System Transformation in Nigeria
| Published date | 01 November 1971 |
| Date | 01 November 1971 |
| Author | Olav Stokke |
| DOI | 10.1177/001083677100600302 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
System Transformation In Nigeria
OLAV
STOKKE
Scandinavian
Institute
of
African
Studies,
Uppsala
Stokke, O. System
Transformation
in
Nigeria.
Cooperation
and
Conflict,
VI,
1971,
147-71.
In this
paper
the
processes of
integration
and
disinteg-ration
within
the
Nigerian
Fed-
eration
up to
the
secession of
Biafra
are
analysed.
The
'modern'
and
the
'traditional'
political systems
and
sub-systems
are
identified
and
the
cultural
setting
is outlined.
The
focus is
concentrated
on
the
distribution
of the
enforcement
powers,
the
utilitarian
powers
and
the
identive
powers between the centres of
the
federal
system
and
the
regional
sub-systems, as
manifested
by subsequent constitutions
and
by the social bases
of the political parties. In such a context the
integrative
and
disintegrative
effects of
the political
parties
at the
cultural,
the
federal
and
the
regional
levels
are
discussed.
The
major
political crises of the
early
1960s
are
outlined
as
are
the
developments
after
the
military
coup d'etats of 1966
leading
to the secession. On this basis some
preconditions
for a successful secession
are
suggested,
and
the
extent
to which these
were fulfilled or
not
in the case
under
consideration
is discussed.
Olav
Stokke, Scandinavian Institute
of
African
Studies. Uppsala.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Theories of integration and disintegration
in the international system are mainly
based on studies of these processes in-
volving nations in a regional (or political)
grouping.
The
favourite objects of promi-
nent theorists like Karl W. Deutsch,'
Amitai Etzioni,2 and Ernst B. HaasS have
been integration in systems like the Euro-
pean Economic Community, the North
Atlantic
Treaty
Organization or the wider
concept of the Atlantic Cornmunity.s In
these studies the ultimate goal of integra-
tion between the nation states of the system
under consideration has, explicitly or im-
plicitly, been the primary concern; con-
sequently their main attention has been
concentrated on the factors leading to
integration. Less attention has been paid
to the dysfunctions, i.e. the factors leading
to disintegration.
There are conceptual differences be-
tween the authors mentioned, and also dif-
ferences with regard to the emphasis placed
on the various factors involved in the
processes.P
The
basis for system trans-
formation, according to Etzioni, is the
transfer of the control of the military
power, the control of the political power
(the power to allocate the resources),
and
political identification from the level of
the separate units of the system (which
may be the nation states involved) to the
system level. According to Haas, the basis
for system transformation (involving a
greater degree of integration between the
nation states concerned) is a redefinition
by the nation states involved of their na-
tional interests and aims: independent
states in the defined system decide to unite
their military powers, arrive at common
political decisions and establish common
political identifications, as this is con-
ceived to be in accordance with their best
interests. Deutsch emphasises the first and
the last of these components: the establish-
ment of a sense of belonging to the same
community as the essential basis for a
security community. Thus, the attention is
concentrated on the location of the en-
forcement powers (the centre for enforce-
ment measures), the utilitarian powers (the
centre for the allocation of resources), and
the identive (identificatory) powers (the
centre for political identification) to bor-
row the concepts used by Etzioni.
These theories provide useful guidance
in studying the processes at work within
the Nigerian Federation up to June, 1967,
leading to the secession of the Eastern
Region.
The
direction of these processes
148 Olav
Stokke
involving a secession of one sub-unit of the
political system, was different from
that
of the studies mentioned previously. This
makes a preoccupation with the disintegra-
tive factors imperative, though it would be
fallacious
if
this preoccupation caused us
to overlook the integrative factors. On the
other hand, such a preoccupation may well
provide added insight into the processes of
integration and disintegration.
II.
THE
MAIN
FEATURES OF
THE
ADMINISTRATIVE
STRUCTURE
AND
SOME CONSEQUENCES OF
THE
COLONIAL
PRACTICES
It
is a well-known fact but it may well be
repeated that Nigeria is not old as a polit-
ical unit - formal unity was established in
1914, real unity at a much later date."
The
first colonization of Nigeria by the British
started in
1861-62,
but the penetration
was restricted to the coastal areas up to
the turn of the century.
It
was an outside
political power which established the pol-
itical system known as the Nigerian Fed-
eration. Before this outside imposition,
several separate political systems existed
in what is now Nigeria -political systems
which at regional levels had established
relationships of cooperation or conflict of
various degrees.
After the Berlin Congress of
1884-85
the coastal areas were named the Oil
Rivers Protectorate. This Protectorate was
extended in 1893 and re-named the Niger
Coast Protectorate.
The
Protectorate of
Southern Nigeria was established in 1900
under the Colonial Office.
When
the
Crown Colony of Lagos was amalgamated
in 1906, the name was changed to the
Colony and Protectorate of Southern
Nigeria.
The
Protectorate of Northern
Nigeria was established after Lugard had
subdued the northern emirates at the turn
of the century. In 1914 the two protector-
ates were formally amalgamated, the office
of the Governor-General being the pri-
mary common institution. Lagos, however,
was given a separate status.
In fact, the two protectorates were
administered as two separate entities.
The
southern protectorate was divided admin-
istratively into three groups of provinces.
These were later on united administra-
tively, with the headquarters first in Lagos
and later transferred to Enugu. In 1939 this
unit was split into two, the Niger River
constituting the dividing line.
When
the Second W orld
War
started
Nigeria was divided administratively
int~
four units, the colony and the northern,
eastern and western groups of provinces.
Due to war conditions, the central admin-
istration situated in Lagos had to delegate
powers to the administrative sub-centres in
Kaduna (north), Enugu (east) and Ibadan
(west), a practice that further extended the
established division.
After the war this practice was formal-
ized in the Richards Constitution of 1946
which in fact created afederal type of
administrative structure, with political
powers vested in a central authority and
three regional authorities in the north, the
east and the west.
The
division of political
powers between the federal centre and the
regional centres was developed further
under the Macpherson Constitution of
1951, the Lyttelton Constitution of 1954
and the constitutional revisions of 1957
and 1958 before independence - in the
1950s with broad Nigerian participation
in the constitution-making process.
What, then makes the administrative
set-up and practices relevant in the present
context? I have already indicated that
attention should be directed to the location
of the centres of (1) military power, (2) the
power to allocate resources, and (3) polit-
ical identification. In such a context it
will be important to assess the actual
distribution of these powers between the
federal centre and the regional centres, as
laid down in the constitutions and as
established in practice. Extensive powers
given to the regional centres at the expense
of the federal centre will obviously have
serious consequences for the power equili-
brium between the centre of the general
system and the centres of the sub-systems
To continue reading
Request your trial