CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 THE CONCEPT OF DEMOCRACY
The term “democracy” has no
universally acceptable definition. Many authors perceived it in different ways
based on their different fields of endeavour and orientation. Attempting to
provide a universally acceptable definition could be difficult.
Agi (1992:98), says that Democracy
is an alluring concept with which every ruler wants to be identified”. It is
the “cheer word” and the in-thing”, which has become as pervasive as ever,
threateningly completing with the very air that we breathe. This has shown that
an attempt to provide a universally acceptable definition of democracy can
prove to be a Herculean task.
According to Gitonga in (Oyadare,
1994:202), democracy “is a hurrah word”, an umbrella concept used to refer to
and designate a multitude of diverse and varied socio-political systems or
realities.” Little wonder that crick (in Okoye, 2001:2), averse that democracy
“is perhaps the most promiscuous word in the world of public affairs”.
Generally, democracy is a way of life
that involves freedom to make choices about what one does, where he lives, and
how he uses his earnings; the operation of institutions the home, the church,
local, state and federal government; the right of justified property ownership;
social justice and fairness; the absence of social and class barriers, equality
of opportunity; and the solution of common problems through the exercise of the
free-will of the people. The above definition tends to be generally acceptable
because it looks at the wholelistic view of democracy. In fact, it is more
embracing.
Mbadu (1994:12), relying on the
liberal (orthodox) theoretical tradition, surmises that a more theoretical
level of definition, democracy ‘can be regarded as a political system in which
the eligible people (electorate) in any country participate actively not only
in determining the kind of people that govern them, but also actually
participate actively in shaping the policy direction of the government.
In an endeavour to be part of the
definitional discourse on democracy, Yusuf (1994:112-113), also spells out what
he sees as some of the tents of this system of governance. According to him,
“democracy is not about the policies and activities of government, even though
these may directly affect it, democracy is not just the existence of civilian
government (as opposed to military government) even though the supremacy of
civilian governmental authority over the armed forces is one of its basic
features; democracy is not just the existence of multiparty polices, even
though, it is one of its major tents; and it is not just the ritual holding of
elections, for elections can be scientifically rigged and the people, for one
reason or the other, can refuse to vote during elections or maintenance of
political power, legitimize a government and stabilize a political system.
It can be deduced from the
proceeding view that Yusuf is averse to the “ritualistic.” Conception of
democracy merely as the routine conduct of elections. Rather, he agrees, as I
do in this paper, that democracy emphasis not only the central role of the
people as the source of the legitimacy of whose who govern, but also the fact
that public policies and programme must be targeted at the needs and overall
welfare of the majority of the people.
Ogusanwo
(1995:138-139), for many letter days converts of the nation, “democracy
connotes periodic elections to change leaders in any society or country. For
others, it connotes the automatic free opportunity to participate in the periodic
election of the leaders of a country. Whether the leaders get changed in the
process is a factor of the subjective conditions in which democracy operates in
such society”. He also opined that “democracy involves a whole series of
process and cultural values which relate to the selection of leaders at all
levels of society, the behaviour of groups and individuals vis-Ã -vis those who
hold different views on issues under consideration as well as the use of power
by whose the selection process has placed in decision making positions.” To
him, “it also includes the existence of the rule of law, which relates to the
equal treatment of all before the law and curbing of the excessive power of who’s
in control of affairs of all levels of society”.
However, Ogunsanwo does not seen to
be perturbed by the fact that the material condition of a people can
immeasurably affect the extent of their participation in the selection of
leaders at all levels of society.
TOPIC
DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE AND POVERTY
ALLEVIATION PROGRAMME:
A CASE STUDY OF OLUSEGUN OBASANJO
ADMINISTRATION 2003-2007
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
FACULTY OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCES
Moreover, in a neo-colonial
socio-formation like Nigeria, which is characterized by all forms of
deep-rooted capitalist inequalities, is it really possible for us to have the
existence of the rule of law and the equal treatment of all before the law?
Writing from the radical ideological
perspective, Kawonise (1989:4-5), argues that “since the economic power of the bourgeoisie
forms the bedrock of their hegemony in democratic-bourgeois republics, ensuring
the dominance of the lowest and largest class, or the regime of equality and
social justice which all types of democracy lay claim to, will involve, first
and foremost, the democratization of the economic substructure of the society.”
According to Kawonise (1989:8), it
is obvious that “democracy is not only a political category but a term
extending to the socio-economic realm of the society, and in the last analysis
it consists in involving the people in taking part actively and freely in
discussion and decision affecting their general welfare.” And the most basic
aspect of the general welfare of the people, in the words of Kawonise, is the
material production and reproduction of their life. Consequently, an attempt at
democratization, in the fullest sense of the term, must have as its point of
departure, the egalitarianism of the process of material production,
distribution and consumption. This is given the political dimension of
democracy will necessarily follow.
Ekpo (1989:47), on his part, relying
on the Marxist paradigmatic framework, has attempted a materialist
interpretation of democracy. He contends that democracy which means the rule of
the majority over the minority, the equality of all citizens, their rights and
freedoms must be located within a particular social formation.” To Ekpo,
democracy connotes a form of state and a form of the organization of societies.
Political and economic life, and it must be understood historically as society
moves from one mode of production to another.” He also pointed out that,
“democracy must be dissected and its qualitativeness highlighted, from one
social formation to another. Consequently, democracy under slavery is deferent
from that under feudalism and democracy under capitalism cannot be the same as
democracy under socialism.” Indeed, in Ekpo’s words, a higher form of social
formation represents sine qua non a higher form of democracy.
In all, system one of the
characteristics of which is the equality of being completely or almost
completely responsive to its entire citizens. Democracy involves the conception
of majority rule and the acquiescence of the minority, in the decision of the
majority, it demands from the common man, a certain level of ability and
characteristics, rational conduct and active participation in the
government.
2.2 FORMS OF DEMOCRACY
The word “democracy” can encompass
very different realities depending on the accompanying adjective.
Allison (1994:12), writes:
“Democratic theory presents a bewildering variety of forms of democracy;
populist, direct representative, liberal Madisonian, Pluralist, consensus and
majoritarian are just a few of the forms.” The literature reviewed and adds
many others. It is difficult to classify them.
Allison (1994:13), remarks, “the absolute
ambiguity of the core idea of the rule of the people precludes any real
organization of the concept.” Even if one cannot classify them, one can
identify something of an evolution in the definitions more or less
comprehensive, more or less practical of an elevated ideal to be or of a
minimum level to be met.
Allison (1994:14), proposed a
“minimalist definition” following Schupeter: institutional arrangements for
arriving at political decision in which individual acquire the power to decide
by means of a competitive struggle for the people’s vote.”
On this basis, two developments are
possible; the “consumerist” which connotes the preferences of the electorate
and the development of policy and the emancipationist which extents democratic
methods and the ideal of self-determination to all social and economic
relations. Using the gradation and this intensification of the concept, the
literature caters for all the options; ranging from liberal democracy to emanicipatory
democracy, running through a variety of adjectives.
One advocate of liberal democracy
Ibrahim (1993:17) “following the total collapse of most of the socialist
democracies from 1989, it became clear to the last skeptics that whatever the
shortcomings of liberal democracies might be (---) they have proved themselves
to be more democratic than any of the ‘Marxist’, ‘socialist’, peoples’ and popular
varieties that have existed over the past century.”
On the other hand, Mafeje (2001:20),
responds to Ibrahim “Naturally the collapse of Eastern European socialites has
theoretical implications for socialist/Marxists, but it does not dispose of
social problems inherent in capitalist society. The issue concerning liberal
democracy versus distribution of the social product and political power between
classes in capitalist societies. Whether the issue is referred to as socialism
or social democracy is immaterial.”
In the same vein, the unavoidable
Wamba-Dia-Wamba (1992:249), rejects the parliamentary model in which “politics
is reduced to a matter of numbers and in which no guarantee is built in to
force the state to be accountable to the large masses of people except through
elections with long intervals.” He calls for a change to a new mode of politics
and rejects politics parties and the statist concept of power, this research in
quest has provoked various responses (Ihonvbere, 1993:12, Ramose, 1992:21 and
Depelchin, 1993:15) and a debated on the possible contribution of traditional
structures to this new mode of politics.
Wamba-Dia-Wamba (1994:214), calls
for Kafureeka (1993:89) who notes; “Democracy in the view of the liberal
sympathizers is not possible without pluralism and by pluralism they mean
multi-partyism. Unfortunately moving from rhetorical to concrete political
practice the later threatens to annililate the former.”
Enemuo (1992:36), also denounces
liberal democracy which he sees as “since the post colonial state in Africa is
essentially bourgeois and considerably compradorial, it follows that it is a
state for the dominant class, not of the down trodden.”
However, Elagab (1993:23), has it
that “successful democratic experience manifest economic and social achievement
which provided the social and material infrastructure for democracy to be a
reality.”
Mbonjo (1982:45), in turn, prefers
hijpharts Consociational which he sees as a necessary transitory please in the
democratic development of a country as opposed to the “winner takes all’ system
of majoritan democracy.
Irung (1992:30), also considers
“democracy based on critical reason” an ideal form.
Concluding this review of forms of
democracy, two authors are more circumspect.
Beetham (2004:21), explains that
“democracy is a matter of the degree of realization of basic principles and
accordingly concludes that democratization is always and everywhere and
unfinished process.”
Conquery-Vidro vitch (2005:123), recalls
that democracy in Africa is both a new idea and a process to be implemented in
a context that has never known or thought of either.”
2.3 PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE
Democracy is the principle that all
citizens, especially those under privilege classes in an undemocratic state,
have political rights.
Enahoro (2000:48-49), referred to
this principle as equitocracy.” Equity between the nationalities that comprise
this nation Nigeria and equilibrium between the contending and competing
interest and social forces in the country.” Chief Anthony Enhoro continued by
insisting that, “without equitocracy, one cannot guarantee irreversible
democracy in the multi-religious and multi-cultural setting of Nigeria.” If all
of the above should prevail in any environmental then that environment can be
termed a democratic environment. Otherwise, there would always be a tendency
for the less privilege segment of society to clandestinely take whatever which
is their own share of the national cake, or to resort to dangerous maneuvers designed
to exhort political concessions from the authorities.
It is, however, conceivable that in
our euphoria and optimums, we may forget that democracy, unarguably the best
form of government for any nation, is also perhaps the most difficult to establish
on firm forting and manage.
Oyovbaire (2002:138), in his own
view outlined what he called the principles of a democratic environment and
there are as follows:
i.
Implanting
and institutionalizing the love of freedom and equality.
ii.
Resentment of
autocracy whether in military uniform ‘Agbada’ or suit.
iii.
Encouraging
freedom of dissent and respect for the individuality of each person.
iv.
Creation of
an appropriate environment that enables the individual to free himself from the
constraints of poverty, hunger, ill-health, coercion and control.
v.
An overall
commitment to even and rapid development of the human elements within the
polity.
The above listed items are the
principles that must be in place before you call an environment a democratic
are according to Professor Sam Oyavbaire.
2.4 DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE AND POVERTY
In Nigeria, democracy is taken to be
synonymous with regime or administration which is headed by civilian
politicians but whether or not the affairs of the state are managed solely to
further the interests of members of a self seeking cabal is unimportant.
Against the background of this distorted view of democratic governance, it is
often said that since 1960, Nigeria has practiced democracy for about 48 years.
Thus, it is said that Nigeria has had the first, second, third (aborted), four
and now the fifth Republic.
Inspite of the noise and propaganda
by government’s spokes persons on the achievements of democracy during
president Olusegun Obasanjo’s regime (second coming) even a casual observer of
events and happening in Nigeria since 2003 could agree that for the political
office holders on down him, it is business as usual.
In concordance with convertional
practice, when the Olusegun Obasanjo led administration assumed office for the
second time, promises and pledge were made at Nigerians. The people were told
that official corruption, infrastructural decay, poverty, inflation,
insecurity, unemployment etc would be seriously tackled.
The World Bank Atlas (2006) reported
that Nigeria live in a world where 1.2 billion people live on less than 1
dollar a day, 10 million children under the age of five die each year mostly
from preventable disease and 113 million primary school age children do not
attend school” Okoye (2006:7).
Yusuf, (2000:198), says that over
45% of Nigeria live below the poverty line while two third of this group are
extremely poor. He also indicated that poverty in the country will rise by two
third and almost half of the population will be below the poverty line by year
2010.” In fact, the situation may be said to be gloomier.
However, members of the government
during Olusegun Obasanjo’s administration at the local, state and federal
levels have clearly demonstrated that public resources are meant to be enjoyed
by those who occupy political offices, as well as their friends and associates.
This is shown in the disproportionate and underserved allowances and
entitlements, which they have awarded themselves. To whose pillagers and
indigenous colonizers public officers are meant to serve the selfish and personal
ends of those who occupy them.
Awomede (2005:22), said that
“shortly after they were inaugurated in 2003, members of the national assembly
legislated for themselves N3.5 million for each senator and N2.5 million for
each House of representative members, as furniture allowance. Much against the
grain of the general state of poverty in the country, the legislators said, in
very clear terms that they were in Abuja to a fortune themselves. This prompt
Late Chuba Okadigbo once said that “as a Senator, he was neither in Abuja to
live in Cockroach hotels nor spread poverty.”
Between 2003 and now, the
legislators have their ambition to live the good life, approving new cars for
themselves on a yearly basis and stupendous allowance while working the
minimum.
Awowede (2006:23), in the year 2004,
the National Assembly budget was a mouthful: N1.33 billion for traveling. On
the whole, some N22 billion was to go into running the federal legislature.
This makes, the legislators already graduating into Pseudo-ministers and
contractors, legislating constituency projects of N500 million for each member.
2.5 POVERTY ALLEVIATION PROGRAMME (PAP)
Nigeria is among the few sub-Shara
Africa countries in which the government has mapped out poverty alleviation
programme and strategies as an important economic policy objective. The
emergence of a democratically elected government in 2003 promises to put more
pressure on government to respond to the yearnings of the nations poor masses
for poverty alleviation.
Soon after, the national planning
commission was given the task of developing strategy for poverty relief by
setting up a poverty alleviation programme development committee. The committee
came out with a draft national strategy the community Action programmes for
poverty Alleviation (CAPPA), for federal government’s consideration (federal
office of statistic, 2004:3)
Federal office of statistics,
(2004:5) after due consideration, the federal government adopted the draft
national strategy but renamed it as ‘poverty alleviation programme, it as
‘poverty Alleviation Programme.” (PAP).
In January 2001, the federal
government phased out the poverty alleviation programme, and replaced it with
the National poverty Eradication Programme (NEDEP). The main objectives of
NEPED include the following:
i.
To provide a
rational poverty reduction framework that lays emphasis on appropriate and
sustainable institutional arrangement.
ii.
To provide
technology acquisition and development particularly for agriculture and
industry.
iii.
To provide
capacity building for existing skills acquisition and training centers.
iv.
To provide
agricultural and industrial extension services to rural areas.
v.
To provide
integrated scheme for youth empowerment, development of infrastructures, provision
of social welfare services and exploitation of natural resources.
vi.
To provide
institutional development for marketing agricultural and industrial products.
vii.
To provide a
pro-active and affirmative actions deliberately targeted at women, youth,
farmers and the disabled.
To achieve a co-ordinated
implementation and monitoring of the programme, its activities were classified
into four schemes, namely:
ü Youth empowerment Scheme (YES)
ü Rural infrastructure development scheme (RID)
ü Social welfare development scheme (SOWESS)
ü National resources development scheme (NRDCS)
The National poverty Eradication
council (NAPEC) is the supreme organ concerned with the formulation and
execution of the poverty eradication programme. The council is constituted by
the president as chairman. Other members of the council include the Vice
President, the secretary to the federal government, 13 federal ministers, the
chief economic Adviser to the president and the National co-ordinator of NAPEP.
The functions of NAPEC include:
i.
To formulate
and review all polices and strategies of the government designed to alleviated
and eradication poverty.
ii.
To set annual
targets for institutions and agencies of government mandated to undertake
poverty eradication programmes.
iii.
To mobilize
and allocate resources for approved programmes.
iv.
To establish
the legislative and constitutional framework for the successful implementation
of the programme.
v.
To approve
and establish the proper administrative instrument necessary to ensure the
implementation of the poverty alleviation programme (PAP).
There is a growing consensus that a
new approached to poverty in Nigeria is needed. A rapidly growing economic is
essential. So too is broad participation in the growth process, which will
ensure alleviation in poverty participation in planning and implementation of
poverty alleviation programmes can be widened and deepened through
decentralization and fashioning a new arrangement with democratic
governance.
2.6 HOW HAS DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE AFFECTED POVERTY ALLEVIATION?
Showing the emergence of a
democratically elected government in 2003, which promises to put more pressure
on government to respond to the yearnings of the poor masses for poverty
alleviation. We must however, accept the fact that although the government
seems to have the political will and has shown a commitment towards poverty
alleviation, the progress has been show.
In line with the views of the World
Bank (1996), sex basic principles form the framework for more effective and
efficiency action to alleviate poverty in Nigeria. They are as follows:
i.
Poverty
alleviation must be at the heart of any economic and social development
strategy.
ii.
The political
will and commitment by government towards poverty alleviation must be backed up
by economic action.
iii.
Economic
growth is necessary, but not sufficient for alleviating poverty in the long
run. The improvement of human capital should be part of the programme.
iv.
The design
and implementation of efforts towards poverty alleviation must be guided by the
needs of the poor identified by the poor.
v.
Poverty must
be look at from a gender perspective as women are particularly vulnerable to
the social and economic burdens of poverty.
vi.
Poverty must
also be viewed as an environmental issue since it engenders resources
degradation and further impoverishment.
From the foregoing, it is evident
that under democracy, government must ensure macro-economic stability, uphold
the rule of law etc. Income redistribution would reduce the inequality gap
thereby reducing the risk of social upheavals and the pervasive high level of
poverty (Bawo 1996:12) maintains that “the level of income of the citizens is
overwhelming the strongest prediction of democratization.” In which case, the
higher the poverty levels in a nation, the water is her democracy and vice
versa.”
No wonder the democratic government
of Olusegun Obasanjo between 2003-2007 has not achieved much. The democratic
government has neither reduced poverty nor affected it in any form. The policy
that was initiated to impoverish the programme was made to satisfy the interest
of those at the corridor of power because the target group or the civil society
could not benefit from the programme. All the promises and efforts to eradicate
poverty could not be achieved. And following the writings of Bawo (2006:12),
democratic governance that came into play on 29th May, 2003 was very
weak since the poverty level in the nation was still high.
The foregoing analysis is evident
that the more government reduces poverty, the more would be the social-economic
stability of the polity and the more sustainable the democratic governance
would be.
Since the enthronement of democratic
governance in Nigeria, there have been social upheavals in many part of the
country especially the South- South, Western and North-Western zones. The
problems in the zones range from dissatisfaction by the impoverished people of
the Niger-Delta region to ethic violence in the west and the religious crisis
in the north.
In all this cases, it is the poor
masses that are used even by the rich to perpetuate such crisis. Some of this
crisis which posed serious dangers to our building democratic experiment could
be predicted on the fact that a poor man is a hungry man and a hungry man is in
turn an angry man. So most of such social upheaval could therefore be averted
it poverty alleviation programme had worked out well.
The situation of poverty stricken or
levels in the country had continued to grow from bad to worse-hence poverty
alleviation programme.
Efo (2006:30), the president also on
15th February 2004, declared “Nigeria has no business with poverty,
with our resources; human and material, we shall strive to eradicate poverty
from our country, Nigeria; That was why Olusegun Obasanjo came up with the
poverty alleviation scheme: passed it into law with prime aim as he said of
creating jobs, as if were, for the teaming Nigeria populace”.
Efo (2002:31), this for him is a way
of affecting out poverty. Yes, jobs were provided through this programme but
were only for the elite class and not for the poor masses.”
2.7 GAP IN KNOWLEDGE
The researcher having looked at the
basic principles form the framework for more effective and efficiency action to
alleviated poverty in Nigeria as enumerated by World Bank (1996), observed and
wants to argue that they should be adequate collaboration and complementation
among the three tiers of government to achieve a well defined poverty
alleviation programme under democratic governance.
The researcher also deem it
necessary to add that under democratic governance must ensure macro-economic
stability, uphold the rule of law etc, which ensure income redistribution,
would reduce the inequality gap thereby reducing the risk of social upheavals
and the pervasive high level of poverty as declared by Bawo (1996), but also
should embarking on projects that do have direct relevance to the poor masses
in country and in some cases abandonment of these projects should be not
encouraged.
However, lack of the involvement of
the target group in policy formulation and implementation or execution should
be stop, because during the inception of the programme, the structure showed
that they will not even achieve their target in the sense that the target group
(rural people) was not involved.
Finally, the researcher observed
that different scholars, aired their view on the principles of democratic
governance, objectives of poverty alleviation programmes and functions of
NAPEP, but failed to acknowledge the fact that it has some accompanied
problems.
These problems as observed by the
researcher includes
i.
Democratic governance and poverty alleviation programme creates an atmosphere
for corruption among the officers.
ii. It also creates visionless leaders in the sense that some of our
leaders are visionless and inefficient. They are always interested to satisfy
their personal aggrandizement at the detriment of the poor masses.
iii.
Problem of
ethnicity, this happen, when the federal government of Nigeria was allocating
money to the various sectors for the project, the various ethnic regions were
scrambling for their own share or to get the largest part of the share.
REFERENCES
Akpakpan, E.B and P.N Umoh (1999), Developing the
Nigeria Economy for an enduring democracy, CSA productions Ltd, Lagos.
Baro, R (1996), Democracy and Growth. Journal of
economic growth: 1-27, USA
TOPIC
DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE AND POVERTY
ALLEVIATION PROGRAMME:
A CASE STUDY OF OLUSEGUN OBASANJO
ADMINISTRATION 2003-2007
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
FACULTY OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCES
Ekpo, H.H (2000), Poverty Alleviation and substance of
democracy in Nigeria, Calabar: University of Calabar.
Ekong, E. (1991), Rural development and the
persistence of poverty in Nigeria, Uyo: University of Uyo press.
Edozien, E.C (1975), Poverty: “some issues in concept
and poverty” in poverty in Nigeria. The Nigeria economic society, Ibadan.
Mbonjo, O. (1982), “World Bank, IMF and Nigeria
Poverty reduction strategy”. The Guardian Online July, 10 2001.
Madueme, I.S (1999), An evaluation of the poverty
profile of civil servants in Nigeria: A case study of Enugu State”.
International journal of studies in the Humanities (IJOSH) Vol 1 and 2, No 2.
Federal office of statistics (2004), poverty and
welfare in Nigeria: Washington, American Writing Corporation.