THE ROLE OF THE CHURCHES IN COMBATTING CORRUPTION AMONG POLITICAL LEADERS

THE ROLE OF THE CHURCHES IN COMBATTING CORRUPTION AMONG POLITICAL LEADERS

abstract

The rate at which corruption has spread among Anambra state’s political leaders has frayed nerves and instilled fear in the people. Avarice, greed, and the get-rich-quick mentality have all been identified as major contributing factors. As a result, the topic “The Role of Churches in Combating Corruption among Political Leaders in Anambra State, Nigeria” was chosen. The study’s data collection methods include both primary and secondary sources. Oral interviews were used to collect primary data. The study relied on academic books, journal articles, newspapers, magazines, unpublished project works, and periodicals, as well as internet materials, for secondary sources. The historical and descriptive analytical approach was used in the data analysis because it requires an interpretative understanding of the substance of various forms of data. Communication, whether written, spoken, or symbolically. As a result, the research revealed that avarice and greed are the root causes of corruption among Anambra state’s political leaders. This has harmed people’s well-being and slowed the state’s progress. The study also found that embezzlement of public funds, election rigging, kidnapping of political opponents, thuggery, and politically motivated killings were at the heart of some of the political leaders’ activities. It was also discovered that the church used preaching, prayer, social action, an exemplary lifestyle, and sacrifice as anti-corruption strategies. Finally, the Church and the State have a fundamental and innate relationship. The Church is fulfilling her expected role, challenging political leaders to engage in dialogue.  the activities that are for the interest of social progress in Anambra state.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1   BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Bribery and corruption are hydra-headed twins in Nigeria that have eaten deep into the fabric of the society. Bribery and corruption have made steady and seemingly unstoppable progress in Nigeria since the colonial era and continue to this day. Bribery and corruption have become a recurring decimal, whether during the colonial era, when Nigeria gained independence in 1960, or during the long years of military rule (Achunike, 2006: 162). Chuta (2004: 17, 39) traced corruption from pre­colonial to colonial and self­government periods. He went on again to link corruption to the First Republic (1960-1966), the various stages of the military era, and even the second and third republics. Chuta maintained in all of these cases that the majority of

Nigerians have a history of corruption. According to Ugwu (2002: 16), the major roots of corruption were sown during the colonial period, when many structures were created for the purpose of administration. The pro-colonial society knew little or nothing about corruption, but soon after Nigeria’s independence in 1960, and again shortly after it became a republic in 1963, corruption grew to dizzying proportions in every sphere of human life.

According to Kalu (2007: 2), the underprivileged are victims of corruption, while the ruling class hypocritically condemns acts that benefit its fold. The vast majority of Nigerians have migrated over the years.

learned about bribery and experimented with it corruption. Corruption appeared to have thus become a part of Nigerians’ daily lives. This is because the situation in which most Nigerians find themselves today makes corruption easy, and corruption will only fade when good and responsible governance prevails. Many Nigerians do not believe that hard work pays off. Similarly, few people believe that honesty is worth attempting (Achunike, 2006: 163). According to Madu (2003: 1), hard work has been sacrificed on the altar of easy ways to make money such as 419, ritual murders, and corruption in its various manifestations. Materialism has infiltrated so deeply into people’s minds that spiritual values have been de-emphasized, as evidenced by the prosperity sermons of many of God’s anointed men and their materialistic outlooks.

life-styles. Meanwhile, twenty-two years ago, Achebe (1983:1) observed that: The problem with Nigeria is simply and unequivocally a failure of leadership. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with Nigerian land, climate, water, air, or anything else. Nigeria’s problems stem from its leaders’ unwillingness or inability to accept responsibility or the challenge of personal example, both of which are hallmarks of true leadership.

It is clear from Achebe’s observations that the common man

looks up to the ruling elite for guidance in avoiding corruption. However, such expectations from Nigeria’s leadership have not been met. In Nigeria, democracy, which is supposed to be the government of the people, has failed. When Nigeria’s first generation rulers

When Major Chukwuma Nzogwu and his military colleagues became corrupt, they launched an attack. Nzogwu stated in his broadcast that they have come to save Nigerians from inept and corrupt leadership. According to Nzeogwu, as cited by Uju in (Ugwu, 2002: 3), “our enemies are the political profiteers, the politicians.”

Swindlers, men in high and low places who seek bribes and demand 10%, those who have corrupted our society and set the country back by their words and deeds”.

The above statement was made during Chukwuma Nzogwu’s national broadcast on January 15, 1960.

The goal was thus to provide good governance to the vast majority of Nigerians. However, in their political governance, the military has consistently failed to save the masses. Corruption and abuse of power have occurred.  Nigeria has long had these features. Nigeria has been described as a “unfinished state and as a truculent African state tragedy” by Joseph, R. S. and Taylor, A. A. (1996: 9). (Ayittey, 2006: 2) posited that in the midst of abundant human and material resources, efforts at building a democratic polity further entrapped it at the “political cross­roads”. Despite its enormous wealth from oil resources, economic endowment, social and political strength, Nigeria has not earned the title of African giant. According to Kew (2006: 12), “the giant was brought to its knees by 20 years of brutal and corrupt military rule, which left a legacy of executive dominance and political corruption in the hands of Nigeria’s so-called “godfathers,” powerful political bosses sitting at the top.”

vast patronage networks who view government primarily through the lens of personal enrichment.

As a result of the insecurity, the leadership’s focus became narrow.

with personal survival taking precedence over national development. Attempts to promote “democratic consolidation” were hampered by the personality cult of emerging political gladiators who used state power to further their personal agenda.

According to Skiar (2006: 3), Nigeria’s political elite

Vie for power and control over the vast spoils of office”. “The centralized political and economic structures made the military and civilian individuals who controlled key state positions fabulously wealthy, while 70% of Nigerians fell into abject poverty,” according to the report.

Poor leadership has resulted in stagnation and citizen alienation.

causing

a lack of sense of belonging, and no identification with the political system (Mayer, 1996: 10). According to Kew (2006:21), the Nigerian government remains distant from serving its people’s interests. The powerful mandarin who built vast patronage networks during the military era and their personal fortunes dominate Nigerian politics at the federal, state, and local levels. Furthermore, many of those so-called “godfathers” have been cultivating personal militias in order to secure their positions, sparking a local arms race in some areas. Despite the fact that several governors are under investigation for money laundering abroad, and others are being investigated at home. The bonanza continues in public coffers for these power brokers, despite the fact that basic infrastructure in many parts of the country remains deficient.

As it was under military rule, it was dilapidated.

It is the situation described by Ake (1995: 2-5) as the result of the pattern of state affairs in the developing world. According to him, the high value placed on political power, as well as the intense competition for it, impedes national development in order to promote the personal interests of political leaders. Eke also pointed out:

Most African leaders are politically insecure as they are besieged by a slew of hostile forces. They are so consumed by the struggle for survival that they are unable to address the issue of development.

Skiar (2006: 3-4) observed that the Nigerian polity has a leadership problem.

was a manifestation of the military’s dysfunctional pattern over the years

interregnum. Nigeria’s leadership pattern lacks the necessary focus to instill national development and promote political stability. Rather,

Nigerian leaders are preoccupied with their desire to seize and privatize the Nigerian state. The fall of the Second Republic, for example, was precipitated by widespread corruption and the accompanying political violence that accompanied electoral manipulations in an attempt to maintain power (Ayeni, 1988: 30).