NATIONAL INTEREST, SECURITY AND DEVELOPMENT: THE ROLE OF TRADITIONAL RULERS IN MITIGATING NON-STATE SECURITY THREATS IN NIGERIA
by
Siyan Oyeweso
It gives me great pleasure to stand before this distinguished gathering
today to share my thoughts on this very important theme and I wish to warmly thank the organizers of this event for counting me
worthy to deliver this keynote address to a distinguished audience of royal
fathers and important dignitaries in our society. I do hope it would be a worthwhile experience
for all of us.
As an
intellectual, I have been deeply involved in the never-ending consideration of
what is the right thing for my country to do to remain healthy, strong and
virile. I am therefore standing before you today as a patriot, and as a firm
believer in the health and vitality of my country. More significantly, as a
historian, I must say that my interest in this topic has convinced me that
there is no more auspicious time than now to address the problems confronting
our nation and its people. Thinking about Nigeria’s national interest,
development and security is the essence of what it means for our dear country
to be a free, progressive and independent nation. Unfortunately, we now live in
an age when every nation’s national security interests are being compromised by
a rash of non-state or irregular threats. This unfortunate scenario underscores
the significance and timely nature of this important retreat.
In the last
decade and a half, non-state security threats have become regular features of
the Nigeria state. Right now, in the second decade of the 21st
century, we have a Nigerian federation, whose component units- thirty six
states and a Federal Capital Territory- are daily been buffeted by the
nefarious activities of those whose interests are antithetical to our national
interests. Unfortunately, the blood-stained pages of the nation’s history have
not deterred these enemies of progress. This has become a cause for concern.
Merciless killings, vendettas, violence, arson, bloody clashes, kidnappings,
squabbles, political anarchy, threats and counter-threats, blackmail,
destruction of pipelines and bombings have multiplied exponentially. All of
these have triggered both local and international outrage. More than at any
other time since the country’s independence in 1960, Nigeria now seems to be at a
historical turning point. From Abuja to Bauchi,
from Yenagoa to Kaduna and from Lagos
to Kano it is
the same story of horror and confusion. The activities of non-state actors
appear to be the most ingenious by-product of years of disaffection and
national distrust. This has in other times been referred to as the National
Question. For those of us who have studied the social and political terrain, it
is easy to come to an early conclusion that the national architecture of Nigeria has
played a significant role in this development. We must therefore take heed to
understand not only the nation but its component parts. That may be the
beginning of a more informed approach to solving our problems.
Let me state from
the outset that this discourse on non state security threats will pay special
attention to the unique politico-cultural milieu of Nigeria rather than locate
the problem solely within the global context. This paper will therefore raise four
inter-related issues: What are non-state security threats? What are the
implications of these for our National Interest? What are the strategic tools
that can be used to confront these non state security threats? Finally, what
are the specific roles that are expected of our traditional rulers in other to
arrest what appears to be Nigeria’s gradual descent into anarchy?
Conceptual Analysis and Clarifications
Every nation
generates its own momentum. Nigeria
is a very complex society, which has generated a momentum of immense
proportions. No one who has studiously followed the story of Nigeria in the
contemporary period can be left in any doubt as to the important nature of
non-state security threats and non-state actors in the life of the Nigerian
nation and its peoples. What are non-state security threats and what are
non-state actors? Why should these be considered as being important in the
present life of our nation? How capable are non-state actors of constituting
non-state security threats in a well-armed, rich and diverse country like Nigeria? These
questions are valid and significant as they allow us to understand what we are
here to tackle. Our first task here is to lucidly and cogently explain what we
mean by non-state security threats and non state actors.
What are non-state security threats?
These are
irregular security threats from individuals or groups (rather than from states)
. These manifest in the forms the threats of violence and actual violence,
criminality and terrorism emanating from non-state actors. We must quickly
point out, however, that not all non-state actors cause deep problems for their
states even though all of them are capable of influencing decisions at various
levels or periods of time. These non state actors are loosely defined as entities
not belonging to or existing as established structures or institutions of state
but have sufficient power or influence to cause change in or damage to
political, social and even economic situation in a state or country.
What are non-state actors?
Non-state actors can be classified into the following:
- Non-Governmental Organizations, also known as Civil Society Organizations such as the Campaign for Democracy etc
- Multinational Corporations such as the Shell Petroleum Company etc
- Religious Groups such as the Catholic Church, Ansar-ur-Deen etc
- Diaspora Communities such as Home town associations outside their immediate communities
- Violent non-state actors such as armed groups, terrorist organizations, ethnic militia groups and criminal gangs such as the Mafia etc
Of all the
non-state actors that we have specified above, we are more interested in
category ‘e’- violent non-state actors such as terrorist organizations, budding
ethnic and militia groups. Today, no part of the country is immune from the
activities and depredations of this formidable group. These have been
responsible for the bombings, kidnappings, robbery, bunkering, pipeline
vandalism and hard drug syndicates.
What then is the National Interest?
The generally
acceptable view is that the national interest of any nation is a manifestation
of the core values, objectives and philosophy underlying the actions of a state
or those of the leaders. For centuries, every state or nation has pursued its
national interest according to the circumstances of the time. Any serious
nation state will therefore be ready at any time to defend its perceived
national interest. Thus, despite the profound changes which have occurred in
the world, and in this country, it still remains true that a nation confronted
with the hostile aspirations of other nations or even groups within the nation
itself has “one prime obligation - to take care of its own interests. The
moral justification for this prime duty of all nations- for it is not only a
moral right but also a moral obligation- arises from the fact that if this
particular nation does not take care of its interests, nobody else will. Hence,
any counsel that we ought not to subordinate our interest to some standard or
basic standard is unworthy of a nation great in human civilization. A nation
which would take that counsel and act consistently on it would commit suicide
and become prey and victim of other nations which know how to take care of
their interests.” (Pham, 2008:259; Morgenthau, 1952:4).
Interestingly,
the national interests of Africa’s most populous nation are clearly spelt out
in the preamble to the Nigerian constitution. These include the building of an
egalitarian, democratic, secure, self reliant, fair and just society where all
of us enjoy the basic freedoms under democratic governance. All these have security and developmental
implications. But how well have we vigorously pursed these interests to achieve
even development and also obviate the anger against the state by unemployed
youths and other marginalized elements in our society?
The Nigerian State and Society
Nigeria was a creation of British colonialism. But the apparent failure of Nigeria to
emulate British Welfarism has created immense problems for the nation and its
people. British imperialism had promoted the development of a variant of
capitalism in the country. Unfortunately, Nigeria suffered, not only from the
development of capitalism, but also from the backwardness of that development
(Williams, 1980:11). This has posed problems to the social and economic
structures of the Nigerian society. These concerns have been at the centre of
the problems confronting the Nigerian nation. Since the nation’s independence
in 1960, Nigeria
has been immersed in the task which pre-occupies most developing states,
seeking to create a popular sense of nationalism for the varied ethnic groups
in the country (Hatch, 1970:9). During the 1970s, the Nigerian state virtually took
over total control of the national economy, this resulted in gross
inefficiency, wastage, acute corruption and fierce contests over control of the
national state apparatus by competing interest and ethnic groups. Indeed, from
the 1970s the federal government became the major arena of conflict among major
interest groups. This defined the framework of relations and economic and
social processes in the country. This confirms the position of Maynard Keynes
(1936) in his assertion that “The outstanding faults of the economic society in
which we live are its failure to provide for full employment and its arbitrary
and inequitable distribution of wealth and incomes.” A negation of this
position has created a more complex pattern of conflicts in this country. It
has also provided a focus for popular grievances as people began to challenge
vociferously the system of income distribution and the distribution of
political power in the country. This has witnessed an upsurge in formidable
ethnic and developmental problems. The inability of the ruling class to
articulate the grievances of the different segments of the Nigeria society
has brought into existence self-help groups that have sought to solve their
problems in diverse ways.
The federal
structure, which Nigeria practices reflected and has continued to reflect the
wide cultural and political differences between the country’s ethno-linguistic
groups. In other words, we have continued to experience and sometimes emphasise
our cultural and linguistic differences. We have also continued t to uphold our
local systems of authority and through that strengthen indigenous forms of
leadership and authority. In that sense, it is most appropriate that we
continue to engage with our traditional institutions to partner with us in our
search for security, progress and development.
A major question
arising from the foregoing therefore is the issue of security. Are security
issues, national interest and economic well-being mutually exclusive? The unity
of the three factors has been amplified. The issue of security has moved beyond
the arming of the police and the armed services. It has widened to include
social and economic security. According to a prominent historian, Akinjide
Osuntokun, “Associated with the economic well-being of Nigeria is the question
of security. Every country of the world sees national security as a national
interest, Nigeria
is not different, security and peace should not be confused with absence of
war. Security has many dimensions.” (Osuntokun, 2008:6, 9). He contends
further:
…ensuring
our economic and financial security is a precondition for securing our national
interest of physical security within our own borders and having the ability to
overawe our adversaries whenever and if ever they manifest. The strategy of
attainment of this… is that a good economic base has repercussion for our defence
and security and for individual contentment of our people and for political
stability and above all for democratic governance predicated on the happiness
of the greatest number of our people whose interests of economic stability
through worthwhile employment are necessary for national security. If all
things go well with our strategy of securing our national interest then we will
be on our way to building a virile and contented nation.
It follows
therefore that we must begin to deploy all manner of tools to secure our
national interest and physical security within our borders. Thus, from the
foregoing, it is obvious that there is the need to build a community of
interests between individual interests and national interests, so that citizens
can develop a sense of nationalism that is pivotal for building a virile, safe
and secure Nigerian nation.
Non-State Actors and Nigeria’s Descent into Anarchy
Any survey of
irregular or non-state threats in Africa must
confront the diverse and complex nature of conflict and security problems on
the continent (Sage, n.d). With the ‘war on terrorism’ proclaimed by the United
States of America and more or less every major country, it is now useful to
consider the current phenomenon in the light of the social stresses and
ruptures accompanying the age of globalization. The declining autonomy of
nation states and the rise of shifting non-state coalitions have provided a new
terrain of opportunity for the disaffected (Todd et al, 2003:11).
Unfortunately,
in the case of the emerging threats from non-state actors in Nigeria, we have
not taken time to survey the threats adequately and how to combat them. Both
the ruling and opposition parties have exchanged accusations over the
activities of non-state actors in Nigeria’s descent into anarchy. But
rather than leading us to an informed conclusion, we have witnessed a cacophony
of noises that has more or less become ‘a loud sounding nothing.’ For about ten
years continuously now, the sensibility of every Nigerian has been assaulted by
the bloodshed and mayhem in Jos. We have constantly been fed a gory menu of
pictures of butchered families, burnt villages, killings and counter killings.
Almost every community in Jos- Barkin Ladi Local Government Area, Dogon Karfe,
Dutse Uku, Chobe, Kebong,, Faringada, Gad-Biu and several other areas in
Plateau State have witnessed spirals of violence unleashed by gangs belonging either
to one ethnic group or a particular religious sect. The Tiv-Jukun crisis also starred
us in the face. In Taraba State, fierce war erupted in Takum and spilled in
other parts of Southern Taraba in 1997 and lasted for a decade. From 1997 to
1999, the Jukun speaking people took up arms to engage the Kuteb. From 2001 to
2003, it was the Tiv against the Jukun and from 2005 to 2006, it was Kuteb
versus the Tiv. Aguleri and Umuleri in Eastern Nigeria
came out of the East. The Niger Delta has its MEND and other militia groups.
MASSOB developed in the East, and the West contributed its OPC in addition to
its own share of violence and disagreements. In recent times, however, Boko
Haram from the North-East appears to be drawing attention to how non-state
actors can hold a nation to ransom. We are all familiar with the activities of
Boko Haram for it to delay us here. All we can say is that the organization has
now brought it forcefully to us the need to begin to chart a new path to
dealing with issues, most especially matters concerning non-state actors.
We must not
forget the role of godfathers as non-state security threats. Such godfathers
rely on patron-client ties that provide much of the social fabric for informal
and party politics. The role of godfathers- political or otherwise- in the
emerging security threats has also been intractable. The networks created in
the process of this patron-client relationship are so effective that powerful
individuals have found it useful in mobilizing support from below. In any case,
this kind of broader patterns of political mobilization and alignment that
build on clientilist networks have often followed ethnic lines (Forrest, 1995:
5-6). The murky waters of Nigerian politics aptly illustrate how non-state
actors have impeded national growth and development. The experiences of former
Governors Ngige and Ladoja succinctly capture the power, influence and even the
unpardonable violence that political
godfathers could unleash on perceived enemies and innocent citizens. As a
matter of fact, in the acrimony that attended the bickering in Anambra State, the
Government House and Governor’s Lodge were burnt. Of course, the rebuilding of
such edifices would be done with the taxpayer’s money that could have gone to
other good things such as road construction and provision of pipe borne water.
The Common Interest of Communities
The Nigerian
nation is made of communities. The welfare of the nation is therefore the
welfare of its component parts. Our main argument here is that since the safety
of Nigeria is directly linked to the well-being of the local communities
everywhere, the onus is on the Nigerian state to ensure the empowerment of
those at the grassroots who are closer to these communities. Although the
common interests of our local areas revolve around human security and
developmental issues, two important structures are recognized as being central
to these mandates. These are the system of local government, which
constitutionally provides for democratically elected local government, and the
machinery for traditional governance in every local government area. The person
authorized by law to preside over the area is the chairman of the Council. In
that position, he or she is to ensure the protection of the common interests of
communities making up the council and also encourage the continued survival of
the cultural values and traditional association of the communities. The
practical demonstration of this constitutional provision is the synergy created
by the local councils and our traditional rulers on the one hand and between
the local areas and the centre on the other. The existing cooperation is now
being fine-tuned by helping to re-focus the energy and roles of the traditional
institutions at the local communities in the service of the fatherland. This is
because the proper administration of local levels increases the political
integration of groups into the larger interest of the nation. A more inclusive
administration of the country will therefore place premium on the relevance of
traditional rulers to modern governance. Thus, it is important that traditional
rulers are involved in policy-making on distribution of resources, security and
the general well-being of their communities. Indeed, Nigeria must urgently
explore the possibility of a more imaginative adaptation of indigenous
political power structures to the processes of combating non-state security
threats bedeviling this country.
The State and the Traditional Institutions
Since the period
of colonial rule, the state has somewhat rolled back the influences and power
of our traditional institutions. The vicissitudes of traditional authority
under colonialism has been well-covered in the literature. Ethnic identities
were also to a large extent created, widened, and shaped under colonial rule.
Villages, towns and communities were incorporated into larger administrative
units and a wider political space (Forrest, 1995:20). In spite of all these
manipulations and erosion of traditional authorities in every nook and crannies
of Nigeria, the Nigerian traditional chieftaincy institution managed to survive
both the constricting forces of colonialism and the so-called modernization
programmes of the post-independence era. This has revealed that these
indigenous institutions are capable of redoubling their capacities in the face
of emerging challenges. Traditional institutions are agencies and custodians of
traditional practices, which include the customary regulatory bodies that
moderate the ordinary daily life of a particular community (Mohammed, 2006:1).
In a context of emerging non-state threats, there is the need to re-engage
grassroots structures to confront the extraordinary and complex challenges
facing the African continent. There is no question in my mind that the time to
do so is now.
Prof. Olufemi
Vaughan in his book entitled Nigerian
Chiefs: Traditional Power in Modern Politics, 1890s-1990s (2000:1) has
adumbrated the need for this inclusiveness:
…the
post-colonial state project requires- indeed, cannot avoid- an imaginative
integration of antecedent structures with the agencies of the modern state. The
Yoruba experience exemplifies the dynamism of chieftaincy structures in modern
Nigerian politics. Since the imposition of colonial rule in the late nineteenth
century, these structures have demonstrated remarkable adaptability as
important institutions of governance. Chieftaincy structures are continuously
regenerated in rapidly shifting sociopolitical and economic contexts.
The resilience
and importance of these chieftaincy structures has thus permitted some fundamental
conclusions. First, we must continue to advance and promote the status and
significance of our traditional rulers as veritable expressions of our communal
and national aspirations. Second, that this institution should become central
to the development of imaginative strategies to combat the problems of emerging
non-state security threats in the country. Third, that the chieftaincy
structure must be empowered and retained as tools and critical mediums of
national development, inter-group relations and communal aspirations.
What Does the Activities of Non-State Actors Signpost?
There is no
doubt that the problems posed by the activities of non-state actors calls for a
more effective and a more inclusive system of administration. This becomes more
significant when we realize the potentially debilitating effects of non-state
security threats for the country and its peoples. There are both short term and
long term effects of the activities of non-state actors in Nigeria’s move
towards anarchy. First, grounds are being created for mindless massacres. As
they say in physics, for every action there is a reaction. Any act of
bestiality almost immediately results in reprisals. This is not good for us.
But there is a more insidious problem. This has been put more aptly by Wale
Sokunbi in her piece entitled “For Peace in Jos’ (Daily Sun, September 14,
2011:19):
Killing
and bloodletting have become such daily fare that we must begin to genuinely
fear for the thinking and reasoning of the younger generation of Nigerians who
are growing up witnessing such bloodcurdling occurrences in part of their
normal lives. Psychologists and sociologists are in a better position to
analyze how these horrendous killings can affect the thinking and behaviour of
impressionable youngsters.
This, of course
can be stretched to the activities of other non-state actors in other parts of
the federation. What the columnists, however, neglected to say is that apart
from psychologists and sociologists, our royal fathers must begin to understand
that they have a big role to play in stemming the tide of anarchic activities
developing in their domains. After all, budding criminal groups come from
specific locations. They do not drop from the sky. We are also witnessing a
crisis that consumes people irrespective of age, status, colour or creed. Once
it starts, everyone becomes part of the collateral damage. Finally, we may find
ourselves fighting a war we neither initiated nor understood. We should
therefore begin to spread our tentacles around our communities so as to be on
top of things in every situation.
The Traditional Institution and Security
The emerging
breeds of non-state actors appear to take optimum advantage of their knowledge
of the local terrain. That has made it imperative that those who are the
leaders of such localities partner with the government and the people to combat
various threats posed by these violent non-state actors. Although the 1999
Constitution does not define the role of traditional rulers, this is now being
addressed and redressed in various ways. According to Blench et al, (2006:1) : “It
has been observed that in parts of Nigeria, because traditional rulers’ (sic)
long established and the respect in which they are held makes them more
effective in conflict resolution than “official” mechanisms. They are also able
to take pre-emptive action through their familiarity with the different
sections of the community where the government has been observed to be
reactive. Strident calls have therefore been made for the inclusion of traditional
rulers in the strategies to combat the threat from non-state actors. The
reasons for these are daily becoming obvious. According to Professor Olu
Obafemi, the Director of Research, National Institute for Policy and Strategic
Studies (NIPSS):
In Nigeria, traditional rulers and local government chairmen are the
closest to the people. The traditional rulers, in particular, are very
important to their communities. They are respected with awe and are believed to
be divine. traditional rulers are ordained by God to bring peace and cohesion
to their various communities.
Prof. Obafemi’s
position was re-echoed by the Wazirin Katsina in his paper entitled "An
Overview of the Role of Traditional Rulers in the Maintenance of Peace and
Security in Nigeria.’’ The author is of the view that traditional rulers need
to be part of any security system in the country because their involvement in
conflict management in their areas of jurisdiction would contribute positively
in tackling the security challenges in rural communities and the country as a
whole.
Perhaps, in
realization of the importance of the traditional institution to the safety and
security of this country, a Bill for an Act to establish the National Council
of Traditional Rulers has been presented to the Nigerian Senate. The bill,
which has passed its second reading, is designed to effectively and
constitutionally incorporate our traditional rulers into modern governance in
diverse ways. The sponsor of the Bill Senator Abdullahi Adamu (PDP- Nasarawa)
was of the opinion that the time was ripe for our traditional rulers to be
accorded specific roles in the 1999 Constitution. He affirmed: “There is no
doubt that the isolation of the traditional institution from our democratic
governance has the dangerous tendency to distort and render it
incomplete." He concluded that "Grassroots peace, security, good
governance and national unity require that we integrate the traditional
institution with political leadership in our march to modern development.”
Speaking in the same vein, the Deputy Senate President, Ike Ekweremadu (PDP-
Enugu) urged the traditional rulers to partner with government and security
agencies to tackle the current challenges facing Nigeria. He remonstrated: “Our
traditional rulers should ensure that they cooperate with government and
security agencies to unmask those behind kidnappings and the Boko Haram terror
in the country.''
The Strategic Way Forward
We must now
begin to highlight a number of new and innovative tools that can be used to
confront these security challenges. Our focus should move away from the federal
level to the local government levels. Local government councils constitute the
political and administrative structures at the grassroots level. Their
compositions are often made to reflect the diversities of each locality and in
order to promote a sense of belonging and loyalty among the people (Afolabi,
1997: 97).
A major question
we must now address is ‘what are the prospects of winning the war against non
state security threats?’ Both in the political and social terrains, there is
the need to create awareness among those that are involved in these
unconscionable acts on the impact, not only on the victims, but also on their
own immediate families, children and communities, both now and in the future.
Our traditional rulers in their own rights must be fathers, sociologists and
psychologists- all rolled into one. One cannot but agree with Prof. Adele
Jinadu’s (2011) well thought-out position that as leaders, we need to “inspire
and galvanize the peoples of Nigeria into political and social action in a
public spirited collective effort at nurturing and deepening democracy, and
achieving sustainable development and human security in the country.” Our
traditional rulers are in the best position to help us achieve this.
But how do we
begin to handle the issue of religion, a vehicle seemingly being used in the
contemporary period to cause anarchy and mayhem? M.O.A Abdul in his 1986
inaugural lecture at the University
of Ibadan (pp.4-7) has
projected what we should all reinforce. According to him:
Throughout
history, religion has been abused and misunderstood; some people use it as a
means of exploitation and suppression, as a pretext for prejudice and
persecution. Other people use it as a source of power and domination over the
elite and masses alike… When the purpose of true religion is carefully
examined, it will be found that religion satisfies the spiritual and moderate
material needs of man. It unties his psychological knots and complexes,
sublimates his instincts and aspirations, and disciplines his desires and the
whole course of his life. It improves his knowledge of God- the Highest Truth
in the universe, and of his own self. It teaches him about the secrets of life
and the nature of man and how to treat these secrets. It also teaches about
good and evil, about right and wrong; it purifies the soul of evils, clears the
mind of doubts, strengthens character, and corrects the thinking and
convictions of man. All these can be achieved only when man faithfully observes
the spiritual duties and physical regulations introduced by religion. True
religion educates man and trains him in hope and patience, in truthfulness and
honesty, in love for the right and good, in courage and endurance, all of which
are required for the mastery of the great art of living.
Traditional
rulers as the fathers of the people and as the custodians of the religions of
their people are in a better way to manage this mandate.
Your
Excellencies, distinguished royal fathers and other guests, the culture of
violence currently being unleashed on the country are to say the least, very
barbaric and ignominious. It must not be allowed to become a national ethos.
The aim of all of us now should be how to build a strong and virile nation on
the foundations of our tried and trusted cultural and traditional values. Our growing
population of young men and women are in dire need of the much-needed adult,
mature and focused supervision. Our royal fathers should provide this help and
direction now! I must end this by affirming what has become our mantra- Unity
and Faith; Peace and Progress. These are non-negotiable. National unity is our
core national interest. It is in the interest of all of us to achieve peace,
security, sustainable and even development. There should be no option between
what is in our best interest as a people and what is good for individuals and
our diverse ethnic groups. Let us together build and nurture a country that we
can all be proud of. We must succeed so that all our brothers and sisters at
home and in the Diaspora can point to us as a success story.
God bless Nigeria
References:
Adele Jinadu, “Federalism,
Democracy, Development and Security: Traditional Rulers as transformative
Leaders”. Keynote Address, prepared for the South-South Monarchs Forum 2011 Annual
Retreat, on the theme, Democracy, National Unity and National Security: The
Roles of Traditional Rulers in the Maintenance of Grassroot Security,
Presidential Hotel, Port Harcourt,
28-30 November 2011
Akinjide
Osuntokun. 2008. “Evolution of Dynamic National Interests: Strategies for the
Nigerian nation.” Paper presented at the Institute of Strategic
Management Annual General Conference on 28th
of March 2008.
Aliyu Mohammed,
Lt. gen. 2006. “Chieftaincy and Security in Nigeria ; The Role of Traditional
Institutions.” In Abdalla Uba Adamu 9ed). Chieftaincy
and Security in Nigeria,
Past, Present, and Future. Proceedings of the National Conference on
Chieftaincy and security in Nigeria Organized by the Kano State Emirate Council
to commemorate the 40th anniversary of His Royal Highness, the Emir
of Kano, Alhaji Ado Bayero.
Andre Le Sage,
“Non State Security Threats in Africa : Challenges for U.S. Engagement. Available at: http://www.ndu.edu/press/nonstate-security-threats-africa.html
Dele Afolabi (ed)
Issues and Challenges in Local Government
in a period of Transition. Ogbomoso, Department of General Studies,
LAUTECH, pp. 97-106.
Gavin Williams. 1980. State and
Society in Nigeria,
Idanre, Afrografika.
Hans J.
Morgenthau. 1952. “What Is the National Interest of the United States? Annals of the American Academy
of Political and Social Science, vol. 282, no. 1 (1952).
J. Peter Pham.
2008. “What Is in the National Interest? Hans Morgenthau’s Realist Vision and
American Foreign Policy” American Foreign
Policy Interests, 30: 256-265.
John Hatch.1970. Nigeria: A History, London, Secker & Warburg.
John Maynard
Keynes. 1936. The General Theory of Employment,
Interest and Money. London,
Macmillan.
M.O.A. Abdul.
1986. “Religious Challenges of National Development” Inaugural Lecture.
Olufemi Vaughan.
2000. Nigerian Chiefs: Traditional Power
in Modern Politics, 1890s-1990s. New York,
University of Rochester Press.
Oyeweso, Siyan (2007). “Through
the Changing Scenes: The Role of Traditional Rulers in the Emerging Democratic
Order.” Public Lecture delivered at 2006 Annual Conference of Traditional
Rulers of Lagos State.
Oyeweso, Siyan (2008).
Obstacles and Challenges to Nigeria’s Democratic Process. Lagos: Lagos Forum.
Paul Todd &
Jonathan Bloch.2003. Global Intelligence:
The World’s Secret services Today. Dhaka,
The University Press Ltd.
Roger Blench,
Selbut Longtau, Umar Hassan and Martin Walsh. 2006. The Role of traditional Rulers in Conflict Prevention and Mediation in Nigeria.
Prepared for DFID, 09 November 2006.
Tom Forrest.
1995. Politics and Economic Development in Nigeria. Boulder, Westview Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment