International Journal Advances in Social Science and Humanities
Available online at: www.ijassh.com
RESEARCH ARTICLE
National Intellectual Corps and the Political System Development in
Nigeria
Iwara Eno Iwara*
Lead City University, Ibadan
*Corresponding Author: E-mail:[email protected]
Abstract
This paper addresses itself to the deficit of intellectual input, relative to political development in Nigeria, and points out the need for intellectual recipe for political system transformation. In view of the usual temptation of some writers, to use the notions of „system of government‟ and „political system‟ interchangeably as if they mean the same thing, the paper analytically distinguishes both. The paper argues that Nigeria‟s epistemic capital is fundamental to addressing the persistent challenges of political development in the country. To this end, the paper suggests a coherent national intellectualist contribution in strengthening the principles and ideals of government, based on the peculiarity of Nigeria‟s environment, and the lessons drawn from the experience of Saemual Undong elite movement in South Korea.
Keywords:Corps, Development, Intellectual, National, Political System.
Introduction
Nigeria is endowed with both human and material resources such as the intellectual elite, and fiscal resources like mineral deposits, yet the country has largely failed to transmute into visible socio-political and socio-economic growth and development, due to several missing factors, including the lack of a coherent and assertive intellectual national system [1]. The Nigerian leaders‟ dream of the country becoming one of the world‟s greatest twenty economies in 2020 is already showing elusive manifestations, as its authoritarian political system does not really support the dream. The framework of politics and the stability of political institutions are not giving appropriate direction, and are showing lack of will. Several occurrences have been adduced to the inability of politics to deliver development in Nigeria.
The first is that the operation of political parties is revealing several unreasonable tendencies like the self interest of party leaders, clientelism, patrimonialism and prebendalism, among others. The second is that, issues-based politics is yet to take roots, coupled with the impunity, threats to peace and political assassinations and kidnapping that are on the increase. This is in addition to the high rate of corruption, and the lack of political consensus, which does not allow unity of purpose
and moral high ground of leaders to deal with national challenges. Nigerians are already of the opinion that the presidential system as operated in Nigeria makes the president of the country too powerful for the country to bear, and that the principles and ideals of government are not yielding appreciable results. The National Assembly is also seen to be very expensive in operation, and that the Judiciary lacks the independence to deliver justice.
ongoing costly presidential system and its authoritarian mode of operation, and are yearning for change.
The change that the people are asking for, in the actual fact, does not imply in rational terms, neither the removal of President Jonathan and replacing him with President Buhari, nor the removal of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and replacing it with the All Progressive Congress (APC). Rather, the change is that of the political system, so that the principles, ideals and limitations, which the political system could offer, would deliver development. Agbi [2] argued that once a nation gets its political system right, all other good things merely follow. He quoted Dr Kwame Nkruma, as stating that, “seek ye first political Kingdom and all others will be added unto it”. Following this axiom is the fact that the present political system decay in Nigeria requires transformation, so that other sectors, such as the economy, can receive a quantum leap.
The economy has also deteriorated to the extent that, as at the first half of the year 2015, about half of the thirty-six States of the Nigerian federation have been unable to pay their workers‟ salaries for (between four to eight) months. The exchange rate has risen to about #230 per dollar. This means the political system, which is the axis on which the economic sector of the State depends; given Nkrumah‟s assertion, has problems. Challenges, such as the overblown National Assembly, the excessive power of the President, fiscal federalism, and so on, are all systemic challenges, requiring urgent attention. The practice in some places of the world is that when national challenges of these types occur, the intellectuals or the intelligentsia that are known to have the intellectual capacity to diagnose the challenges through research, rise to proffer therapy [3]. This is contrary to the practice in Africa where the mentality is that solutions to problems must come from the West or America. Unfortunately in Nigeria, the country has political leaders like other countries of Africa who are agents of imperialism in view of their insistence that solutions for Nigeria‟s problems must come from abroad or that foreign models have the answers to the problems of the continent. As argued by Temu [4].
African underdevelopment will be resolved not by allowing further capitalist penetration but by the process of radical break with the international capitalist system which has been the principal agency of underdevelopment of Africa over the past five centuries.
Many Nigerian intellectuals may argue that all along, they have been engaging in the critical production of research materials to address national challenges, but have not been utilized by the Country‟s administrators. However, this gap in our national life has normally not been challenged openly, and its implications are usually ignored and the truth is hidden from the public. It is becoming more and more necessary for us to look at the gap between intellectualism and national development in Nigeria. There are at least two basic preliminary arguments in the extant literature, with regard to this gap. The first blames it on the lack of intellectual coherence and assertion of African scholars, and the second, and more fundamental, is the argument that the gap is not unconnected with the postcolonial character of the State in Africa [5] Whatever be the case, it does appear that the arguments over the above mentioned gap are linked, and constitute a justification for this work.
What is so far clear is that Nigeria is politically underdeveloped, under the present political system and the system of government. It is also clear that there is a disconnect between the corps of intellectuals in Nigeria, and the quest for political development in the country. Thus, this paper seeks to examine how the intellectual corps in Nigeria can facilitate the development of a political system in the country, using the lessons from the South Korean intellectuals‟ movement. The South Korean intellectuals‟ movement, working under the auspices of Saemual Undong, made overwhelming success in rural development in South Korea (otherwise known as Republic of Korea). It can also be recalled that the Latin American radical intellectuals, working under the Economic Commission for Latin America in the 1950s, also achieved a similar transformation. In both cases, the intellectuals worked differently from the philosophy of Western capitalism, which holds that it was the prevalence of tradition and anti-capitalist attitude that were the causes of underdevelopment in non-Western societies. Rather, the radical intellectuals were spurred by the radical rethinking that underdevelopment could be tackled using a set of critical renunciation of analyses, propositions and policy formulations that address domestic underdevelopment [6,7].
of political institutions, expand competitive political space, and increase the efficiency of government; and (iii) that the experience of South Korea provides useful lessons for Nigeria.
The work adopts the descriptive analysis approach for the discourse, in view of the author‟s interest to make contribution to political theory. The discourse is contained in four sections. The first section is the introduction. It encompasses the reason for the work, and the problem statement. The second section is the conceptual background. It carries out the conceptual mapping of the major concepts that characterize the work, and relates them, to enable readers comprehend the way they are applied in the discourse. The third section deals with how the development of a political system can be made possible by the Nigeria‟s intellectual corps. Section four gives the synopsis, and concludes the discourse.
Conceptual Background
This section examines the major concepts used in this work, in line with the methodology adopted. The concepts are: national intellectual corps; political underdevelopment and development; and political system.
National Intellectual Corps
In dealing with this concept, the method used here, is first to give the nature of intellectuals, follow it up with a distinction between national intelligence system, and the national intellectual corps, so that the meaning of the concept of the national intellectual corps would be made clearer without confusion as the paper goes on to show how the concept applies in the discourse. Every nation normally is desirous of intellectuals, because of their epistemological resources and their role in State development. Although, some thinkers have argued that intellectuals are utopian, but no one has denied the fact that they are useful in crystallizing the values of development. Intellectuals are usually abreast of the state of affairs in their societies. They are highly educated people, who are acquainted with various ideas, and often have stakes in studying the problems of society and criticizing national or state systems [8]. Most of the time, intellectuals are preoccupied with searching for the best way society can be better organized. Intellectuals, include scholars in various epistemological endeavours of academic disciplines, such as the social sciences, the humanities and the sciences. For instance, historically, most notable intellectuals who led revolutionary changes in
their countries in the twentieth and twenty first centuries include, Lenin, a brilliant lawyer, Fidel Castro, and Mao ze dong. They were academically trained intellectuals, who made distinguishing marks in bringing change to their respective countries.
There is, however, the need to differentiate between national intelligence system and the national intellectual system. National intelligence system involves series of investigations normally carried out by professionals in the Armed Forces, the Police, Para-military and other agencies, and other bodies that gather information for security and other purposes. In the contemporary times, intelligence inquiry is sought, not only for security and terrorist reasons, but also for the basis of other areas of policy. In most cases however, national intelligence service is undertaken by the State security service (www.cambridge.org). On the other hand, national intellectual corps is a group of scholars who generate epistemological resources through research on issues or challenges that may be social, political, economic and other endeavors. It can also be said to be knowledge infrastructure, both human and non-human resources of knowledge generation that help to achieve specific developmental goals [9].
While not disputing the complex situation that confronts the Nigeria‟s postcolonial state, over the link between the national intellectual corps, and political system development in the face of metropolitan ideals, but the Nigerian intellectuals can be inspired in this task of political transformation by two possibilities. The first is the conviction that the experience of the breakthrough nations, as evident in the extant literature, is a template for intellectual recipe in Nigeria. In particular reference is the strategy of creating prosperity in rural development by an intellectual movement in South Korea that can be used as lessons in Nigeria. The second possibility is what in political economy is known as the world system perspective analysis. As noted by Iwara [6], the world system perspective is an important logical method of dealing with issues of national transformation. Galtung [13] in dealing with issues that characterize the metropolitan and periphery relations, identified two mechanisms that confront periphery countries, seeking postcolonial intellectual liberation. The first is vertical, involving the hegemonic western scholarship influence over the national intellectual identity in poor countries. The second involves the feudal interactions structure, involving the intellectuals and political elite who are always in favour of foreign models. While the latter, is a situation where the intellectuals have little or no space in the national political system as the preference of political gladiators is on the foreign ideals, the former emphasizes the dominant character of western scholarship. These mechanisms are clearly, the obstacles that the intellectuals would have to overcome, drawing on the lessons learnt from the breakthrough countries.
Perhaps, because of the peculiar development problems in Africa, the continent appears to be the most disadvantaged, in terms of getting out of the woods of western intellectual hegemony. So far, the most popular intellectual attempts in Africa involve the East African School associated with the University of Dar es salaam, and the Council for Development of Social Science Research in Africa (CODESRIA) located in Senegal, that of course derive much funding from the West to support their scientific research. Funding of research imposes limitations on auto-centric intellectual quest in peripheral countries. This is one of the problems the Nigerian intellectuals would have to jettison, if they must contribute to the quest for national transformation.
Political Underdevelopment
Another concept that receives particular mention in this paper is political underdevelopment. Political underdevelopment is a phenomenon that threatens the developing states of the world. It is usually associated with bad politics that weaken state power. In most cases, politically underdeveloped societies are led by highly organized political oppressors and ruthless elements. In Nigeria, political underdevelopment has ensured that, irrespective of the country‟s potential power, especially in terms of natural resources, it remains perpetually poor. As Naanen [7] argued, Nigeria‟s political underdevelopment is an affliction of several variables, like corruption and quality of political leadership. Modernization theorists such as Almond and Coleman [14], see political underdevelopment as the inability to modernize. They contend that political underdevelopment is synonymous with inability of a society to modernize. However, the inability to modernization, as conceived by Almond and Coleman, for measuring underdevelopment, can be faulted on two grounds. First, the idea is tilted towards the promotion of imperialism, because, in its conventional sense, it connotes the urge that the poor States of the world should abandon their traditional modes of development and take on those of the West, a thinking that is imperialistic. Second, the foregoing coveys an impoverished understanding of political underdevelopment; to see underdevelopment in terms of the lack of modernization is tantamount to saying that modernization is the only way to development, which is fallacious. What the advocates of such a definition have done, is the promotion of imperialism, which some scholars like J. White and D. Santo, have seen to be a major cause of the underdevelopment in Third World States.
Nigeria could mediate by critically arriving at principles and ideals which can be applied by government to deliver political goods and services.
Political System
Generally, what is considered a political system involves government and its politics, which include the character and class of those in power within a country. In this form, political system generally consists of formal and informal structures over which could be found states‟ sovereignty over a territory and people, and the civil aspect of statehood. Although, some system analysts like Easton [16] have treated political system as an abstract construct, involving „input‟ and „output‟ or of functions and institutions, political systems have proved that a lot more go on in governance, such as interest balancing among competing interests. This has led system analysts to ask several questions about interest balancing in political systems for purposes of characterization, such as: Does the system grant members of the state the right to compete for elite status? Does opportunity exist in the political system for changing the fundamental laws governing the state? Does the system insulate authoritative roles and law norms from change by non-elites? And, is there freedom of political opposition and competition for power? [17].
Accordingly, Rummel characterized political system into four main types: (i) the openness of authoritative roles to change, which means whether the status quo itself grants members of the state the right to compete for elite status. (ii) A second characteristic distinguishes the degree to which the political system intervenes in society, a measure of which the group autonomy is the freedom from elite commands. (iii) A third character is normative.It relates to the traditional adherence to custom and consensual norms and mores or positivistic, determined to satisfy a demand or plan. And (iv), the goal oriented characteristic, which defines the interest of elite. The elite goal generally can be classified into two according to Rummel: maintenance of traditions or backward-looking; and popular interests that are future oriented. Rummel‟s conception of political system essentially dwells on interests and roles of political actors. Such actors involve the elites and non-elites, as well as interest balancing within the system. This view is helpful in the understanding of the mechanisms of the political system.
Nigeria‟s political system and governance has been changing over time, from the independence era to the ongoing republic. At independence in
1960, Nigeria, either consciously or unconsciously adopted the parliamentary system of government, while the system of politics was authoritarian. The parliamentary system of government adopted in Nigeria between 1960 and 1966, was the British Westminster model. Nigeria had a prolonged military rule between 1966 and 1979, which of course had a political system that was totalitarian. The second republic which lasted only a little above four years, was the period Nigeria adopted the presidential system of government, this time, inspired by the American and Australian constitutions [18]. The political system adopted during the second republic like in the first republic, was also authoritarian. There was another prolonged military interregnum between 1984 and 1999. Aligwekwe [18] argued that, all the systems of government and political systems adopted by Nigeria, since independence were lacking in originality. The fourth republic which started from 1999 till now is similar to that of the second republic. In all of the systems so borrowed, there was a substantial amount of insensitivity to the social problems in Nigeria, such as ethnic differences, problems of minority groups, particularly resource control, as well as north-south mutual fear, which are now ravaging the country.
Perhaps, at this point of the conceptual mapping, it is important to make a distinction between „system of government‟ and „political system‟. As a matter of fact, both are sometimes used interchangeably, but they have analytical differences. A system of government involves governance of a group of people, with a distinguishing feature of monopoly of the legal use of force. Examples of systems of government include presidential, parliamentary, and monarchical. On the other hand, political system is generally a set of principles, ideals, and limitations that are followed by a government, regardless of the specific goals of that particular government. For instance, the parliamentary and the presidential systems of government may have vastly different goals, but both may follow the general principles, ideals, and limitations of a particular political system.
Development of Auto-Centric Political
System in Nigeria
Here, we begin by making a justification for the proposal, supporting a conscious intervention of Nigeria‟s intellectual corps‟ in providing recipe for the development of auto-centric political system for Nigeria. It describes the character of the recipe that could produce a viable political system, and proceeds with the assumption that, an effective intellectual system is an instrument for political transformation in Nigeria. This proposition is accentuated by Naanen [7], arguing that the use of scholarship is a tool for national transformation. For him, scholarship is relevant to the needs of society. This justification hinges on two premises. The first is that, it is no longer disputable that all the imported political systems to Nigeria have not been operated successfully to deliver development. This is not to say that the foreign systems are bad, but that they are operated in an environment where environmental peculiarities and ideational factors that shape political behaviour and political leadership vary from where they are imported, and therefore, adaptation is problematic. Though, it is practicable for states to develop using foreign models, but such models would just have to be adjusted to suit the domestic situation.
The second is that, there are evidences in the extant literature of political economy over intellectuals‟ involvement in system building for national development in some former postcolonial countries which justify the proposal of this paper. For instance, such countries as the United States, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea, have at one time or the other, used their intellectuals to transform their political and economic systems in a unique manner. It is therefore, not out of place for this work to deliver the thinking that a coherent national intellectual corps, can develop a political system that could transform Nigeria. The phenomenal growth achieved by Singapore for instance, was due largely to the visionary intellectual leadership of the Singaporeans, led by Kuan Yew, an Oxbridge lawyer, who eventually led the country from 1959 to 1990, using the authoritarian democratic system [2]. The case of South Korea is also fresh in the history of national liberation. South Korea confronted obstacles both domestic and external to achieve the breakthrough.
South Korea appears to have the lessons appropriate for this discourse. The choice of South Korea is based on three basic factors, such as colonial experience, basic rural and agrarian factor and its dynamics from one republic to the
other like Nigeria. It can be recalled that the present day South Korea was formally, a part of Korea which was divided between the forces of the United States and the Soviet Union for geopolitical reasons. The United States forces occupied the South, while the Soviet occupied the North. The occupation of the major powers culminated in the war between North Korea and South Korea that ended in 1953, with both Koreas becoming permanently independent of one another. South Korea invariably commenced its auto-centric development plans from then onwards, though with heavy financial assistance from the West [2].
The current trend of political and economic development in South Korea owes its possibility to the development of appropriate system of government and political system arrived at by the South Korean intellectuals. Marktran [19] (http://www.theguardian.com) noted that the intellectuals in South Korea engaged in critical production of home grown principles of governance. This was in addition to the progress made in the transformation from authoritarianism to a more liberal democracy and market based economy. South Korea had earlier utilized a parliamentary system, before transmuting to a presidential system. Equally, the country adopted authoritarian democracy as its system of politics. In the case of Nigeria, the country was under the British colonial rule from 1896 to 1960 [12]. Nigeria was granted political independence in 1960 that was not total, as it was lacking in economic freedom. Accordingly, Nigeria since independence has been ruled, using systems of government such as, parliamentary, military, and presidential, with totalitarian political system (under the military), and authoritarian political system (under civil rule).
The preoccupation of this paper therefore is how Nigeria can transform its authoritarian political system, using the South Korea‟s lessons. To interrogate or diagnose this subject, two questions have become imminent for us to understand the intellectual engagement in the phenomenon. The questions are: (i) what lessons are derivable from the intellectuals‟ input into the South Korean‟s framework of governance? (ii) How can Nigeria‟s intellectual corps deal with the lessons of the South Korean experience?
Korea in 1971, taking its cue from the achievements of Japanese elite of 1868. This means, the processes of development adopted by the intellectual movement of South Korea, followed the model of Japan. The intellectuals learnt many lessons from the Japanese model, ranging from politics to economics of the state. Some of the studies and resolutions from their findings include: wide spread education and training for sustainable political and economic development; the Confucian work ethic; competitive market oriented capitalism; and mass mobilization for liberal democracy [20]. The epistemological exposition of the Saemaul Undong intellectual movement enabled South Korea to have rural development, followed by a vibrant democracy. The transition to democracy started taking roots from 1987, after a long journey through periods of authoritarian rule. Four important themes essentially explain South Korea‟s political transformation. (1) The inspiration of its independence from North Korea. (2) Rapid economic development based on domestic resources. (3) Democratization of the country, and (4) the alliance with the United States (http://www.oxfordbibliographies).
South Korea‟s transition to a more liberal democracy was responsible for its uninterrupted democratic rule, leading to several reform measures that deepened the county‟s economic transformation. The positive accomplishments, such as high degree of statehood, meaningful elections, the absence of undemocratic veto powers, stable democratic institutions and a vibrant civil society, property rights and welfare regimes, gave South Korea their desired transformation. However, some scholars have argued that in spite of the transformation in South Korea, deficits of democratic transition still remain, in view of the continuing weakness of the rule of law and corruption (www.goggle.co.uk).
Having identified the factors which propelled the South Korean transformation, we can now attend to the second question of the interrogation that deals with the recipe of Nigerian intellectuals, given the lessons from South Korean experience. Of significant consideration here are the strategies that led to the achievements of the Saemaul Undong intellectual movement in South Korea. In other words, the Nigerian intellectuals if properly harnessed could produce ideas that would generate mass mobilization for inclusive democracy, ensure vibrant civil society, wide spread education based on environmental resources and enhancement of the purpose of the State, high degree of statehood, and ensure national development. What is clear, given the
situation in South Korea is that the Nigerian intellectuals are not as organized, and are not assertive collectively, with commitment comparable to that of Saemual Undong of South Korea, and such other intellectual movements like the Chicago School or the Latin American School.
This means the first challenge that intellectuals in Nigeria would have to overcome, is a transformation of itself or the radicalization of its members into a coherent national movement. The second step is to identify which aspects of the foreign culture would combine with the Nigerian culture to produce the kind of Confucian work ethics which was deployed in South Korea for the task of national transformation of the country‟s system of politics. One of the problems that African Countries are facing is the problem of cultural diffusion. Some aspects of the African culture, cannot lead the continent well for development, also are some aspects of foreign culture brought to Africa during colonialism. For instance the African non-judicious use of time and the Western individual system of wealth accumulation are clear examples.
The third step that the Nigerian intellectuals would have to deal with given the lessons from the Saemual Undong‟s experience as highlighted in the foregoing is the production of critical knowledge that can generate mass mobilization for inclusive democracy, vibrant civil society, wide spread political education, and principles, ideals and limitations of government based on environmental peculiarity. The fourth step is continues mobilization and articulation of these steps until transformation is achieved. An argument could be averred that Nigeria has research institutions and universities that could perform this onerous task, but practically as we may notice, these research institutions and universities are extensions of government, in terms of funding, control and mission. They do not have independent commitments, and are always expected to play along government lines, a situation that does not allow them to have a contrary position outside governments.
and strong democratic institutions. It is also important that they use series of strategies to promote intellectual political leadership and inclusive politics in the country. There is no doubt about the expertise of the Nigerian scholars, deploying their epistemological resources for political development in Nigeria. The Nigerian intellectuals understand the Nigerian social system and its structure, natural resources, and modalities of operation of government and politics, as well as the deficits of the State.
Presently in Nigeria, like in many other countries of Africa, there are pockets of intellectuals in various places of the country, without a coherent national focus like the kind exemplified by various bids of transformation in countries such as the U.S, Japan, China, South Korea, and Latin American countries, where intellectuals play leading roles [21]. The role of the Chicago School during the World War 2, and its contribution of ideas, leading to the formation of the United Nations Organization, is fresh in our memories. The significance of politics that can deliver inclusive politics, property rights, accountability and transparency, and wide spread political education that will lead to the emergence of a network of intellectual leadership of the country as we approach the dream year 2020, cannot be over emphasized.
Conclusion
There are clear indications that the systems of government and political systems adopted so far in Nigeria, have failed the people‟s desire for development. In view of the failure, the citizenry have been expressing their desire for change. Meanwhile, some politicians erroneously interpreted the desire of the people for change to imply voting out President Jonathan and replacing him with President Buhari, and replacing the Peoples Democratic Party with the All Progressive Congress, as the 2015 elections coincidentally went. This paper does not allude to that common-sensical interpretation of the change Nigerians desired. Rather, the paper argues that the change that Nigerians actually desire is change of the political system, which means change of the principles, ideals, and limitations of government, so that governance can deliver development. The paper observed that some postcolonial countries that are regarded as breakthrough countries, such as Latin American countries and South Korea, achieved transformation through the expositions of their intellectual movements that worked coherently for national transformation in those countries. The paper contended that since the challenges posed by the political system in Nigeria are deep-rooted, a coherent intellectual probity, input and direction for political system transformation is largely a way forward.
References
1. Bello-Imam IB (2010) 50 Years of Nigerian Project:
Challenges and Prospects Independence, Ibadan: College Press.
2. Agbi SO (1987) South Korea‟s Economic
Development: The Challenge for Africa, Impact publishers Nigeria Ltd, Ibadan p 18.
3. Treverton GF, Wilhein A (2009) National
Intelligence System, in A theory of Intelligence and International Politics. Cambridge University Press, p 52-92.
4. Temu AJ (1982) History of liberation and
development, in essays in history. Journal of the Historical Society. 2(1).University of Lagos p 1-6.
5. Ehiedu EG (1982) The impact of colonialism in
Africa: A critique of the historiography. Journal of The Historical Society, University of Lagos. 2(1):7-16.
6. Iwara IE (2009) Themes in Modern Political
Economy, College Press Publishers, Ibadan.
7. Naanen BBB (2015) Prosperity and Poverty of
Nations: Using Global Models to Explain and Mitigate Underdevelopment in Nigeria. Inaugural Lecture, University of Port Harcort.
8. Ruskin GM, Robert LC, James AM, Walter SJ
(2006) Political Science: An Introduction. Tenth Edition, Pearson Education International, New Jersey.
9. Joyce MA, Kathy EJ, Albano J, Freygangi T,
Brianna S (2006) relations between intelligence and the development of metaconceptual knowledge, Springer, 1:51-67.
10.Badru RO, Omotoso SA (2014) A holistic philosophy
of emancipation and the post-colonial african state. African Journal of Governance and Development, 3(2):79-101.
11.Heiner R (2007) Relevance of education and
intelligence for the political development of nations. Democracy, Rule of Law and Political Liberty, 300-322.
12.Iwara IE (2015) Cultural hegemony and Africa‟s
development process. African Journal of Political Science and International Relations, 9(4):120-130.
13.Galtung J (1994) Human Rights in Another Key.
Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, p6.
14.Almond GA , Coleman JS (1960) The Politics of the
15.Huntington S (1968) Development Theory: Four Critical Studies (www.jstor.org/stable) 2778159.
16.Easton D (1965) The Political System: An Inquiry
into the State of Political Science. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. p 8.
17.Rummel R J (2015) The State and Political System,
http://www.hawaii.edu/power (accessed 26 th June, 2015).
18.Aligwekwe PE (2002) Culture, Religion in the
Nigerian Socio-Political System, Umuahia: Ark Publishers, p 21-22.
19.Marktran, South Korea: A Model of Development?
http://www.theguardian.com (accessed 13th July,
2015).
20.Klien S (1981) Lessons for Less Developed
Countries: The Japan and the U.S Case, in the Search for Absolute Values and the Creation of the New World Order, Seoul, p 233-261.
21.Amina M (2004) Critical Capacity Facing the
