See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/325514511

THE THEORY OF POLITICAL OBLIGATIONS AND ABUSE OF OFFICE IN NIGERIA

Article · June 2018

CITATIONS READS
0 3,204

3 authors, including:

Makoji Robert Ogbole Francis E. Orokpo

Federal Polytechnic Idah The Federal Polytechnic Idah, Kogi State, Nigeria
3 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS    20 PUBLICATIONS   26 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ogbole Francis E. Orokpo on 01 June 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

THE THEORY OF POLITICAL OBLIGATIONS AND ABUSE OF OFFICE IN
NIGERIA

STEPHEN, MAKOJI ROBERT

Department of Public Administration
Federal Polytechnic Idah, Kogi State
makaytovia@yahoo.com
&
OROKPO, OGBOLE F.E
Department of Public Administration
Federal Polytechnic Idah, Kogi State
orokpogbole@yahoo.com
Corresponding Author: Orokpo, Ogbole F.E orokpogbole@yahoo.com

GSM: 07039009209

Abstract

The crisis of governance in Nigeria is no doubt a daunting

challenge; hence over time several theories and paradigms have
being used to explain this phenomenon. This paper examines the
interface that exists between the theory of political obligations and
the explanation of the relationship between the ruled and the rulers
in Nigeria. The fact remains that in Nigeria, we have a crop of
‘rulers’ nay; leaders who have no sense of obligation that
leadership is a trust between the ruler and the ruled. It is the
conclusion of this paper that good governance in Nigeria will
continue to be a mirage if the tenets of the theory of political
obligations upon which the need for good governance rest is not
upheld by political office holders.

1
Key Words: Divine theory, Consent theory, Political Obligation, Political leadership,
Democracy, Social contract.

Introduction

The term ‘obligation’ originates from a Latin word ‘obligate’ implying something that binds men
to an engagement or performing what is enjoined. Political obligation has various connotations;
for instance, in the realm of ethics it informs a man to fulfil or discharge a duty enjoined on him
and acceptable to him by his rational understanding. In the field of jurisprudence it requires a
man to obey law by which he is tied to some ‘performance’.
In the world of politics, it takes the form of a bond between man as a citizen and the authority
under which he lives. In other word, it implies that as man is a political animal, he is bond to live
under some authority and, as such, it becomes his obligation to obey its commands.

Obviously, the idea of political obligation or acceptance of the ‘commands’ of men –in-
authority roles is integrally connected with the pattern of man’s life in an organised whole.
Suffice it to say that there can be no life if there is no order; and since order implies obedience,
we may also say that there can be no order if there is acceptance of it. Obviously, the principle of
political obligation is based on the maxim of common prudence. Political obligation according to
Green (1999) means both the obligation of the subject towards the sovereign, of the citizen
towards the state, and the obligations of individuals to each other as enforced by a political
superior.
Therefore, a wider interpretation of the same covers the opposite situation in which people have
a legitimate claim for the disobedience of authority. The people not only obey the law of the state
or the commands of the sovereign for they also scrutinise those orders in terms of the satisfaction
they seek from life, and, from time to time, they reject them on the ground that they are a denial
of those satisfaction (Johari, 1989). This paper highlights the theory of political obligations and
its relevance in explaining the abuse of office.
2
Political Obligation: A Conceptualization

Political obligation is a broad notion and covers many things. Some have said for example, that
the citizen has an obligation or duty to vote. Others have claimed that the citizens may have a
duty to serve their country and possibly even to fight in its defence. Most people who talk of
political obligation however, have one thing in mind –the citizen’s duty to obey the laws in their
own country. Political obligation thus refers to the moral duty of citizens to obey the laws of
their state. There is an analytical connection between duty and obligation. Obligation often has
the same meaning as duty. To be obliged means to have a duty. An obligation can also be the act
of obliging oneself or someone else. Generally, we can say that people are obliged to perform
their duty. Determining the ground on which this general obligation is founded ultimately is a
difficult philosophical question. But it seems clear that there cannot be an obligation without a
will imposing a duty or an obliging will.

Many political theories consider political obligation of citizens to obey the laws and commands
of the state. Under normal circumstances, all citizens ought to behave in conformity with their
conscientious interpretation of the law. This obligation to obey can be understand as moral duty,
the explanation of which does not need a special conception of political obligation as distinct
from legal or ethical obligation. This seems true as long as the state does not ask its citizens an
extraordinary readiness to make sacrifices or to take special responsibilities. But political
obligation is also associated with a duty to defend your country, to fight for justice and,
particularly in war even to risk your own life.

The idea of political obligation has these essential characteristics according to Johari (1989:251).

 Government is a difficult art and any wrong move entails serious consequences.
Therefore, it is the duty of every conscientious person to interest him seriously in the
management of public affairs. It is required that those placed in high offices should direct
their thought and action to the general good. Political obligations are not only of an
intellectual character; they also involve obligation of an honest and what is called public
office.

3
  The concept of political obligation automatically involves the case of political legitimacy
and effectiveness. While political effectiveness implies actual performance in the light of
the extent to which the political system provides for the performance of basic functions of
government as the people and powerful groups in society them, the case of political
legitimacy refer to the capacity of the system to engender and maintain the belief that the
existing social, economic and political institutions are more appropriate for society.
 The idea of political obligation not only informs people to obey the authority of those in
power, it also desires them to be critical about the way authority is exercised. They
should scrutinise the actions of their rulers and resent in the event of any invasion on their
liberties. Thus, the idea of political obligation involves the case of resistance to authority.

From the foregoing, the whole idea of political obligation is that there are good grounds for
accepting authority in general, but there may be good ground for rejecting it in particular cases, if
it is unconstitutional. Again, if its legitimacy depends on the way it is used, an invasion of a
sphere where political authority is inappropriate might be a good ground for disobedience or, in
extreme cases, for resistance. Political obligation seems to be a kind of obligation concerning the
duties of political leaders and citizens together who, as a collectivity are responsible for the
political system as a whole.

Political Obligation: A Theoretical Perspective

Various theories have been enunciated on the subject of political obligation. The oldest of which
is the divine theory which finds its place in religious doctrines. Here the source of obedience to
the commands of men-in-authority role is traced in matters of faith. Upon this theory the
necessity which stands above and apart from the citizens and the governing authority is that of
the Divine Will and ordinance. I am obliged to obey God and because any governing authority is
essentially an emanation and delegation of divine authority. In other words, the authority of the
ruler sterns not only from inheritance according to custom, or from popular acclamation, these
are regarded as the consequences rather than the grounds of authority. The true source is divine
and his authority is therefore, independent both of human choice and custom.

4
It is obvious that the divine theory sacrifices the nature of authority and commands persons to
obey it as if it is an emanation of God. An interpretation of this kind led to the emergence of
dogma of divine rights of kings. It has its place in the injunctions of various religions like
Hinduism and Christianity. It therefore leaves no room at all for right to resist political authority.
The state can do no wrong; it is like the ‘‘March of God on earth’’. This however has lost its
significance in modern times with the growth of new knowledge of secularism.

The primary reason for having a political obligation to obey the government comes from the
understanding that it should result in more personal security for its own people. Thomas Hobbes,
an important English political theorist, argued that a ‘state of nature’ (meaning how life would be
like without government) would be ‘nasty, brutish and short’ in his famous work ‘Leviathan’.
This is where Hobbes argued when he said that without a government in his ‘state of nature’ it
would be a ‘war of all against all.’ When he is quoted saying life would be ‘nasty, brutal and
short’ in this state he argues that we should give our power away to an absolute monarch who
would protect us from ourselves and each other. Regardless of his solution Hobbes’ words have
been used to remind people of what life could be, and was in earlier times, like without a
government thus enforcing the idea of what could be at stake if we don’t obey our government.
‘Social Contract’ gives us a tangible reason to obey the government. When the Frenchman Jean-
Jaques Rousseuau took up these themes in his treatise ‘The Social Contract’ he articulated this as
an agreement between all people about how their will be demonstrated to the government. It was
not as in Hobbes, where the population pool their individual power and give it over to the ruler/s.
Within this development of ‘Social Contract’ theory there was established a ‘right to
rebellion/revolution’ if the government was not representing the ‘will of the people’. It was most
clearly specified in John Locke’s 1689 work ‘Two Treatises of Government’ where he
established this ‘right to rebellion’ where the government was tyrannical. Rousseuau’s idea was
that the ‘contract’ would be refreshed and renewed with each demonstration of the ‘general will’
but without direct democracy this had to be achieved in some other way. To this end, Locke
introduced the idea of ‘checks and balances’ being put in place to ensure that the executive and
legislature have a separation of powers. This ‘right to rebellion/revolution’ was considered so
important that it is mentioned in the US Constitution, the French Revolutionary ‘Rights of Man’
proclamation and is still considered by most to be fundamental to the conception of a modern
5
‘Social Contract.’ In circumstances where the government is seen to be ‘unjust’ (a term that
blatantly suffers from relativism) or repressive it could be argued that non-violent protest or in
even more dramatic cases revolution, or to some others even terrorism, could be sanctioned.
Non-violent protest or ‘Satyagraha’ was famously used by Gandhi to express his dissatisfaction
with British rule in India and other non-violent protests like that of Rosa Parks in the black civil-
rights movement in the United States of America. The argument for violent revolution or even
terrorism is weaker but if the oppression of the people is extreme enough then more dramatic
methods could be employed. In most famous revolutions it is an oppressive dictator or regime
that is seen by the people to not represent them that are targeted, but to what lengths people can
go in this situation is definitely a matter of opinion.

All these theories on the subject of political obligation are no doubt significant but the theory
finding the source of political obligation in the element of consent of the individuals has become
the most important of all. It dwells on the factor of consent of the people as revealed in a
hypothetical social contract alluded to above on which the entire structure of political obligation
rests. The people are the makers of the state and as such, they are its mutators. God has no place
in the making of the state as stressed by Hobbes and Locke in the seventeenth century England, it
signifies that political authority is derived from a social contract and the people are collectively
bound to obey it so long as the government works for the general good and keeps itself within
limits laid down by the compact. As Locke says: ‘’No one can be subjected to the political power
of another without his own consent’’ (Locke, 1690).

The system of democratic government today stands on the premise of the consent theory in view
of the fact it alone attaches importance to the ’’will of the people ’’. The people institute a
sovereign authority for the sake of their own preservation and if the sovereign puts their life in
danger they resort to make another contract. The statement of Locke is however more forthright
when he sanctions people’s rights to revolt in case the government abuse the trust of the people.
If so, these theory has its distinctive merit, but the point of serious demerits is that it makes state
a conventional association and informs people to rise in revolt whenever they feel dissatisfied
with the functioning of government which of cause is what is needed to liberate our nation from
the shackles of self- serving rulers and put her on the path of development.

6
Theory of Political Obligation and its relevance in explaining the abuse of Political office in
Nigeria

The import of political obligation and its relevance in explaining the undue abuse of political
office by our political cum bureaucrats cannot be over emphasized. People in the Third World
especially Africa must feel that the citizens of advanced democracies must be out of their minds
if they seek to crucify or actually crucify their leaders for such flimsy reasons when their own
leaders actually get away with incredible crimes such as kleptomania, accessory to murder,
accessory to kidnapping, subversion of institutions of state etc. It just goes to show how far we
still have to go or to put it more accurately, how far we have fallen behind in the human race
towards an actualisation of a government of the people, for the people and by the people.
Governance has become so vast and complex that the government of the people, for the people
and by the people has become the government of the people, by the government and for the
people as far as the leadership is concerned in Africa (Akinyemi, 2004). The recent Arab Spring
brings to the fore the fact that citizens have begin to question the excesses of political leadership.

In Yoruba history, there was evidence of Obas being forced to commit suicide or being forced to
go into exile after their behaviour had been deemed inimical to the interest of the body polity.
These sanctions were pretty severe and effective. Where these sanctions are now when in most
African countries, instruments of checks and balances are now under the effective control of the
executive? Most politicians enjoy the special power and status connected with their
responsibility. Many politicians seem to strive for political positions because of the personal
advantages. Political power, status, and privileges can easily be employed for the personal
benefits of friends and family.

To avoid corruption and unfair benefiting, the obligations of public offices must be clearly
defined. Public servants have an official duty to do what the legal political system wants. They
have this duty insofar as they themselves are a functional part of the system. This functional
relationship is not characterised by a lien of political obligation, because its duties are defined by
formal rules and legal obligation. The duty to perform their tasks in a formally prescribed
impersonal and detached manner relieves civil servants of too many burdensome moral worries.

7
But an excessive devotion to formal duty can also make officials blind to other moral
requirements.

Political obligation is connected with the notion of 'noblesse oblige'. Therefore, it appears
reasonable that officials in leading positions can be held politically responsible for the effects of
the political choices that they have made or have refused to make. How a person has to choose is
determined by moral judgement, but the fact that he has to choose is a question of political
obligation and courage. Leadership plays an important role in democracy, but it cannot be
formalised into a command system with a descending order of subordination like the army or
bureaucratic organisations. A democratic leader not only has to justify his political ends and
actions to his fellow citizens, but he must also take political responsibility for promoting, within
his own society, a moral sense of the value of democratic answerability. Democratic political
virtue is allergic to utopian conceptions of political heroism and leadership as exemplified in
Africa. Democracy obliges leaders as well as citizens to develop more communicative political
virtues and to be inventive in the search for other political means than enforcement by war and
violence.

There is no gainsaying the fact that Nigeria is known to be plagued by the diseases of
corruption, inability to enforce the rule of law, human right abuses, lack of transparency and
accountability in governance and administration, war and conflicts, underdevelopment, hunger
and starvation which have brought about retardation in social, economic and political
development. The presence of these insalubrious factors has given rise to certain identifiable
features in the governance process of in our nation-state. These features are highlighted below:

(a) The alienation of the state from society;

(b) Unethical conduct by politicians, military leadership and public officials;

(c) Lack of patriotism and allegiance and

(d) General poverty and underdevelopment.

The preponderance of these distasteful anomalies has given rise to an enquiry why citizen’s
expectations of state actions are quite often disappointingly low.

8
The state in modern governance consideration represents the ultimate elixir for the rule of law,
impartial arbiter, the provider of the good life and the last hope for the oppressed and down-
trodden. By the theories of the state, the social contract theory sees the state as a necessary evil, a
system of power and public authority to which society submits for its own good. Without some
order and authority, argued Hobbes (1957); society would be totally destroyed by the selfishness
of its own members. Rousseau (1913), accepts submission to authority as the product of a
rational choice in society; a contract among citizens which establishes the limits between public
authority and the domain of the individual and one which of necessity preserves individual
sovereignty as the highest form of freedom when in society.

What should be considered significant at this point of discussion is the logic in the fact that when
state practices deviates substantially from stated norms, values, expectations, order and trust, an
alternative medium that would encapsulate the grievances and yearnings of the people now takes
over. Citizens’ control over the operations of government is a core necessity in every democracy.
It cannot be attained when there is insufficient knowledge on the fit between what citizens desire
and what governments offer. By electing a government, people lend, alienate or give up their
power to rules on condition that it be used to satisfy certain of their most important needs
(Hampton;1986:256). These needs which are security, social order, welfare, availability of
facilities, general well being, etc. must be delivered by government; otherwise the social contract
becomes useless since the basic tenets of democracy no longer exist. Palfrey et-al (1992) and
Rhodes (1987:63-73); argued that a good government must take into consideration social
welfare, equity, equal opportunities and fair distribution of public goods to all citizens.

The failure of the formal institutions of government and the ruling class now shows that the
leadership has failed to understand the fact that they are occupying a position of trust and
therefore need to fulfil their part of the compact by leaving a legacy of good governance that is
not self-seeking. Rather we have a pathetic situation where the leadership don’t have any sense
of obligation towards the citizen which is supposed to be symbiotic. To say the least, politicians
at the federal, state and local government levels are the highest paid public office holders;
consequently, politics in Nigeria has become prebendalistic and wrongly perceived as a
commercial and business venture where millions of naira are invested in the electoral process

9
and billions of naira is reaped as profit (Agba, Coker, Agba, 2010). Personal interests of
politicians, their supporters and political god fathers seem to be the utmost pursuit of the vast
majority of political office holders throughout the years spent in office (Agba el tal 2012). Most
of the political actors have always exhibited a self seeking agenda or programme. In other words,
a good number of politicians, past and present, came to political limelight with the sole aim of
what they get from the system not what they will contribute to improve the system. Naturally,
evils like favouritism, prejudice, bigotry, corruption, take the centre stage. Instead of being
agents of positive social change these political elites become ruthless predators on the society or
establishment they are supposed to serve or lead thereby leading to gross abuse of political
office.

Oyovbaire (2007), asserts that what we have is personal rule by the President, Governors and
others in leadership structures. Personal rule is a fundamental anti-thesis of constitutional and
democratic government. As it is well expatiated by scholars many years ago, in a regime of
personal rule, Persons take precedence over rules, the office holder is not efficiently bound by
his office and is able therefore to change its authority and powers to suit his own personal rule;
the rulers and their appointed leaders take precedence over the formal rules of the political game;
the rules do not efficiently regulate political behaviour; and the people therefore cannot predict
or anticipate conduct from the knowledge of the rules. The state is government of men and not of
laws. Nigeria’s nascent democracy and the associated jumbo pay package has become a
watershed for improving the economic conditions of politicians in power and have further widen
the gap between the political elite and the masses. This implication is glaring when one compares
what the country spends to maintain a senator and the mass poverty in the country. For instance,
statistics on poverty in Nigeria are frightening and not encouraging. A country with about 70%
of its population living or navigating below poverty line of two dollars per day cannot afford to
continue to spend an average of 25 percent of its total annual overhead cost of the federal budget
on few persons, who serve as legislators or political office holders. It is in the light of this that,
the Central Bank Governor cautioned that should this continue, Nigeria may never compete with
the emerging economies in Asia. The 2010 recurrent budget of the Federal Government stood at
N500 billion while the recurrent expenditure of the National Assembly, NASS, stood at N136.2
billion, amounting to about 25 percent of the recurrent budget (Manuaka, 2010:55). This shows
10
the profligacy of the Nigerian political class following the emergence of politicians with
prebendalistic minds and not the mind to serve. A paradigm shift that sees politics as service to
the people and servant leadership is inescapably required (Agba, el tal 2012).

Professor Peter Ekeh long ago offered a classification of the country’s politico-cultural landscape
as amoral and civic publics or societies. It is the amorality and lack of civility in the various
public domains and theatres that have made it extremely difficult for the rulers and the ruled, the
elected and the electorate, the governors and the governed, and the leadership and society to
observe the boundaries of tolerable conduct and behaviour, to restrain from and to sanction
political excesses and enforce rules and codes without undue drama. Hence, leaders take oath of
office, swear before God and the people whose mandate they assume, to uphold, preserve and
enforce the constitution without fear, or favour, yet they proceed recklessly and without qualm to
arrogantly break the oath, trample on the constitution, and select which laws, court judgments
and rules to obey and enforce, or to ignore (Oyovbaire, 2007) thereby trampling on the sanctity
of political obligation.

Osakwe (2011), opines that government should be basically seen as a ‘management consultant’.
Government is put in place to do those things the people cannot do cheaper and more easily.
Government and their agents will be judged by their management performance according to the
contract document; in this case the constitution of the country. Government and its functionaries
must maintain liberty, freedom, rule of law, justice to everyone, fundamental human rights and
general good governance. Government must be efficient both in the discharge of their duties and
in the use of resources. The government must also realize that the people (the masses) are the
client and therefore are entitled to:

a. Courtesy and respect from the ‘contractor’ (that is, the government and its agents).
b. Accountability.
c. Maximum saving in terms of both demand by and expenditure from contractor.
d. Change the client according to the rules just as the client has the right to change his contractor
and management consultant.

11
Concluding Remarks

The most important reason given for arguing that we have a political obligation to obey the
government is that without a functioning government we would be in a, so called, ‘state of
nature’ where, with no laws, it would be a war ‘of all against all.’ In this state, it has also been
famously said that life would be, ‘nasty, brutish and short’, so the implication is that we need to
submit to a greater ‘social order’ of some sort, for our own security. This idea was first
articulated by what political theorist call ‘social contract theory’. This is the now implicit
understanding that there is an abstract ‘social contract’ between the people to ensure that the
government respects the ‘general will’ of the electorate. Put very crudely, these ‘contracts’ are
meant to ensure that the people’s interests will be served by the government in return for people
obeying the law. How far this has being respected remains an issue of persistent debate with no
respite in sight in Nigeria.

The fact remains that we have a crop of ‘rulers’ nay; leaders and political office holders who
have no sense of obligation that leadership is a trust between the ruler and the ruled.. Suffice it to
say that good governance, accountability, national security and the most needed development we
yearn for will continue to be a mirage if the tenets of the theory of political obligations are not
upheld.

References
Agba, M.S, Coker, M.A., Agba, A.M.O. (2010). “Political Thuggery and Democratic Dividends
in Nigeria”. International Journal of Public Administration, 33 (4): 192-199.

Agba, M.S el tal (2012). “Reward System in the Nigerian Political and Public Sector: The Call
for a Paradigm Shift in the 21st Century”. International Journal of Learning &
Development. Vol. 2, No. 5: 77-85.
Akinyemi, B.A (2004). Governance: Social Contract between the Governed and the
Government. Second Convocation Lecture of Igbinedion University Okada, Nigeria 26,
November.

Ekeh P (1975). “Colonialism and the Two Publics in Africa: A Theoretical Statement”,
Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 17, No. 1, Jan., pp 91-112.

Gelbert,M (2006). A Theory of Political Obligation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Green, L (2003). Legal Obligation and Authority. Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy.

12
 Green,T.H (1999). Principles of Political Obligation. Ontario:Batoche Books.

Hampton, J (1986). Hobbes and the Social Contract Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Hare, R.M (1976). Political Obligation, in Ted Honderich (ed); Social Ends and political
Means. London. pp 1-12.
Herman, V.E (2010). Democracy and Political Obligation>
http://www.bu.edu/wep/paper/poli/polivane.htm
Hobbes, T (1957), Leviathan edited with an introduction by Michael Orkeshortt. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Johari, J.C (1989). Principle of Modern Political Science. New Delhi: India.

Klosko, G (1992), The Principle of Fairness and Political Obligation. Savarage: Rowman and
Littlefield.
Klosko, G (2005). Political Obligations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Locke, J (1690). The Second Treatise of Civil Government.

MacPherson, T (1967). Political Obligation. London: Routledge.

Oyovbaire S.E (2007). “The Crisis of Governance in Nigeria” 23rd Convocation Lecture
Delivered At University Of Port Harcourt, On Thursday 15th March.

Osakwe E (2011). ‘Democracy and the Crises of Accountability in the Public Service in Nigeria’
in Arts and Social Science Journal Volume 2011: ASSJ-26 pg 1-5.

Palfrey, C.L et al (1992). Policy Evaluation in the Public Sector. Avenbury: Hants Publishers.

Rawls, J (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge. Harvard University Press.

Rhodes, R (1997). Understanding Governance: Policy networks, Governance, Reflexibility and

Accountability. Buckinghan. Open University Press.

Rousseau, J.J (1762). The Social Contract and Discourse. Translated with an introduction by
G.D.H. Cole 1913. London and Toronto: Dent and Sons.

13

View publication stats