Blog Discussion Group Nine
Blog post due at 11:55pm on April 3 and comment due at 11:55pm on April 6.
Nigeria
- If you were a member of a particular ethnic group in
- How have the frequent shifts from civilian to military rule and back again exacerbated the country’s many social and economic problems?
- Are political parties the best option for divided societies such as
For divided societies such as Nigeria, political parties are probably not the best option for government representation. In theory, political parties could be used to represent each region of the country individually. This would allow for equal representation and for everyone to have a voice in government. However, political parties in the past were divided up into the three ethnic groups: Hausa, Yoruba, and Igbo. While this seemed like a good idea, "parties were more attentive to the welfare of their ethnic groups than to the development of Nigeria as a whole" (Kesselmen, Kreiger, Joseph 525). Subsequently, the government would eventually fail because the parties could not come to a consensus on serious matters and because everyone would be too focused on their individual groups rather than the country as a whole. So, it would probably be more beneficial for Nigeria to split up representation in government differently. Instead of splitting by ethnicity, the people of the country could split up by region or even by choice based on individual values.
ReplyDelete
DeleteI 100% agree with your analysis of the party system largely failing due to ethno-religious differences which dominate the country's politics. However I disagree that a better alternative to party politics would be ethnic representation, regional representation, or individual values because that to me sounds like a continuation of the problem party politics face. And all those three solutions are often the basis for how parties were/are formed in Nigeria (and in many democracies abroad too?). Like your last suggestion of identifying based off of individual values is the ideal book example of how parties functions. But because many people derive their values from larger identities like religious groupings or ethnic cultural backgrounds it seems that people would fall into the same circles. Also there's the problem of uneven regional development of Nigeria that would put the North at a disadvantage to the South if governmental representation was based on regions. "at independence the south enjoyed the basis for a modern economy and exposure to democratic institutions, but the north remained largely agricultural and monarchical" (Kesselmen, Kreiger, Joseph 508).
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI completely agree with your argument that political parties would not be the best option for Nigeria. I also believe that if the different ethnic groups could focus more on Nigeria as a whole and the well being of the country then the ethical split wouldn't be such a terrible thing. However, as of right now, the ethical groups are working more as separate entities instead of working together to help the country, like you said.
DeleteI do not think that political parties are the best thing for a country like Nigeria. The biggest reason being that they rarely offer stability and for a country that has been unstable as Nigeria this adds to the problems. Political parties tend to look out for their own interests, this is especially true in the case of Nigeria because the parties are gonna be loyal to their own ethnic group instead of the whole country. This leads to the government not representing the interests of the people like they should.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, I think that Nigeria isn't able to offer much stability, so they wouldn't be able to look out for the country as a whole. They would only be able to look out for their own ethnic group, which I believe would lead to problems. I think that because the people of the country wouldn't feel like they are being represented the right way and that the government wouldn't have the interest of the people.
DeleteI agree with your comment because Nigeria instability cannot benefit from political parties since they are only interested in their ethnic groups. Therefore the country will continue their cycle of instability.
DeleteIts frustrating to answer these questions now having some brief/superficial understanding of Nigeria's pre-modern/pre-colonial history. Kesselmen, Kreiger, and Joseph describe several precolonial societies as having "democratic elements democratic elements that might have led to more open and participatory polities had they not been interrupted by colonialism" (502). They cite the Yoruba and Igbo communities which had "principles of accountability and representation" similar to representative governments, and democratic principles of transparency, accountability, and checks/balances (502). They continue and cited The Islamic Fulani Empire which "was a confederation in which the rulers, emirs, owed allegiance to the sultan, who was the temporal and spiritual head of the empire. The sultan’s powers, in turn, were limited by his duty to observe Islamic principles" (502). Although lacking explicit democratic character this Islamic empire did have a resemblance to constitutionalism in which the highest authority was subject to concrete collective beliefs documented/captured by Islamic jurisprudence. So on some level had colonialism not happened ethnic minorities in now modern Nigeria would have a completely different relationship to democratic government.
ReplyDeleteHowever British colonialism did happen. And according to Kesselman et. al. although in theory the British left Nigerian rulers "with the machinery of parliamentary democracy, they socialized the population to be passive subjects rather than responsive participants" (508). So in practice Nigeria's post-colonial understanding of democracy was closer to authoritarianism then true democracy. This was the basis for the disruptive establishment and collapses of civilian rule and the more frequent rule of their military. As a result of the exploitative and confusing relationships different ethnic groups had with colonial people generally perceived "the state as the realm where resources were plundered" (508). That is not a healthy relationship or foundation for any democracy to function. And so upon independence anticolonial rulers continued this tradition to use the state as an instrument of exploitation. (503) This explains the common practice of clientelism, corruption, and government oligarchy all at the expense of some unified national growth.
Colonial residue and Nigerian's continuation of exploitative severely impacted social and economic programs for the worse. Continuing an interventionist government Nigerian rulers had major control of the economy and formed unsustainable short sighted policies which largely benefited their respective ethnic/regional groups/elites (Big Men/clientism). Continuing horrendous colonial policies of production which favored elite profit over national progress the decline of agricultural production, increase of oil extraction, and focus on exportation are main contributors to Nigeria's suffering economy (510). In International Relations we learned about the "Resource Curse" which refers to resource rich countries which paradoxically suffer economically, democratically, and developmentally. Even though theoretically they have the capital and means to be the ideal for a liberal capitalist democracy they're on the far opposite end of the spectrum. This is a result of predatory crediting practices from the international community, domestic leaders agreeing to corruptive self-serving trade agreements, and natural resources are a volatile source of state revenue. So in the case of Nigeria which borrowed heavily from international money lending institutions and different country loans, it seemed safe considering their abundance in petroleum, but the price drop of oil left them with an enormous debt and made them not creditworthy.
I think that having political parties in Nigeria isn't a good thing because they wouldn't represent their individual people. Political parties show interest for themselves so if Nigeria had that form of government the country wouldn't be getting look out for as a whole. Instead the political party would only look after their ethnic group or regions. They should make a political party for each region that way each region would be looked after and eventually the country as a whole would be looked after.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on that political parties would make it difficult for Nigeria's individuals to have a voice of their own. It may better as a whole for Nigeria to be split up into several different ethno regions. This could make it difficult though because it would be very difficult for the individual regions to prosper after Nigeria's been around for so long. It would lose Nigeria's potential of a shared and organized community
DeleteAre political parties the best option for divided societies such as Nigeria, or are there more efficient channels through which citizens can express themselves and be governed.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, political parties are not the best options for Nigeria because of how divided their societies are. Political parties are controversial at best. They provide some sense of representation but mainly tend to leave a lot of people feeling as though they do not have a voice or place in the government. Nigeria has faced issues when it comes to parties only caring about the certain ethnic group they represent. This furthers a divide instead of allowing the nation to reconcile and heal together and therefore is not the best solution. A more efficient solution could be additional representation of all ethnic groups initially and have leaders speak for their people as a unit instead of just for their best interest.
I dont believe political parties are the best options for a country like Nigeria. In a country were there are so many ethnic groups and religions political parties can be an issue. Political parties normally have specific goals to go against competitors and religion many times stay out of that. I dont think the people of Nigeria would feel represented, at least the majority that is. Something like this could cause a bigger division. Not sure if it would be the best solution would be to have a representative for these different religions within the government to make sure everyone has a voice., giving recognition to all religions and ethnic groups.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your argument that political parties are not the best for a country like Nigeria. This is because of the multitude of different ethnic and religious groups. I also like your point about how parties having specific goals to reach. Political parties are also very controversial and could lead to more division within the country. Another thing that could lead to more divide is the fact that people may feel like they are not getting enough representation.
DeleteI think the main problem is like you mentioned, people wont feel represented. Because of the hundreds of ethnic groups and tribes it would be impossible to have them all heard, and i am sure too many of them have very opposite opinions.
DeleteI do not believe that political parties are the best option for Nigeria. As a whole, Nigeria is very disjointed and the role of political parties is to sway the government in a way that is only benefits the individuals or groups who share the same interests and beliefs. With so many different groups of people in Nigeria this is not a good idea as I believe it will only cause a greater divide, especially since it has been like that for such a long time.
ReplyDeleteI think Nigeria's transitions from military to civilian rule have made it difficult for the civilians to come to a conclusion on how to thrive consistently. It's resulted in Nigeria becoming very disjointed and disorganized. military rule makes the country become way too regimented and forceful. losing military rule makes it easier for citizens to function more freely. but becoming too free or too regimented makes it difficult to function. Nigeria depends on the military because without them, they cannot function. They need the military to handle checks and balances. Nigeria also needs the military to prevent major corruption and violence breakouts.
ReplyDelete