and facilities (e.g. buildings, roads, power supplies) needed for the operation of a society or enterprise.

REFERENCES

Ake C (1995) Democracy and Development in Africa, Spectrum BooksLimited; Ibadan.

Almond G, James C (1960). (eds.) The Politics Of Developing Area,Princeton University Press, Princeton

Blanda,W. (2001) The Struggle for development in Africa.Sanata Press. Lagos

Ekeh P (1983). Colonialism and Social Structure.Inaugural Lecture,University of Ibadan.

Falola T (2005). (ed), The Dark Webs: Perspectives on Colonialism inAfrica. Carolina Academic Press.

Nnoli O (1981). “Development/ Underdevelopment: Is Nigeria Developing?”in OkwudibaNnoli (ed) Path to Nigerian Development.CODERSIA, Senegal.

Ojo, E.O (2006) Challenges of Sustainable Democracy in Nigeria. Ibadan: John ArchivesAfrican Experiences” Ibadan J. Soc. Sci. (2)1

Suberu R (2007). ‘’Nigeria’s Muddled Elections ‘’ J. Democracy 18(4).

United Nations Development Programme (2005). International Cooperation at a Crossroads: Aid, trade and security in an equal world (Human Development Report) New York.

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter gives an insight into various studies conducted by outstanding researchers, as well as explained terminologies with regards to political elites and development crises in Nigeria. The chapter also gives a resume of the history and present status of the problem delineated by a concise review of previous studies into closely related problems.

2.2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This work adopts the ‘economy of affection’ and the ‘social exchange’ theories asexplicited by (Alchukwuma, 2007) in explaining the findings of the research. The theory isconsidered apt because it explains the formation, structure and modes of sustenanceof both formal and informal institutions and associations in contemporary Africa. Thetheory elaborates on how weaknesses of the state and formal institutions reinforcepeople’s confidence in informal institutions one of which being godfatherism.

Although the origin of godfatherism can be located in the history of Ibadan, itsreaffirmation is explainable through the seminal work of Lemarchand(1972). The use ofdespotic measures by the military regimes of Ibrahim Babangida and SaniAbacha toban many old politicians without following up with a proper restructuring of thepolity created a political class without any normative principle nor reliance on theelectorate for political ascendancy.

2.3 THE CONCEPT OF NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

National development is a process that never transpires outside of definite social contexts. The particular strength and lapses of certain development forces and structures inherent in state formation which development actors pursue is one option but elites overriding concern have a powerful influence, if not the determining factor on the course of national development. Development has in fact been theoretically linked with elite theory since the heyday of modernization ideology when it was assumed that suitably committed elites would hopefully be agents of modernization in less developed or backward countries once they had their reckoning with traditional elites.

The leaders and most of the active supporters of the Nigerian nationalist movement came from the ranks of those who had been most strongly affected by western education influences, and in particular from the western educated, English speaking minority (Coleman, 1958). The westernized elites were crucial factors in the awakening of racial and political consciousness. Therefore, the struggle for independence in Nigeria was driven by the elites who were assumed would hopefully transform the social, economic and political sectors to ensure sustainable development.

The spread of western education presaged the appearance of the elite that eventually influence the semi-literate masses. As remarked by Macauley, “education was the progenitor of self-government”. This is apt because, this class or group of people formulates national and transnational policies that enhance national development. The elites class through decision making steer other sectors of the society, hence they play greater role in national development. Thus, successful decision making, interpretation and discourse among the elite class is fundamental and crucial elements in national growth and development. In other words, power relations among the various elites reflected in the policy process in the context of the country development.

However, the elite class in Nigeria seems to assumed dimension that is unusual of realistic functions in development context. Analysis of contemporary situations in Nigeria reveals that the country elite class has no consistent and significant linkage to its national exploit. The formation and conduct of Nigerian’s elite group have not been translated into a source of national development, despite the fact well observed by American political scientists John Purcell(1974) that powerful initiatives from within the elite groups is critically important for national development (Frank,1991).

The Nigeria elite class had little disposition to contemplate the positive use of elite advantage as strategic instrument for engineering national development. Nigeria has realized very little of her potentials because of in effective mobilization of these potentials by the elites.

The depressing picture of Nigeria is worrisome. Based on this the study consider the following questions:

I. In Nigeria, who are the elites?

II. On what level does elites interact in Nigeria

III. What forum exists for this interaction?

IV. To what extent are the elite’s major barriers in development process in Nigeria?

In this paper, the terms ‘knowledge elite’, ‘technocrats’ and ‘bureaucratic elite’ will be used to refer to individuals whose ability to participate legitimately in the policy process is grounded mainly on their technical and professional credentials. However, some distinctions are worth mentioning. Knowledge elites are formed by those individuals whose intervention in the policy process is based mainly on their technical credentials. They can be either inside the public sector or state apparatus (e.g., policy experts who are public servants) or outside it (e.g., consultants and academics). Technocrats are those who hold top or national political managerial positions in the public service and status apparatus (e.g., a minister and vice-minister, a Central Bank governor, the chair of a regulatory agency) as a result of their technical abilities. In this regard, a technocrat is a person who has risen to a top political position, in this case a ministerial or a national policy-decision position, as a result of his professional career path. Bureaucratic elites are those public servants who exert their technical or administrative authority to inform policy decisions through their managerial positions(e.g., permanent secretary or national director).This distinction from the overall bureaucracy is relevant in the case of Nigeria (Marcelo, 2009), which lacks a bureaucracy in the Weberian sense . Political elites are those who have decision making power in the state resulting from their statutory or institutional position, or who have influence on policy decisions as a result of their status in the ruling coalition. Moreover, in contrast to knowledge-based elites, Marc (2008) argues that, given the various attempts to define elites in the literature, it is almost impossible to come out with a general and all-encompassing definition. Rather, what would be more appropriate is to consider the elements that constitute the concept, such as inequality, predominance and organization. In Marc’s words, ‘‘the first centers on a way of presenting the dichotomy of those with influence and those without, the best and the rest, or the rulers and the ruled. The latter on the other hand has a different focus, with its axis of analysis centred on forms of elite cohesion and the concentration of power’’. Although ministers can be considered essentially politicians, depending on their career path, they can also be technocrats. These terms are used interchangeably because there is a potential overlap between these definitions. For example, public servants with expertise in some policy areas and who consequently inform policy decisions can also be considered elite inside the bureaucracy. Technocrats provide a ‘‘knowledge input’’ to the policy process by participating at the policy design level (in their sector) and also a ‘‘political input’’ by participating in the decision-making level, for example, in the cabinet, influencing other decision-makers and also taking positions on policy issues. From the above elites as used here refer to political leaders at the national, state and federal levels.