The Military And Nigeria Politics: An Assessment Of The Domination Of The Military Of The Nigeria Political Space 1999 To 2015

The Military And Nigeria Politics: An Assessment Of The Domination Of The Military Of The Nigeria Political Space 1999 To 2015

Abstract

This study was carried out to examine the service and nigeria politics an assessment of the domination of the service of the nigeria political space 1999 to 2015. Specifically, the study examine the literal antecedent in Nigeria from 1966 to 1976. the study also probe The part of military rule in transition to republic from 1976. incipiently, the study estimate the domination of the service of the Nigeria political space 1999 to 2015. the study was carried out using the literal exploration analysis. The findings revealed that The domination of the service is still felt in all angles of governance in the country as the military elite accumulated a lot of wealth during their long stay in government. In 1999, when the country returned to civil rule, all the elderly officers and Generals retired by President Olusegun Obasanjo were youthful millionaires. At the time President Obasanjo retired the military officers who held political services or served during the military period, utmost of the sheltered officers were in their forties and fifties. They couldn’t sit down and watch the polity doing nothing. They had interests to cover and it would be delicate to achieve that outside politics. While some went into business, others saw politics as an avenue to further ply their influence. They joined politics, queried, patronized campaigners and bankrolled choices. The service was largely responsible for the emergence of General Olusegun Obasanjo as President in 1999. From 1999 till date, retired military officers have been laboriously involved in Nigeria’s politics. The service has produced Governors( Prince Olagusoye Oyinlola, Osun State; Jonah Jang, Plateau State), Legislators( Senator David Mark, a two term Senate President), Ministers, amongst others. They’re playing major places in business, politics, nation structure and peace in the country. The sheltered military officers have also held sway for 14 times out of the current 21 times in the Fourth Republic. The study thereby recommend that the political class and elites shouldn’t allow a reprise of the country’s experience between 1979 and 1983 that led to the alternate incoming of the service in politics. Also, the socio- profitable challenges defying the country should be objectively addressed with emphasis on the intimidating rate of instability and severance in the country.

CHAPTER ONE

Preface

Background of the study

The name “ Nigeria ” was chased by Flora Shaw, who latterly came the woman of Lord Lugard, the British colonizer director, on 8 January 1897, which she used as the title of an composition in The Times( Meek, 1960), to describe the vast land around the River Niger and its receptacle. It was also called Niger- area, but after a long operation it was docked to Nigeria. Mungo Park was exploring the River Niger when he stumbled into this vast area along the Swash. Nigeria presently has a population of about 150 million people; this made th e country the most vibrant nation inSub-Saharan Africa. The country has a population viscosity of 145 occupants per km2( Nigerian National Population Commission Abuja, Nigeria, 2001).

The country is located on the extreme inner corner of the Gulf of Guinea on the West African seacoast and there are over 250 ethnicities in Nigeria. The three most vibrant ethnicities are The Yorubas in the South West, Ibos in the South East and the Hausa- Fulanis in the North; these three main ethnicities constitute 65 of the population while the remaining 35 are made of nonages( Butts & Metz, 1996). About 250 languages are spoken in Nigeria( Agbaje, 1990), although some studies allude to 400 languages.

The military took over the governance of the country through a veritably bloody achievement led by Major Nzeogwu in January 1966( Osoba, 1996). This achievement was claimed to end the lawlessness, ineptness and corruption of the antedating five times of the civil rule( Olutayo, 1999). The achievement lasted for just a couple of days; it couldn’t be said to be a total failure as “ it set( s) the docket of military rule in Nigeria as a ‘ corrective ’ form of governance against corruption and indiscipline and in favour of restoration of republic and justice ”( Olutayo, 1999). Nigeria has been governed for a longer period by the military galère than by mercenary rule after her independence in 1960. Starting from January 1966 to October 1979 and December 1983 to May 1999, the service has ruled the country for about 30 times. The six time miscalculations of the First Republic politicians invited the service to intrude in governance after further than a aggregate of six decades of social lawlessness( Roberts, 2005; Babawale, 1993; Gambari, 1995). Since also, military rule has been a recreating miracle in Nigeria. Political change came about far more constantly through military intervention in politics than through open, competitive choices. The service in the country falsely appeared in tone- assumed messiah- style to save the polity. The military occasionally portrayed as an islet of unadulterated nationalism amidst the chaos of the turbulent decade of the 1960s as Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogwu is said to have remarked, “ It’s only in the Nigerian army that you find Nigerians ”( Suberu, 1997) an assertion that proved else after decades of lawlessness.

Military intervention is principally an attempt by military officers to get involved in the political process to ameliorate upon what they assumed to be the major problem associated with it. This explains why every time a group of military officers take over power, the major defense they give in order to legitimize their intervention are problems similar as insecurity, sanctioned corruption, violent political extremity associated with choices and prejudiced politics( Amujo, 2011).

When the service came to power in Nigeria on January 15, 1966, they

came deeply involved in the political process. In fact, the got involved in a process which is inharmonious with their professional training and exposure. They tried, for illustration, to restructure the polity, through series of policy statement backed by military rulings( Olutayo, 1999). It’s in this environment that they created countries and original governments and it’s also in these surrounds that they introduced executive reform affecting the bureaucracy and the civil service in their attempt to restructure the civil service( Amowo, 1995). Some of these may be licit while in utmost cases they were accepted to satisfy provincial interests which always gave rise to fresh problems which the military seems unable of addressing. After decades of military adversity in politics Nigerians came to realize that military intervention which they were so rapturous about and ate , was an aberration and a huge regression for the country( Elaigwu, 1986). Military rule isn’t open and inclusive, but rather it’s restrictive, exclusive and relatively frequently outright authoritarian. In its attempt to rule, the service mustered ethnical, indigenous, religious and collaborative individualities. The more the political process is heightened, the further the political process is hovered with insecurity and thus the easier it becomes for the service to legitimize its stay in power on the ground that it wants to help the dismemberment of the country life named Nigeria in 1900.

Statement of the problem

The political space of Nigeria has always revolved round the once leaders, whom according to history has held one or two political position in the country’s former democracy or has presently held power in the 4th democracy( Gambari, 1995). Judging from political history, since 1999, Nigeria have had 4 chairpersons till date. All these chairpersons were formerly in the service during the military governance of Nigeria from 1966 to 1979, also republic in 1999 except for Goodluck Jonathan( Etebom, 2014). Example Obasanjo was the military head of State from 1976- 1979, latterly came popular chairman in 1999. Umaru MusaYar’Adua was formerly in the service from 1964- 1975, latterly came popular chairman in 2007 after Obasanjo term. After Jonathan’s term, Buhari who was a former head of state during the military governance from 1983- 1985, latterly came the popular chairman in 2015. it’s against this background that the service and Nigeria politics an assessment of the domination of the service of the Nigeria political space 1999 to 2015

ideal of the study

The general ideal of the study is the service and Nigeria politics an assessment of the domination of the service of the Nigeria political space 1999 to 2015.

To examine the service literal antecedent in Nigeria

To probe the part of military rule in transition to republic

To estimate the domination of the service in the Nigeria political space 1999 to 2015

Exploration Suppositions

The following thesis have been formulated for the study

H0 There’s no domination of the service in the Nigeria political space between 1999 to 2015.

HA; There’s a domination of the service in the Nigeria political space between 1999 to 2015.

Significance of the study

This study will examine the service and Nigeria politics an assessment of the domination of the service of the Nigeria political space 1999 to 2015. Hence the study will be significant in the following ways.

Nigeria crowd this study is significant to the Nigeria crowd as it’ll expose the dominance of the service in the countrys political space, thereby making the citizens see if it’s has been profitable to the growth of the country.

Academia this study is significant to the academic family as it’ll contribute to the being literature on the domination of Nigerias political space by the service.

compass of the study

This study will examine the service literal antecedent in Nigeria from. The study will also probe the part of military rule in transition to republic. incipiently the study will estimate the domination of the service of the Nigeria political space 1999 to 2015.

Limitation of the study

In the course of carrying out this study, the experimenter endured some constraints, which included time constraints, fiscal constraints, language walls, and the station of the repliers.

In addition, there was the element of experimenter bias. Then, the experimenter held some impulses that may have been reflected in the way the data was collected, the type of people canvassed or tried , and how the data gathered was interpreted later. The eventuality for all this to impact the findings and conclusions couldn’t be played down.