The ABC of Political Sci. Brako & Asah-Asante

The ABC of
PolitiGca
l Science
Isaac Brako &
Kwame Asah-Asante
© Copyright Isaac Brako and Kwame Asah-Asante, 2014
All Rights Reserved No part of this

book may be reproduced in any form by photocopy or
by electronic or mechanical means,
including information storage or retrieval systems,
without permission in writing from both the copyright
owner and the publisher of this book.
ISBN 978-9988-2-0597-3
Designed and Printed by

Black Mask Ltd.
E-mail:bmask4u ©yahoo.com
Cover Design by Michael Frimpong

Foreword
Since the introduction of Political Science or Politics as an academic discipline in universities,
and Government as a subject in secondary schools or colleges across the globe, there has
been a flurry of textbooks not only to assist students to better understand the discipline and
the subject but also to expand the frontiers of knowledge. The discipline and subject are
important because life and death issues such as war and peace are largely shaped by
political ideologies, policies, and exigencies of political fortune. In this connection the role
of the state and the use and misuse of power by politicians are always present in our
everyday lives and policies and decisions that affect us are taken by intra-state, inter-state
and trans-state organizations. The political arena is largely populated by politicians, political
parties, election and various institutions of government especially the executive, legislature
and judiciary. Beyond these core actors and institutions are non-state actors such as civil
society organizations (CSOs) that provide the economic, social, and cultural context to
political activity. In other words, Political Science, Politics and Government are in a sense
everywhere and of undoubted significance to the quality of the lives of citizens. Accordingly,
no single focus or entire approach can provide all the answers to political questions and the
understanding of students about the various strands and facets of Political Science, Politics
and Government.
It is against this backdrop that the book, The ABC of Political Science, should be viewed.
The purpose of the book is to provide "a comprehensive and up-to-date introduction to
the study of politics" and one "which will provide students with the basic tools needed to
get started on the journey into the foundations of politics". There are a number of features
which make the book accessible to the reader and useful as an interactive textbook between
instructors and students. First, it is written in a "more conversational style... to supplement
or clarify concepts learnt in textbooks and daily contacts with governance and politics".
Second, it covers a wide range of seminal topics such as the state, power, authority,
sovereignty, influence, democracy, ideology and forms of government and currents ones
such as good governance and laced with examples from Ghana. Third, it examines the
various features of the political landscape by interspersing the narrative with an "outline of
the major themes addressed in the chapter and a summary of the content at the end".
Fourth, it provides a useful genesis or origins of some of the concepts used.
I have taught first and second year courses in Introduction to Politics and Elements of
Political Science respectively at the Department of Political Science, University of Ghana,
Legon. I have also served as an examiner in Government for the West African Examinations
Council (WAEC) in the early 1980s. I am therefore very conversant with not only the
fields of Political Science, Politics and Government but also with the challenges students
face in grappling with the discipline and subject. The book, The ABC of Political Science,
is therefore not only a welcome addition to the textbooks on Political Science or Politics
but will also address some of the learning challenges students face in their studies. It may
also be read by people interested in particular themes but also those who are looking for a
general treatment of the study of Political Science.
Joseph R.A. Ayee (PhD; FGA; FGIM)

Professor & first Emeka Anyaoku Visiting
Professor of Commonwealth Studies, University of London
Date: 24th June, 2014
Preface
A long term view held by many people is that one never really gets to know a subject until
one has to teach it. If this position is anything to go by, then it is doubly certain that one
really learns a subject when one writes about it. The ABC of Political Science is a result
of the teaching experiences of the authors. Nonetheless, the book does not represent all
there is to know about political science. Instead, it is what we hope will be the starting
point for individuals who engage in politics or political thought.
The book has been primarily prepared to be a primer for students of political science,
non-political science students whose courses and programmes are not primarily about
politics, but in which an understanding of political science is particularly useful, as well as
general readers who are interested in the subject of politics.
This book provides a comprehensive and up-to-date introduction to the study of politics.
In essence, it seeks to provide students with the basic tools needed to get started on the
journey into the foundations of politics. We have attempted to write the book in a more
conversational style than most textbooks. Our goal is to provide a readable textbook and
useful reference that can be used to supplement or clarify concepts learnt in textbooks and
daily contacts with governance and politics.
Each chapter starts with an outline of major themes addressed in the each chapter. At the
end of each chapter there is a of summary of the contents. Revision questions have also been
provided at the end of each chapter to serve as a guide to students.
Isaac Brako and Kwame

Asah-Asante
Acknowledgements
"Knowledge", the sages say, "is like the baobab tree; no one person's arms can embrace
it all alone". Certainly, this work would not have been completed without the extended
help we received from a number of individuals to whom we owe tons of gratitude. Anyone
who has written a textbook before knows exactly what we mean by our expression of
gratitude to such people. We hesitate to single out anyone, lest we slight others since the
list is endless, but at the same time, we would be remiss if we do not acknowledge at least
some of the individuals with whom we worked closely and others we are connected to by
blood or other means.
Deserving the foremost mention is Dr. Gordon S. K. Adika, a Senior Research Fellow at
the University of Ghana, Legon for accepting to edit the work at a very short notice and
also for recommending to us the publishers of this work. Professor J.R.A. Ayee, who also
agreed to write the foreword to this book at a very short notice, equally deserves our
greatest commendation. Quite apart from writing the foreward, Prof. Ayee also made a
number of useful suggestions to knock the book into shape.
Our gratitude must also be expressed to Mr. Kwabena Darko, the Managing Director of
Esan-Loco Company Limited, Tema, for supporting us financially to complete the project.
We also wish to express our gratitude to the publishers of the numerous literature we have
made reference to, which are compiled in the bibliography.
It is customary for authors to thank their spouses and children in a project such as this. To
write a textbook of this kind to meet a publisher's deadline, while still discharging our
duties as university lecturers, meant a period of great overload and strain, and long absences
from home. In fact, we denied them the care, attention and support they needed from us
during the days of our workshop to produce this book and we are delighted to record our
greatest appreciation to them - Mesdames Akosua Asah-Asante and Gifty Of ori-Appiah
as well as Kwasi, Afua, Kwaku, Shadrack, Bright, Gertrude, Joycelyne and Irene.
Contents
Foreword............
Preface...
Acknowledgements...
.
Contents ............
List of illustrative material
Chapter One Nature and Scope of Political Science.

Meaning of politics......................
Other definitions of politics ..........
Political science ........................
Is the study of politics scientific?...
The scope of political science ......
Government .............................
Functions of government .............
Classification of government........
Monarchy. ..........
Tyranny...
Other forms of government .........
Summary...........
Revision questions .......
Chapter Two The State ...................................

The origin of the word state.........
Meaning of the state........
The ABC of Political Science
The essential features of the state...

Theories of the origin of the state-
Divine theory. .
Social contracts theories ............
Force theory. .....
Genetic theory... .............
The role of the state...
The concept of nation..............
Features of a nation...................
Distinction between state and nation...
Similarities between state and nation-
Concept of nation-state ...........
State and government...
State capacity... ............
Summary, ••• •••
Revision questions ...
Chapter Three The Concepts of Power, Influence, Authority,

... ...
Legitimacy and Sovereignty...
Power., L... ... ... ... ... ...
Characteristics of power. ...........

Sources of power...........
Modes of exercising power. .......
... ... ...
Influence .....................
Forms of influence .........
... ... ... ...
Authority. .........
Features of authority. ......
Types of authority. ..........
Traditional authority.........
Charismatic authority. .................
Legal-rational authority...
Legitimacy. .......
Sovereignty... .....................................
Features of sovereignty...
Location of sovereignty...
Types of sovereignty .......
Limitations on the sovereign power of the state...
Summary... ... ... ...
Revision questions ..........................................
Chapter Four Ideology. ............

Meaning of ideology.. .............
Features of ideology... ...
Functions of ideology. .....
Classification of ideology..
The left-right continuum of ideology..
Major ideologies ............
Feudalism .........
liberalism... ... ... ...
Features of liberalism ......
Classical liberalism .........
Modem liberalism ..........
Neo-liberalism...
Conservatism...
X The ABC of Political Science
Elements of conservatism ............ ... ... ... ... 68

Classical conservatism... ... ... ... ... ... 69
Neo-conservatism .......... ... ... ...... ... 69
capitalism... ••• ... »•• ••• ••• ••• •••
Socialism .......... ... ... ... ... ... ... 71
Features of socialism ...... ... ... ...... ... 73
Marxism/Leninism ....... ... ... ...... ... 74
The principle of Marxism ............ ... ... ... ... 75
Communism ..... ... ... ... ... ... ... 78
Fascism and Nazism... .................... ... ... 79
FACISM ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Meaning of fascism......... ... ... ...... ... 80
Tenets of fascism ............ ... ... ...... ... 80
Nazism... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
The life of Adolf Hitler.................................................................. 81
The principles underlying Nazism ............ ... ... ... 83
Anarchism ......... ... ... ... ... ... ... 84
Summary. .......... ... ... ... ... ... ... 87
Revision questions ........ ... ... ... ... ... 88
Chapter Five Systems of Government ........... ... ... ... ... 89

The presidential executive system ...... ... ........... 90
Features of presidential executive system.............. ... ... 91
Powers and functions of the executive president... ... ... 93
Strengths and weaknesses of the presidential system ........ ... 94
The cabinet or parliamentary system of government .............. 95
Features of the parliamentary system of government ......... ... 96
Contents xi
Status and role of the prime minister..........

Arguments for and against the parliamentary system of
government .......
The mixed or hybrid system...

The unitary system of government...
Features of unitary states.............
Reasons for adoption .....
Problems associated with the unitary system ........
Federation ........
Distinguishing features of federation ..........
Necessary conditions for successful
federation-Power distribution system in
federation. Strengths and weaknesses of
federation. Confederation...
Features of confederation ...........
Merits and demerits of confideration.........
Summary. .........
Revision questions .......
Chapter Six Democracy and Good Governance...

Democracy. ......
Types of democracy
Direct democracy ...........
Merits and demerits of direct democracy...
Representative democracy. .........
Essential features of representative democracy...
Critique of representative democracy. ..... ... ...

... ................................................. 128
Good Governance ............................. ... ...
... ................................................. 130
Evolution of good governance... ... ... ...
... 131
Key elements or features of good governance ...... ...
... ........................................................... 132
Revision questions ............................ ... ...
... ................................................. 136
Bibliography... ............................................................................ 137

Index... ....................................................................................... 141
Xlll
List of Illustrative Materials

List of tables
Table 1 Aristotle's classification of government
Table 2 The ideological positions of the continuum
Table 3 Some tenets associated with the various ideological positions
List of figures
Figure 1 The seating arrangements at the 1789 French National Assembly
Figure 2 The structure of feudalism
Figure 3 The zig-zag illustration of dialectical materialism
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AU - African Union
CHRAJ - Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice
ECOWAS - Economic Community of West African States
ERP - Economic Recovery Progaramme
EU - European Union
GWP - German Workers' Party
NATO - North Atlantic Treaty Organization
NUGS - National Union of Ghana Students
SAP - Structural Adjustment Programme
SRC - Students' Representative Council
TUC - Trades Union Congress
UN - United Nations
US - United States
USA - United States of America
USSR - Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
xiv The ABC of Political
Science
Chapter One
NATURE AND2 SCOPE OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

Key Issues
 Meaning of politics
 Scientific nature of politics
 Scope of political science
 Functions of government
 Classification of government
Political issues are becoming more topical. More and more people are gradually being
drawn into politics. Discussions on political issues take place in our various homes, work
places, drinking bars, entertainment centres and restaurants. All these contribute to raise
people's interest in the subject matter. We often hear people referring to others as being
political or an issue assuming a political dimension. Many people talk about politics without
knowing the scope and exactly what the subject matter is all about. It is high time we came
out of our ignorance since the influence of politics is inexorable in the modern world. We
cannot do without it in our daily lives. Whether we accept it or not, our very survival in the
contemporary world, hinges on or revolves around decisions and actions taken by political
leaders of our countries. Politics fashions ideas that move nations forward. Let us now set
out to discuss what politics is, how it evolved and what it does to take away the lack of
knowledge. I
Meaning of Politics
Politics has been given several casual descriptions by many people. Some people see
politics as a dirty game which a gentleman or lady must not meddle in. Others also describe
the concept as the extension of lies. All these descriptions are far from the actual meaning
of politics and what it seeks to do. In actual fact, politics is about the interrelationships that
exist among human beings living together in a society.
The word "politics" derives from the Greek word polls which means a city-state. It is from
the word polls that other words such as politics, police, polite and policy derive their
origin (Dickerson and Flanagan, 1990). The word politics also derives its origin from
politicos, an adjective meaning something pertaining to the city-state, the citizen and
citizenship (Price, 19/5). Even though the word polls in the Greek language could also
mean a fort. We are only interested in the first meaning, that is, the city-state (Agarwal,
2 The ABC of Political Science
Bhushan and Bhagwan, 1994). The word polis may be understood as a community of
people. In ancient Greece, it was used to refer to the interactions and interrelationships
among men that existed in the polis or the ancient Greek city-states like Syracuse, Acragas
in Sicily, Attica, Mycenae, Argos, Athens, Corinth, Sparta and Thebes. In the light of the
above, polis or politics may be used to refer to the management of the affairs of the city
state or what concerns the state (Heywood, 2004).
There have been human interactions and interrelationships since the pre-Socratic era. This
perhaps is what motivated Aristotle, a great ancient Greek philosopher, to describe man as
zoon politikon or homo est animal politicum, meaning "man is a political animal", and
that any man who is not affected by politics is either a god or a beast but not a human
being. The inhabitants of the ancient Greek city states just like the people who live in the
modern societies, are not the same in their attitudes. People everywhere have different
values, aims and aspirations. They think and behave differently at all times even under
similar conditions. Societies are plagued with problems of divergences resulting from the
divergent views and aspirations of the people. From the above, it has become common
place to state that everywhere we come across human beings living together in some type
of association, we find politics there, hence the popular saying that politics is ubiquitous.
Politics does not only take place at the state or supra-state levels. It manifests itself at the
sub-state levels as well. Even in small public and private associations such as churches,
schools and voluntary associations or groups including political parties and interest groups,
we find politics in practice. The selection of a class or school prefect, dining hall prefect or
the president of the local Students' Representative Council (SRC) in our various educational
institutions is political. Also in our religious organizations and other voluntary associations,
the selection of local and national leaders such as the flag bearer of a political party, the
president of a labour union or Bishop of a church is characterised by politics. Even at the
informal level, some decisions taken by members of the family is driven by politics because
they have to do with why a particular option is preferred to the other. Various contestants
have different visions they seek to achieve as they vie for positions, so have their supporters.
They do not all think alike or share the same vision. This makes the whole process political.
The politics at the sub-state level is not diametrically different from the one that takes place
at the national level. From the foregoing, politics can be classified into two namely micro
and macro politics. Macro politics takes place at the state level, while micro politics takes
place at the sub-state level.
Conflicts, disagreements and divergences are bound to occur in all societies. There is
nothing in history to suggest that divergences will disappear from societies. Even if economic
progress becomes very overwhelming; or if a single religion, for instance Islam or Christianity
Nature and Scope of Political Science 3
triumphs; or better still, if a single power gains dominance in the whole world, human
beings will still remain insatiable and the divergences will still prevail. It is in the light of this
that some scholars draw attention to the understanding that politics is a bloodless conflict
among individuals, groups and nations. In contrast to this position, Karl von Clausewitz, a
German writer observes that war is the extension of politics by bloody means. Other
writers who in their approach equate politics with conflict include J.D.B. Miller (1965) and
Allan Ball (1983). Miller in his work, The Nature of Politics, states that politics is about
disagreement or conflict. Pitching it at the same angle Alan Ball also indicates that politics
involves disagreements and therefore can occur at any level (Dickerson & Flanagan, 1990).
It is evident that conflict comes in many forms (Donovan, Morgan & Potholm, 1981).
In the midst of the many differences in society, there is the need for a ruler or leader vested
with authority to decide on what to do to emerge or be appointed to find solutions to the
problems confronting people in a society. The various ways by which such human conflicts
are resolved, that is, that the wide divergences are merged to ensure that there is peace
and progress in society is what politics is all about. The impression is not being created that
politics is all about conflict, for if it were so there would be no stable life. Politics seeks to
offer solutions to disagreements and problems whenever they occur. This is where Bernard
Crick's definition becomes relevant. For him, politics constitutes "that solution to the problem
of order which chooses conciliation rather than violence and coercion" (Crick, 2000,
p.30; Hague and Harrop, 2010). It is in this vein that some writers explain politics as the
art of the possible ana the art of compromise because it seeks to resolve disagreement
among people who have different shades of opinion. Compromise becomes a vital tool if
we are to avoid violence and coercion. Thinking on the same wave-length, Crick again
views politics as "the activity by which different interests within a given unit of rule are
conciliated by giving them a share in power in proportion to their importance to the welfare
and survival of the whole community" (p.22). He argues that politics is not about unity but
how to bring about harmony, that is, bringing people with divergent views and interests to
co-exist peacefully in society.
When human beings live together in an association or society, they establish rules, a
government or an authority to deal with such situations of conflicts which arise among the
people. It must be noted however that the very effort to rule or establish authority in itself
also brings about conflicts. It is for this reason that Robert Dahl has defined politics as the
struggle for, and exercise of, power and influence in society (Cited in Nnoli, 1986). Political
actors struggle to capture state power through competitive elections and other means in
order to exercise power and influence in society. In competitive elections, various political
parties differ in opinions as to how the state should be managed, and each of them strives
to convince the electorate to support their bid to win power by voting for them. A form of
struggle ensues in the process. When one party eventually emerges victorious in the election,
it appoints personnel to exercise power and influence over society through the formulation
and implementation of public policies. For example, if ahead of state orders members of a
striking labour union to call off an industrial action and they comply with the directive, he or
she is said to have exercised influence over them.
From the foregoing, politics can be said to encompass the way human beings in the aggregate
govern themselves. When the ancient Greek scholars such as Plato, Socrates, Aristotle
and others began to think, talk and write about how the society - the polis, was to be
governed, they called the enterprise politics. The Greek word polls from which politics is
derived was used to refer to the human interactions and interrelationships that exist among
men in the city state and how the city state was to be governed or administered to ensure
that there was law, order and peaceful co-existence among men. It is in the light of this
historical view that scholars like Mackenzi (1967) and Laski (1952) define politics as the
science of the management of the state. It is in the same light that other scholars have also
defined the concept of politics as the struggle for and exercise of power and influence in
the society.
Austin (1958) looks at the concept from another angle. In his book, The Governing of
Man, he explains politics simply as the governing of men. Here, Austin tries to establish the
relationship that exists between those who govern and those who are governed. He argues
that this relationship is very central to politics. In the modern world, some people are
members of government and take part in the processes of governing, while others are not
part of the ruling process, but only submit to the will and decisions of the former, and they
constitute the governed.
Other Definitions of Politics

Political scientists have over the years found it difficult to provide a commonly agreed upon
definition of the term politics. The term has therefore been variously defined by several
political thinkers from the days of Plato and Aristotle up to the present time. One interesting
thing is that a common theme runs through all the diverse views expressed by the various
thinkers about the concept of politics. The common theme is that politics has a crucial
impact on the well-being of the individual persons. Politics is a social activity and it occurs
in the relations involving individuals, groups of persons, states and associations of state.
Having captured the basic meaning of the term politics, let us now look at some other
definitions some scholars of repute have offered to explain the concept. This will enable us
familiarise ourselves with the scope and terrain of the subject matter. Mackenzie (1967) in
his book Politics and Social Science has explained that politics encompasses the use of
power and authority to reconcile interests.

j Lasswell (1936), an American political scientist, coined a simple and catchy definition of
politics as Who Gets What When and How. Lasswell's definition underscores the fact
that politics is about decisions made by people concerning objectives which they consider
desirable. The people in the society may have different expectations or aspirations -economic
prosperity, quality education and healthcare and an equitable distribution of resources,
among others. This definition encapsulates the fact that some form of conflict and for that
matter struggles are involved in the making of decisions as to who in the society obtains
what and at what time and how. It is a known fact that politicians are vested with the
authority to allocate the resource of the state to the benefit of the people.
Lasswell's position is also shared by Easton (1965), who defines the concept of politics as
the authoritative allocation of values in any social system. This definition considers politics
as a form of interaction in any society through which binding or authoritative allocation of
values is made. This definition points to a body of persons who wield legitimate power and
use it to allocate the values of the society. According to Easton, the authorities involved in
the allocation process apply power in the decision-making process thereby favouring some
groups of persons over others.
Nnoli (1986) on his part, explains politics as all those activities which are direcdy or indirectly
associated with the seizure of state power, the consolidation of state power and the use of
state power. Nnoli's explanation of politics is not completely different from Easton's as it
also emphasizes the various mechanisms through which political actors acquire and utilize
power to develop the state.
Science
The word science derives its meaning from a Latin root scientia, which means knowledge
acquired through a study. Science can be explained as a systematic body of knowledge on
any discipline acquired through a careful, objective and logical observation, experimentation,
identification, reflection and measurement of a phenomenon to come out with valid
conclusions. Science is not based on mere imagination, philosophies and journalism. Science
employs certain methods to conduct its investigations. First, it identifies the phenomenon
the study seeks to investigate. Second, it sets out working hypothesis or assumptions.
Third, an experiment is carried out to investigate the issue in question through observation,
measurement and recording of facts. Fourth, the facts gathered are processed and analysed
and subsequently interpreted. Finally, conclusions are drawn based on the findings of the
study.
Going by the above, it can be said roundly that any existing body of knowledge on any
discipline acquired through the above methods can be labelled as science. There can
therefore be science of cookery or domestic economics, philosophical science, economic
science, psychological science and of course, political science. The body of knowledge on
the above subjects were all acquired through careful and objective observation,
experimentation and measurement of certain social phenomena with valid conclusions drawn
from them.
Political Science
Political science can simply be explained as the systematic study of politics. Since politics
is the science of the management of the state, we can conveniently state that political
science is the systematic body of knowledge acquired through a careful, objective and
logical observation of human behaviour in a given society. Political science attempts to
understand the political behaviour of people, groups and associations as well as the factors
and conditions that affect players in the game of politics (Anifowose & Enemuo, 1999;
Johari,2005).
Political science as an academic discipline is relatively new. It was taught as a subject in

American universities in the 1850s and has since become a very important field of study
taught in many universities across the globe (Anifowose and Enemuo, 1999).
Is the study of Politics Scientific?

The question as to whether the study of politics is scientific or not has been a matter of
protracted debate. At one time, some writers preferred this academic discipline to be
designated as political philosophy. This view did not however receive the approval of a
good number of political thinkers, who preferred the discipline to be named as political
science. The ground on which the earlier position was assailed was that political philosophy
was too narrow in scope. The designation 'political philosophy' also appears to be abstract
and normative. Parts of the study of politics are descriptive and analytical, historical and
comparative and also empirical and pragmatic. The designation is criticised as being
normative and composed of norms some of which are no longer relevant in contemporary
times. The label of the study of politics as science is one issue that has attracted protracted
debate. There are two schools of thoughts over this issue. One school led by Aristotle
holds the view that the study of politics is scientific. The other school led by Maitland
discounts this claim and argues that politics comes nowhere near science and cannot therefore
be studied scientifically.
Maitland asserts, "when I see a good set of examination questions headed by the words
'political science', I regret, not the questions, but the title" (Appadorai 2004:5). Maitland
maintains that politics studies the art of state management and it is therefore not science,
but rather an art. He further argues that if the study is political, it cannot in any way be a
science; on the other hand if it is scientific, it cannot be political. Maitland contends from
the foregoing that it is a misnomer to label the study of politics a science.
The following are reasons assigned for the argument that politics is not a science; firstly, a
science must have its own terminologies and their precise standard definitions (Johari,
2005). The school contends that even though political science has its own terminologies
such as the state and nation, rights, equality, liberty, justice, democracy, ideology and a
host of others, such terminologies lack precise and standard definitions on their own.
Different writers and researchers give different interpretation to these terms thus, creating
a lot of confusion. It is often argued that no science stands so much in need of a precise
definition of its own teiminologies than political science.
Secondly, the critics argue that human behaviour is so illusive, complex and fluid. Habits,
temperaments, mood] and sentiments of people vary from one place to another. It thus
becomes very difficult to observe the political behaviour of people and come out with an
all-time valid and true conclusion from them. Fixed rules or formulae cannot be formulated
to predict human behaviour.
Thirdly, since human behaviour cannot be studied under rigid scientific conditions, researchers
tend to add their own biases or value judgements. In other words, recording of political
events and behaviour are not value-free. There is therefore, no objective procedure for
establishing the truth. Such biases produced in the study influence the conclusions drawn.
Most predictions are not accurate. For example, looking at the mood of the electorate of
a state, one can make a prediction that a party in government will not win an
election. Contrary to the expectation, the party in question retains power in the election. In
addition, political studies fail to make predictions with the certainty of the physical sciences.
Moreover, there is no precise instrument for measuring political behaviour. There are for
instance, no test tubes, Bunsen burners, measuring cylinders, conical flasks, beakers and
other laboratory instruments and machines to help in the assessment process.
Finally, most of the statements made by political analysts are based on hasty generalisations,
and generalisation about human behaviour cannot be exact at all times. For example, a
general statement is often made to the effect that the adoption of democratic governance is
the surest avenue to economic prosperity (Johari, 2005). A comparative study is often
made to substantiate such generalised statements. By so doing, analysts tend to pick only
those facts that substantiate their impressions. The results therefore lack objectivity and
accuracy which are necessary conditions for every scientific investigation. A comparative
study alone is not enough to test the accuracy and objectivity in any investigation. With the
example cited above about democracy and economic development, analysts tend to cite
the US, Britain, Canada, Japan and some advanced states to support their claim. The
experience from Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore, to mention but a few, have also
shown that these states attained their present level of economic success under strict
authoritarian regimes. Finally, contrary to the law of the physical sciences like chemistry,
biology, physics and geology, conclusions drawn by political analysts cannot be verified
though experiment.
Competent authorities including August Comte, James Bryce, J.S. Mill, William Goode,
Ernest Baker have all expressed doubts about the study of politics being scientific. According
to these scholars, the objective of any scientific discipline is to establish a valid and objective
explanation for a phenomenon and also to make future predictions if certain conditions are
met They added that in terms of methodology, the scientific discipline uses a well-organized
and systematized method based on research, critical observation and objective
interpretation. The method of science is organised, universal and cumulative. It is therefore
interested in arriving at objective explanations and making future predictions of phenomena
based on available facts gathered through a well-organised and systematized method known
as the scientific method.
The school emphasised that any subject that claims to be scientific must have the following
essential hallmarks:
(i) It must deal with factual issues but not mere imaginations.
(ii) It must be research oriented. It must thus involve field work research,
collection of data and objective interpretation of the data so collected
to establish a causal relationship between variables. The results of any
scientific research finding must be verifiable by rigorous
experimentation.
(iii) It must be capable of making predictions.
Contrary to the above school, there is the Aristotelian school which maintains that political
studies possess what it takes to be labelled science. The strength of this argument is based
on the facts analysed below. In the first place, political studies investigate real and factual
issues or phenomena, but not mere imagination as claimed by the opposite school. It for
instance, enquires into the reasons for the prevalence of military coups d'etat in the least
developed countries during the 1970s and 1980s; the factors that determine voting
behaviour; the reason why conflicts exist in certain parts of the world; why people obey
state laws, and so on and so forth. All these are some of the empirical issues studied by
political analysts,
Secondly, political studies employ scientific methods of investigation. They are research
oriented and use field work as well as research methods of data collection by means of
interviews, reference to research documentary sources and the use of questionnaire among
others. Political studies employ a lot of methods from the physical sciences, in particular
mathematics and statistics to study political phenomena. Even though the discipline does
not use physical instruments in its investigations, it employs other scientific investigation
methods which yield equally accurate results in most cases. It is therefore not the case that
the study of politics does not use any instrument at all.
Thirdly, like the natural sciences, political science makes use of various theories to
explainand analyse phenomena; examples include rational choice and bureaucratic
theories.
Fourthly, the aim and objectives of political science is to arrive at political truths and to
solve the problem of political life.
The Aristotelian school further contends that the mere fact that the study of political behaviour
cannot make exact predictions is not sufficient or strong enough to deny the discipline the
label of science. The school condemns as baseless the assertion by the opposite school
that the exactness or accuracy of conditions and capacity to make predictions alone makes
a study scientific. It further asserts that even among the physical and natural sciences, we
have exact and inexact sciences. Meteorological and seismological sciences use a range of
scientific instruments and machines in their investigations. Nonetheless, the predictions
they sometimes make fail. The crux of the argument is that if political studies, which study
the political behaviour of human beings but not inanimate objects, cannot be likened to the
physical and natural sciences because of the lack of its capacity to make exact predictions
all the time, it can at best be compared to the inexact sciences of which meteorology is one
which fails to make all-time accurate predictions (Johari, 2005).
One wonders why the people who discount the claim that political studies is a science do
not make so much noise when the predictions of the natural sciences like seismology and
meteorology fail. It is not strange at all for the predictions of political studies to fail if, of
course, some physical and natural sciences also fail to make accurate predictions.
Political studies can at best be classified among the social sciences for it investigates
social behaviour and also employs quasi-scientific methods in its investigations. If it
cannot be classified among the physical and natural sciences, it can be classified as a
social science.
This does not therefore rob the study of the label "a science". The social sciences can
be categorized into eight
major disciplines namely geography, history, psychology, anthropology, economics
sociology, communications and political science. What is common with these subjects is
that they study human behaviour, that is, they investigate the social aspects
of individuals. Students of these subjects rely on logical reasoning and undertake experiment
and use experiments and observations in their attempt to establish facts about social
behaviour, and based on that they make predictions.
The Scope of Political Science

The scope of political science is so broad that it is often difficult to define it in its entirety.
The precise and definite boundaries of political science are not easy to determine. Almost
every aspect of our life can be political and therefore a subject matter of our study (Agarwal et
al, 1994). The study of politics involves all other related social science subjects such as
economics, sociology, psychology, geography, history, ethics, statistics, law and many others.
In spite of the fact that political science shares many areas of common enquiry with such
related academic disciplines mentioned above, it has a distinct focus of interest around
which its study revolves. Thus, some identifiable boundaries are determined.
Political thinkers and analysts have divided political science into a number of sub-disciplines
including the following:
i Political theory or political thought
ii Comparative politics
iii Public administration
iv. International politics or relations
v. National politics
Political Theory or Political Philosophy

Political theory or political philosophy concerns itself with the theoretical attempts which
have been made throughout history to understand the phenomena and to solve the problems
of politics. It concerns the ideas of great political thinkers such as Plato, Aristotle, Rousseau,
Locke and Mill, among others. It deals with certain pertinent issues of life such as freedom,
justice, morality, liberty, etc. The aim of this type of enquiry is to make judgements as to
whether an issue is right or wrong.
Comparative politics
Comparative politics seeks to compare, contrast and evaluate different governments and
political systems. Political scientists under this sub-discipline try to analyse different forms
of government, stages of economic development, domestic and foreign policies, governance
and electoral systems, among others, which help political scientists to formulate meaningful
generalisations.
Public Administration
Pubic administration essentially focuses on how the bureaucratic system works in
government by helping to formulate and implement policies. It usually places emphasis on
Nature and Scope of Political Science
national governments, however, it may also concern itself with local governments and inter-
governmental relations.
International Politics
This section of the disciplines deals with the relations between and among states. Issues of
interest in this area include diplomacy, international organisations, international law,
international conflict, international economic relations, and foreign policy among others.
National Politics
Specialists of this discipline examine the structure and functions of political institutions of a
specific government at the domestic level. Areas of interest in this study include state,
organs of government, civil societies, election and voting behaviour and state systems.
Government
The word government is derived from the Latin word gubanor or gubanare which means
to steer or pilot a ship. Just as a ship has to be piloted over the high seas to the harbour so as
to protect the lives and cargo aboard, so should human society be organized and regulated to
achieve law and order. This is the essence of government. Typical of most social science
concepts, the word government has been defined variously by various authors. Shively
(2008) defines government as a group of people vested with the ultimate authority to act
on behalf of the state by making and enforcing policies. In this sense, government refers to
the group of people in the state that has the right to make decisions which everyone in the
state is bound to accept and obey.
Government may be defined as the act of administering or steering the affairs of human
society towards the attainment of specific goals of maintaining law, order, peace and unity.
The word government connotes three meanings. First, it connotes a staff of men and women
who wield the ultimate power to make and enforce rules and punish those who break such
rules. In this sense, government refers to the members of the legislature, executive and
judiciary. Second the word may be used to refer to the processes involved in the
administration of the state. Finally, it is regarded as an academic discipline taught or studied
in institutions of learning which equips students with knowledge of their rights and
responsibilities as citizens.
Functions of Government
Governments perform a wide range of functions. It must be indicated that government is
the functional aspect of the state which is an inanimate entity. The functions of state are
performed by government. For the detailed functions of government, refer to the functions
of the state in Chapter Two. The following points must however be mentioned. One,
government provides political education to their citizenry. This function is carried out through
such institutions as the media and other agencies of government and it aims at providing
them with enlightenment Two, government helps in socializing the people. The government
uses diverse means to socialize the people to accept national values, norms and practices
expected of every citizen. Three, loyalty is a very important ingredient in the smooth
administration of the state, without which no state can be said to be stable. The state exacts
loyalty from its citizens and this value is inculcated in the citizens through the use of national
symbols such as patriotic songs, anthems and coat of arms among others.
Classification of Government
Government can be classified into many different categories. Aristotle is credited for giving a
simple and clear classification of government, though he is neither the original nor the first
thinker in the matter of classifying states and governments. Thinkers like Pindar, Thucydides,
Herodotus and Plato had already outlined the triple classification of states. Aristotle improved
upon the old classification and made it so faultless that his name has become associated with
it. Aristotle based his classification on two principles namely, the number of persons and
social class in whom the supreme power is vested, and in whose interest the leaders seek to
serve. In other words, Aristotle's classification of government comes with two questions in
mind, first, who rules? and second, in whose interest? (Dickerson & Flanagan, 1990) Taking
the latter principle into account, Aristotle points out that a state might either serve a common
interest or a sectional or personal interest of rulers (Hague & Harrop, 2010; Appadorai,
2004; Johari, 2007). Based on this classification, he came out with the following six-fold
classification.
Table 1: Aristotle's classification of government.
Form of Constitution Normal state seeking Perverted state where the
the common welfare common welfare is ignored
Rule by one Monarchy Tyranny
Rule by a few Aristocracy Oligarchy
Rule by many Polity Democracy

Rule by one person
Monarchy
The word monarchy is derived from the Greek word monarkes, which is a compound of
two words mono, meaning one or alone and arkhein, also meaning rule (Appadorai,
2004). Monarchy therefore literary means one ruler or a system in which only one person
rules. It is one of the oldest forms of government in which the ruling power is vested in a
single person who wears a crown (Johari, 2005). The mode of succession under the
monarchical system of government is by hereditary. It is a political system in which a single
family rules. A monarchy is a state ruled by an individual who is a queen, king or an
emperor. Aristotle points out that monarchy or kingship is the rule of one person with the
view to attaining the common interest of all the people. Two forms of monarchy are usually
distinguished and these are absolute monarchy and constitutional or limited monarchy.
Examples of these can be found in Morocco and Britain respectively. An absolute monarch
occupies the position of head of state and exercises both ceremonial and dignified functions.
In the case of a constitutional monarch however, powers the leader exercises are regulated
by the constitution. He or she can implement only those laws that have been agreed to by
an elected parliament. Also, his or her financial arrangements and the granting of taxes are
dependent on the corporation and consent of the people's representatives in parliament. In
administration, the constitutional monarch is bound to accept the advice of ministers who
are chosen from and responsible to the parliament. Finally, he or she is bound by the laws
of the state. According to Aristotle, the perverted form of monarchy is tyranny.
Arguments in favour of Monarchy

The following are arguments advanced in favour of monarchical regimes. Some states
prefer a monarchical regime due to the benefits they derive from this form of government
One of them is that it promotes political stability. Monarchs usually rule for life. The regime
is protected by the cusjoms and traditions of the people hence the relative stability of
tenure of the monarchs. Monarchs command obedience from their subjects. This is because
they derive their source of authority from the customs and traditions of the people. The
people naturally obey their leaders without questioning. Monarchical regimes preserve the
customs and traditions of the people upon which the very existence of the institution is
built.
Arguments against Monarchy

A monarchical form of government can promote inefficiency in the administration of the
state since the monarch may not be endowed with the requisite expertise in governance.
Ascension to the throne is limited exclusively to members of the royal family. People outside
the royal family, irrespective of their status cannot assume leadership positions. This is
discriminatory. Another problem is that eligibility to the position is solely based on blood as
opposed to competence. Succession to the throne is hereditary and people who do not
come from the royal family are simply not qualified. It must be noted that the few who
qualify for such positions may not be competent and in that case the society will suffer.
Tyranny
Tyranny is a rule by one person in his or her own interest. Aristotle defines tyranny as the
government by a single person directed to his or her personal interest. Derived from old
French word tyrranie which is also derived from the Latin word tyrannia or turannus,
tyranny was used to refer to cruel or oppressive rule. Tyrannical regimes lack legitimacy
and usually used oppression to maintain power. Under tyrannical rule, the leader conceals
information from the public and disseminates false information to the ruled with the view of
deceiving them. The military forces are deployed to perform internal policing duties in the
country as part of the grand scheme to maintain the regime. The judiciary under this regime
is controlled by the political leader (www.constimuon.org/tyr/prin__tyr.htm).
Rule by a few people
Aristocracy
The word aristocracy is derived from the Greek word aristokratia (a compound of aristo,
meaning the best and kratos, meaning rule). Aristocracy literally means government by the
best persons or citizens. Since it is difficult to tell who the best people are, the term has
now come to mean government by a small group of intelligent people. Aristocrats are
people of noble birth who are endowed with intellectual capacity and are political geniuses.
"A state governed by the best men, upon the most virtuous principles, has alone, a right to
be called an aristocracy, its principle, therefore, is virtue: the moral and intellectual superiority
of the ruling class" (Appadorai 2004:134). The principle of Aristocracy is virtue. It believes
in the intellectual superiority of the ruling class. Aristocracy can be defined as the rule of the
chosen few or a very small section of the populace marked out by birth, wealth, talent,
status and the like (Johari, 2005). The system of government in Rome between the second
to the fourth centuries B .C. and Great Britain in the eighteenth century are best examples
of aristocracy.
Arguments in favour of aristocracy

Aristocracy promotes efficiency in the administration of the state. It brings skilled and
competent people to manage the affairs of the state. With their competent backgrounds,
aristocrats are able to provide proper direction and guidance for the society they lead.
Arguments against aristocracy

It is not in all cases that aristocrats can deliver efficient and effective administration.
Superiority of knowledge or intelligence does not always lead to efficiency. Aristocrats can
sometimes be worse performers in govemment. Aristocracy tends to promote exclusiveness
and conservatism. The aristocrats do not like to mingle with the ordinary people. Because
of their belief in themselves as people with superior brains, they often treat advice and
demands of the ruled with contempt This sometimes results in social upheavals that eventually
ruin the aristocratic system. The aristocratic form of government kills initiative of the ordinary
people and therefore undermines the ability of the people to develop to become the best of
themselves.
Other forms of Government

Apart from the above, another form of government is oligarchy which is the perverted
form of aristocracy. In this system, the ruling elite serve their personal interest instead of the
interest of the society. 1 liere is also polity in which many people rule. Its corrupt version is
democracy. Democracy is discussed in detail in Chapter six of this book.
Summary
• In ancient Greece the word politics was used to refer to the interaction and
interrelationships that existed in the city state. People everywhere have different
values, aims and aspirations. They therefore think and behave differently at all
times. Societies are plagued with conflicts, disagreements and divergences.
Anywhere a group of people live we find politics there. The various ways by
which such human conflicts or wide divergences and resolved or merged to ensure
that there is peace and progress is what politics is all about. Politics is about finding
ways to bring about harmony among people with divergent views and interests to
co-exist peacefully in society.
Politics has been understood and explained differently by different thinkers and
writers from the ancient times up to the present day. Politics has been viewed as
the use of power and authority to reconcile interests; who gets what, when and
how; the authoritative allocation of values in any social system and the activities
which are directly or indirectly involved with the seizure of state power, the
seizure of state power, the consolidation of state power and the use of state power.
There has been a protracted debate regarding whether the study of politics is
scientific or not. The objective of any scientific discipline is to establish a valid and
objective explanation of a phenomenon and make future predictions based on
certain conditions. One school of thought is of the view that the study of politics
cannot be scientific because it lacks precise and standard definitions for its
terminologies and again, it has no precise instruments for measuring political behavior.
The opposite school is of the belief that political studies investigate real and factual
issues or phenomena, but not mere imagination Political studies also employ
scientific methods of investigation through the use of such instruments like
questionnaire in conducting investigation.
• Government is a group of people vested with the ultimate authority to act on behalf
of the state by making and enforcing policies. Government can be classified into
monarchy, tyranny, aristocracy, oligarchy, polity and democracy. Monarchy is the
rule by an individual who may be a queen, king or an emperor. Tyranny is a rule by
one person in his or her own interest. Aristocracy is the rule by the chosen few or
a very small section of the populace marked out by birth, wealth, talent, status and
the like.
Revision Questions
1. Discuss the view that politics is ubiquitous in human life.
2. How far is it true to assert that politics is all about resolution of divergences that
occur as a result of interaction among people in society?
3. Politics is all about attempts to merge the divergences that emerge in human
interactions. Discuss.
4. Is the study of politics scientific?
5. Argue for and against the view that the study of politics cannot be scientific.
6. What are the arguments for and against the institution of monarchy as a form of
government?
7. Politics is the art of the possible and art of compromise. Do you agree?
8. Politics is about bringing together people with divergent views and interests to co-
exist peacefully. How far is this assertion true?
Chapter Two
THE STATE
Key Issues
Meaning of state
Features of state
Theories of the origin of the state
Role of the state
The concept of nation
Features of a nation
The concept of nation-state
Similarities between state and nation
Distinction between state and government
State capacity
Political science is commonly defined, as the study of the state. In fact, much of the
development of the discipline has focused emphasis on the modem state. It is therefore
very important for us to attempt to dissect and analyze the entrails of the term state in an
introductory textbook such as this. This chapter will take us through the definition of the
state, its essential features and functions and identify its relationship with similar terms like
nation and nation-state.
The state is a very commonly used word in the vocabulary of political science. It is arguably
the most central concept in the study of politics and its definition is therefore the object of
intense scholarly contestation.
In terms of world affairs, the state is relatively a new concept. It gained currency after the
Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. The treaty, which was also known as Treaty of Munster and
Osnabruck, was singed on October 24,1648 between the Holy Roman Emperor, Ferdinand
III, German princesses, representatives from the Dutch Republic, France and Sweden.
This treaty was signed to end the Thirty Years' War (1618-1648) to determine whether it
was the Catholic faith or the Protestant faith that was to prevail in Europe. The treaty
which ended the religious warfare gave official recognition to each king in Europe, and that
17
states were not to interfere with one another because they were legal equals (Henderson
1998:35; www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Peace_of_Westphalia.aspx). The concept of the
state as it is understood today, was not known to the Greeks in the days of Plato, Socrates
and Aristotle and even beyond.
The Origin of the word State

The closest word or term the Greeks used was ihepolis which is translated as "city-state".
The city-state in modern times may refer to a municipality or a metropolis. It can appropriately
be described as a "city-community". The Romans used two terms civita (polis - city
state) and "res publico, (meaning, public welfare) to refer to the state. The Teutonic tribes
of the Roman Empire used the word status, from which the English word is derived to
describe their established principalities (Johari 2005:54). Machiavelli in his Prince used
the Italian word, stato, to describe the state, that is, all the powers which have authority
over men. The ordinary man uses the state and nation synonymously, but in the study of
political science, it is pertinent to strike a distinction between them and identify the
characteristics of each.
Meaning of the State

The concept of the state has been defined variously by different authors and political thinkers.
Gamer (1932) in his book, Political Science and Government, defines the state as "a
community of persons, more or less numerous permanently occupying a definite portion of
territory, independent or nearly so of external control and possessing an organized
government to which the great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience." Maclver
(1932) also in his work, Modern State, views the concept as an association of people
acting through the law promulgated by a government endowed to this end with coercive
power to maintain within a community, territorially demarcated the universal external
conditions of social order. Thomas Woodrow Wilson also defines the state as a people
organized for law within a territory. The simplest way of defining the concept to yield a
better understanding is by pointing out its essential features or elements. From this view
point, the state can be conceived of as a group of who live on a particular surface of the
earth, organized under one government and are independent of any other state. Donovan
et al (1981) have summarized the definition of the state as:
A legally formalized entity having accepted jurisdiction over a territory

and a population and the capacity within that territory to make rules
binding of the whole population and to enforce those rules through
generally accepted legal procedures and applications of force (p. 15).
The state can also be defined as a political unit that has a well-defined territory, a population
or people, a government and it is independent of any of such other institutions. The concept
The State 19
of the state may also be understood as a politically organized and distinct group of people
occupying a definite territory and living under a government which is entirely free from
external control and is competent enough to secure habitual obedience from the people
living within it
The concept can also be explained as a community of people occupying a definite portion
of the earth's surface, independent of external control and have a government. A famous
political scientist, Harold Laski (1951), sees the state as a territorial society divided into
government and subjects claiming within its allowed physical areas, supremacy over all
institutions.
A state can be viewed as a definite territory with sovereign powers to control its people
through maintenance of peace, order and provision of services. In the opinion of a renowned
political scientist, Okwudiba Nnoli (1986:16), the state is that entity which has the following
characteristics: population, government, territory and the monopoly of the use of force
within the territory which is held by the government.
It could be observed from the above that certain key elements run through all the definitions
and they make up the features of the state.
The Essential Features of the state

The definitions above clearly reveal that certain elements are essential for the very existence
and maintenance of the state. Without these elements, the state cannot be fathomed. It
should be mentioned that some of the elements of the modem state were among the principles
adopted at the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. These include the principles of sovereignty of
states, legal equality among states and non-interference in the internal affairs of states
These and some other elements are discussed in detail are discussed below:
(i) population or people;
(ii) territory or defined geographical area;
government or organized administration; a

(iv) system of laws; sovereignty;
(v) universal recognition;
(vi) international equality'
(vii) permanence and compulsory
(viii) membership
(ix)
Population
As a human organization, the most obvious element that comes to mind when thinking
about the state is people. Population or people is in fact, one basic requirement for the
very existence of the state. The state as a social organization cannot be conceived of
without a people. Any stretch of land, no matter how vast or small it may be, which is not
inhabited or occupied by people cannot constitute a state. The large landmass that lies
near the South Pole called the Antartica, does not constitute a state because it is not
inhabited by people. Leacock (1932:13) has indicated that "it goes without saying that an
uninhabited portion of the earth, taken itself, cannot form a state." But the question one
would ask is, how many people are enough to properly constitute a state? There is no
standard figure. Political thinkers have not been unanimous about the prescribed number
of people that should constitute a state. In other words, there is no prescribed minimum,
optimum or maximum population necessary to constitute a state. The population of a state
may be as high as that of China, which commands about a quarter of the world's total
population or that of India, whose population constitutes about a fifth of the world's total
population. It could as well be as low as that of San Marino in Italy (Agarwal et al, 1994;
Johari, 2005; Oyediran, 2003; Johari, 2005, Appadorai, 2004).
Though there is no unanimity over the population size of a state, it is contended that the
number should be a little large such that it can be divided into rulers and the ruled. It can
thus, be stated from the above that Robinson Crusoe and his helper and companion,
Faraday who were the only occupants of the small island in the "I am the monarch of all I
survey" tradition could not constitute a state. Plato thought that an effective number to
constitute a state should be 5,040. He did not assign any reason for quoting this figure.
Aristotle was unwilling to be bound down to any such figure. He only argued that the polis
(the state) should neither be too small to be self sufficient nor too large to be well governed.
A hundred people will be too small a figure to form a state, but a billion people would be
too large to be effectively managed (Agawal et al 1994:65).
Territory
A mere collection of people cannot constitute a state if they are not permanently settled in
a particular geographical location. For a collection of people to constitute a state, they
must be permanently settled in a particular portion of the earth's surface which is
well-defined. A wandering population without any permanent settlement cannot be
said to constitute a state if they do not have a permanent settlement in a definite land. A
big ship sailing on the high seas carrying a huge population on board cannot constitute a
state even if it has all the other essential elements of the state. There cannot be anything like a
wandering or nomadic state.
Every state in the world is located in a particular area of the earth's surface with clear-cut
boundaries separating one state from another. A well-defined geographical area or territory
The State 21
is therefore an important feature of a state and without it a state cannot be thought of. The
permanent settlement of a population in a well-defined geographical area or territory
separates one state from another and thus makes the exact location of the people possible.
There can be no state without a territory. It should be stated that territory comprises three
major components namely : the land on which the people live, the air space above the land
and a maritime jurisdiction, which extends up to a certain distance prescribed by international
law. The territorial limits or boundaries of each state are recognized by international law
(Shaw, 1997; Agarwal et al, 1994; Johari, 2005; Oyediran, 2003; Johari, 2005, Appadorai,
2004).
Like the population, there are no prescribed limits for the size of a state. A state can be as
large as that of the erstwhile Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), the United
States, Canada, India or the erstwhile Sudan. It can also be as tiny as that of Mauritius or
The Gambia. Size does not really mater.
Organized Administration or Government

Organized administratioh or government is one other essential requirement of a state. Indeed,
no state can survive without a government. Government may be explained as a body of
people either appointed or elected, who exercise the ultimate authority to formulate and
implement policies and laws and also punish those who disobey the laws. Without
government the people will be like chaotic and loose atoms. The government of a state can
take any form. It could be democratic, aristocratic, oligarchic, dictatorial or any other
form. What is required as Leacock (1932) puts it, is the mere existence of settled obedience
to a higher authority (p. 14). The government is entitled to use reasonable coercion to
ensure that its laws are obeyed by the people (Agarwal et al, 1994; Oyediran, 2003;
Johari, 2005, Appadorai, 2004).
Sovereignty
Sovereignty or independence from external control is perhaps one most important feature
of the state. Sovereignty may be understood as the supreme power of the state to make
and enforce its laws on people resident within its territories to ensure total compliance
without any internal or external rival power (Agarwal et al, 1994; Oyediran, 2003; Johari,
2005, Appadorai, 2004). This concept is explained in detail in Chapter Three of this
book. The state must have autonomy to manage its own affairs without any interference
from within or without. I
A System of Laws
For an entity to be called a state it must have its own systems of laws, which it uses to
govern. These laws are meant to regulate the social conduct of the people and the relationship
between the rulers and the ruled. The laws can take any form. In democratic states, some
of these laws are enacted by the people's representatives in the legislature. Others are also
contained in the constitution and other sources. In non-democratic states, however, such
laws are mainly passed by members of the ruling body.
Universal or International Recognition

The existence of a state must be universally recognized. That is, sovereign states and
international associations within the international community must recognize the existence
of a state or the creation of a new one. The creation and existence of the newest state,
Southern Sudan, has the recognition of the international community.
International Equality
By international convention, all states are considered to be equal in status. Each state is
accorded equal rights and respect in the international system irrespective of their geographical
and population sizes, location, economic and military might. At international summits, each
state has one vote and one voice.
Permanence
All fhings being equal, a state is said to be a permanent entity. It does not wither. Governments
or leaders come and go but the state exists permanently.
Compulsory Membership
Membership of a state is obligatory. This is in sharp contrast to membership of associations,
which is purely voluntary. Individuals are born into states. Citizenship of a state is by birth
and once a person is born into a state or satisfies the requirement through other modes, it
cannot be changed or disowned unless the individual applies for it through registration or
naturalization. It must be noted that at any point in time, each individual assumes citizenship
status of at least one state whether by registration, naturalization or any of the acceptable
modes of acquiring recognition as a citizen of that state. There cannot be any individual
who does not belong to any state. Even when an individual renounces or loses their citizenship
of one state, they must acquire the citizenship of another state. Under no circumstances
can a person be stateless.
Concrete Manifestations of the State

The state can be perceived both in concrete and abstract terms. In concrete terms, the
state has a population, government and territory. These attributes of the state are visible. In
addition to these, a state must also have symbols like a flag, an anthem, coat of arms,
scepter and currency. There must also be the presence of an army and bureaucracy.
The State 23
Theories of the origin of the State

One question that political thinkers have wrestled with since the days of the city-state is
about how the state came into existence. They have not been unanimous in their answer to
this basic question (Anifowose, 1999). In fact, very little or almost nothing is known about
the origins of the state. It is very difficult to point to the exact period in human history when
the state evolved. However, since the state has come into existence, some attempts have
been made to trace its origin from somewhere. This situation has given room for speculation
on the evolution of the state. It is believed that certain factors such as religion, kinship,
force, economic necessities, wars, political consciousness and forces of history and nature
facilitated the creation of the state.
Many theories have been propounded to support beliefs held by political thinkers on the
evolution of the state. These include the divine theory, the force theory, genetic theory, the
social contract theories and the natural theory among others. Many of these theories are
probably true in particular cases, most of them are however, demonstrably inaccurate. But
whether they are true or not, they have motivated and caused huge impacts on political
theory (Baradat, 1997). Let us now discuss some of the theories of the origins of the state.
Divine Theory
The divine theory, also known as the divine right theory, is believed to be the oldest of all
the theories of the origin of the state. According to the proponents of the theory, the state is
the creation of God. The theory states that rulers or kings are ordained by God to be His
representatives in the various states on the surface of the earth and as such, they must be
obeyed and revered by the people. According to the theory, there is no person on earth
who is above the ruler His command is law and all his actions are justified. To disobey the
ruler is to defy the divine will, which is not only a crime but a sin.
Those who hold this position are of the view that, the state was established by an ordinance
of God and that its leaders are God's own appointees ordained to rule. For this much,
such leaders are not answerable to any mortal but to God. This theory gained popularity
during the period of the ancient oriental empire and the protestant reformation when rulers
regarded themselves as having direct link with God. In the seventeenth century, for example,
some kings in Europe including the Netherlands, Scandinavia and Scotland asserted that
they ruled by divine right and were directly answerable to God, but not to the governed. A
typical example was King Henry VIII (1509-1547), who seized all Catholic lands and
wealth. The theory has however lost its significance in modem times (Turner, Switzer and
Redden, 1991: 8;Appadorai,2004;Johari2005:90;Agarwaletal, 1994: 86-87; Oyediran,
1998: 19; Anifowose &Enemuo, 1999: 95; Baradat, 1997, Henderson, 1998:35).
Social Contract Theories

The social contract theories were propounded to counter the divine theory. Contrary to
the position held by the divine theorists, the social contract theorists contended that the
state was the creation of man but not God. These social contract theories gained prominence
in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The main exponents of the theories were Thomas
Hobbes, John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau. Thomas Hobbes (1588 -1679) argued
that, prior to the establishment of the state, man lived in an imaginary society called "the
state of nature". There was no political authority to make and enforce laws in this society.
Lack of security has been identified as the main reason behind the creation of the state.
What prevailed was the rule of the jungle and survival of the fittest. One of the exponents,
Thomas Hobbes described life in this society as solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short
There was total lack of security. Man lived in a state of constant fear and danger of violent
death. To overcome this situation, a kind of agreement was reached between the rulers
and the ruled. The rulers were people drawn from society, who were vested with the
authority to govern and protect the rights of the people. The ruled on the other hand,
referred to the other members of the society who surrendered their sovereign rights to
govern themselves individually to the ruled for protection of their rights. The people are the
source of all rights in this imaginary contract between the ruled and the rulers. So the ruled
assumed the sovereign authority to manage the affairs of the state. Though this agreement
was not signed anywhere, it was made binding on the leaders and their subjects (Anifowose
andEnemuo 1999:95; Johari2005:104-105; Oyediran 2003:18;Agarwaletal 1994:
96; Baradat, 1997). John Locke (1632 -1704), another exponent of the Social Contract
theories, was of the view that in the contract, man retained all his natural rights which were
to be protected by the state through its agent - government. Expounding his version of the
theory, Rousseau (1712 -1778) contended that the people were the absolute sovereign in
the political community resulting from the social contract. For him, the people must fully
participate in the affairs of government to make it legitimate.
Force Theory
As the name connotes, the state came into existence through the application of naked
force by the strong people over the weak in the society. It is believed that primitive society
was characterized by conflicts and wars between different ethnic groups. An ethnic group
established its dominion over a defeated group. Through successive wars, the authority of
an ethnic group over another was established on a particular territory of a considerable
size, and as more and more societies were subjugated, the state eventually emerged
(Agarwal et al 1994:90). To put it simply, the proponents of this school view the state as
the product of wars. Georg Hegel (1770-1831) and Friederich Nietzshe (1844-1900)
are the principal proponents of this theory of the forceful origin of the state. The theories of
these proponents formed the basis of statism (Baradat, 1997). The position of this school
of thought is that the state is the creation of conquest of the weak by the strong in the
The State 25
society. In the opinion of the theorists, force is not something to be avoided. Under the
force theory, natural rights of the people have no place in the scheme of things of the state,
and the individual had no rights to challenge the authority of the state (Appadorai, 2004;
Johari, 2005; Oyediran 2003:19; Anifowose & Enemuo 1999:96; Agarwal et al, 1994:
90). According to the proponents of the force theory, "might is right" and the greatest
justification for the existence of the state is power. Some students of both Hegel and
Nietzsche have argued that the state is the most powerful form of human organization and
as such, it is above any ordinary moral or ethical restraint and it is greater than any individual
(Baradat, 1997).
Genetic Theory
The genetic theory postulates that the state is an eventual extension of family. It is believed
that, with the passage of time and by a natural process of expansion, one family gives rise
to several other families. A number of families form a village and a village is naturally
composed of the descendants of one family, the children and their descendants. A number
of villages come together to form the state. This is what Aristotle calls the "forms". Two
versions of this theory can be identified. They are the matriarchal and patriarchal theories.
The patriarchal theory whose main exponent was Sir Henry argues that the state is the
natural expansion of the original family unit in which decent is traced through males and
elders leading male parents to rule.
The matriarchal theory, which was postulated as a critique to the patriarchal theory has as
its chief proponents J F. McLenan, L. H. Morgon and Edward Jenks. According to this
position, children belong to the clan of their mothers. A child therefore traces inheritance to
the matrilineal line rather than patrilineal. They hold the position that the earliest family unit
was not patriarchal but matriarchal. Some of the proponents of the genetic theory, also
known as the natural rights theory are Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas, J.J. Rousseau and
Benito Mussolini (Agarwal et al, 1994:95).
The Role of the State

The state exists to perform a number of functions. Many political thinkers and writers have
written extensively to explain these important functions the state performs. Since the state
is an inanimate entity these functions are performed on its behalf by the government. The
functions of the state are discussed below.
Maintenance of Law and Order

According to the political thinkers who wrote on the creation of the state, the state was
established principally to maintain law and order. Before the creation of the state, man
lived under a chaotic condition. There were no laws governing the activities of man. Jungle
law and for that matter, the survival of the fittest was the order of the day. Man thus lived
in the state of constant danger and fear of violent death. The law of brute strength prevailed.
The life of man in the pre-state era was described as solitary, nasty, poor, brutish and
short. "There was no sense of right and wrong, justice and injustice" (Agarwal et al, 1994:
104).
It was in a bid to escape from such a horrible state of nature that the state was created.
Maintenance of law and order so as to protect the rights and liberties of the individual
inhabitants within its territories was made the primary responsibility of the state. The state
discharges this primary function through the establishment of the coercive institutions namely
the army, the police force, the prisons and the immigration services as well as the courts to
enforce obedience to its laws. Laws are made by the state to regulate human behavior and
persons who flout such laws are punished in order to maintain law, order and peace in the
society. This is done to prevent reversion to the state of nature which was the order of the
day in the pre-state era.
Protection of Individual Rights and Liberties

Another purpose for the establishment of the state is the promotion of individual development
and welfare. According to Plato and Aristotle, the state is the greatest moral institution
whose purpose is the ethical development of man or the provision of good life (Agarwal et
al 1994:140). Thus, the true purpose of the state, according to them, is the realization of
the good of mankind. The state provides the necessary environment that will enable the
individual members to enjoy their rights and liberties in order for them to realize the best
that is in them. Among these rights of the individual that the state seeks to protect are the
right to life, the right to privacy and rights to freedoms of expression, association, conscience
and movements among several others.
Provision of Social and Economic Services

The state also exists to advance the interest of its citizens by providing welfare services and
social facilities for their use to improve their standards of living. It is the responsibility of the
state to provide basic services such as education, health care, housing and water among
several others, to improve the quality of life of its people. It also lays down the needed
infrastructural facilities including roads, railways and habours to promote social and
economic development
It is also the responsibility of the state to provide a sound and favourable environment to
promote economic development. There are two schools of thought on how the state must
do this. The Marxists hold the view that the onus lies on the state to create jobs for its
citizens, own all the major means of production and also provide social services at highly
subsidized rates. The capitalists on the other hand, contend that the responsibility of the
state is to provide sound business or economic policies and allow private individuals to
The State 27
take advantage of the situation to set up enterprises and create employment.
National Defence and Security

Another important function of the state is related to national defence and security. The
state must protect the independence, sovereignty and the territorial integrity of its citizens
against any internal or external aggression. It must also be able to mobilize forces to quell
or suppress any group of people either from within or without from marshaling resources
to rebel against the authority of the state. It is for this reason that the state is the sole body
that has the power to set up and maintain an army.
International Relations
No state exists in a splendid isolation; every state exists among several other states on the
globe. It is also a fact that no state is endowed with all resources such that it does not need
anything else from other states. States, including even the advanced ones, such as the US
and Canada are interdependent on one another. Consequently, it is essential for a state to
maintain good cordial relations with other states and international associations for their
mutual benefit and peaceful co-existence. The state thus sets up foreign services departments,
diplomatic or consular services abroad to promote this friendly relationship with other
states in the international community. It also signs treaties, agreements, protocols and
conventions with other states and international organizations. Such inter-state relations
cover a broad scope of areas including trade, defence, technological advancement, cultural
exchanges and protection of citizens of the respective states abroad.
Promotion of Morality
The state promotes morality and good life among its citizens. A state can, for instance,
legitimize abortion or same sex marriage, which may be declared illegal be other states. It
sets and imposes on them codes of conduct and a standard of morality. It thus punishes
those who act contrary to the set standards.
i
The State Distinguished from other Entities
The state must be distinguished from similar other entities such as nation, nation-state and
government. People sometimes loosely use these terms synonymously, but this is erroneous.
A clear distinction ought to be struck.
The Concept of Nation

Nation is one concept that comes close to the state in terms of description and composition.
People tend to confuse them and use them interchangeably. There has not been unanimity
among scholars on the etymology and the meaning of the concept nation. The term nation
derives its roots from the Latin word natus meaning ("birth" or "place of birth"). The origin
of the word can also be traced to another Latin word nasci, (meaning to be born) (Heywood
2007:110; Appadorai 2000:15). The word natus can also be used to refer to the group
into which one is born or has blood association. It is related to ethnic group, which derives
its origin from the Greek word ethnos, which also originates from the Greek word for
custom, ethos referring to people with shared customs (Roskin et al 1991:27). The two
Latin words natus and nasci, from which the English word nation derives its meaning refer
to a place of birth and birth respectively. The word nation connotes the group of people
born at a particular place or having in common something related to their birth. This can be
common parentage or ancestry. Looking at the two root words, the term nation may be
explained as a group of people united by birth (that is, either by common parentage or
ancestry or place of birth). Such people may have a common culture. 'With this assumption,
we can now attempt a definition of a nation.
A nation can be explained as a body of people united by common descent and a common
language. It may also refer to a group of people who may or may not be living in a defined
territorial area, but who by historical background, language, culture and religion or racial
relations, believe that they have common ancestry. One can also explain a nation as a
group of people living in a geographical area and possessing a common language, historical
past, ancestry, hero, sets of culture and sharing the same political aspirations. A nation
consists of inhabitants who have a common race or ethnic origin, customs, culture, literature,
traditions and political aspirations. The concept nation may also refer to any sizable group
of people who are united by common bonds of race, language, custom, tradition and
sometimes religion, all of which are elements of culture. Beyond these broad definitions, it
would be appropriate to consider some scholarly definitions in the political discipline. In
the opinion of Baradat (1997), "a nation exists when there is a union of people based on
similarities in linguistic pattern, ethnic relationship, cultural heritage or even simple geographic
proximity' (p.45).
The Dictionary of Modern Politics defines a nation as ".. .a body of people who possess
some sense of single common identity, with a shared historical tradition, with major elements
of common culture, and with a substantial proportion of them inhabiting an identifiable
geographical unit." To Price (1975):
a nation is a group of men and women who have, or who feel that
they have the following things in common: a common ancestry; a
common history or tradition; a common language; a common culture;
a common religion; a common territory and a common government
(P-21).
The State 29
One of the finest definitions of the concept nation is offered by Ernest Baker (1927) who
views a nation as:
A body of men, inhabiting a definite territory who normally are
drawn from different races, but possess a common stock of thoughts
and feelings acquired and transmitted during the course of a
common history; who on the whole and the main, thought more in
the past than in the present, include in that common stock a common
religious belief; who generally and as a rule use a common language
as a vehicle of their thoughts and feelings; and who besides
common thoughts and feelings, also cherish a common will and
accordingly form, or tend to form a separate state for the expression and
realization of that will (p.17)
From all the definition above, a nation can be summarized as a group of people who
share a common background, including any or all the following features: geographical
location, territory, history, racial and ethnic characteristics, ancestry, religion, language,
culture and beliefs and common political idea. Ethnic background is probably the most
common feature around which a nation is united. Examples of nations in the
contemporary world are the Korea, the Jewish and the Palestine. In the pre-colonial days in
Africa, we had the Mossi, Yoruba, Hausa and Asante nations. A nation may be bigger or
smaller than the state. For example, a nation can be divided into two or more separate
states. Examples are North and South Korea. The Hutus and the Tutsi are two nations
whose members span three sovereign states in Africa, namely Rwanda, Burundi and the
Democratic Republic of Congo. The Ewe also straddle three states in the West African
sub-region, Ghana, Togo and Benin. The Bakango spread across Angola, the Democratic
Republic of Congo and Gabon, while the Somali are found in Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia
and Djibouti. The Yoruba are divided by the artificial boundary that separates 6enin from
Nigeria (Boahen, 1985).
Features of a Nation
The common elements of a nation are territory, population, history, government, language
and above all these the bond of unity existing among the people. Let us examine some of
them closely.
Territory
One of the defining characteristics of a nation is territory. In general every nation is located
in a specific geographical area. It is difficult to identify a nation without a territory. However,
questions are asked about the category of people without territory or dispersed across
geographic boundaries but who carry with them the idea of their nation. Reference is often
made to the Jews in this regard. They lost their territorial nation to the Greek and Roman
conquests several years before the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948. In spite of
their dispersion, the Jews still carried with them the idea of the Jewish nationhood. That is,
they identified themselves by their common bonds as Jews irrespective of where they lived
(Roskin, Medeiros & Jones 1991:29). This is an exceptional case. Almost all other nations
find themselves within a common geographical area.
Population
Another common characteristic of a nation is its people or population. Every nation has
people within its bodies. They are bound by factors such as a common history, tradition,
racial and kinship ties, language, custom and sometimes religion. People who constitute a
nation may find themselves located in one state in modern times. In other instances too,
they may spread across different but contiguous states. For example the Ewe nation in
West Africa is found in Ghana, Togo and Benin.
History
History plays an important role in the life of a nation. It defines the origin, ancestry and the
way of life of the people. The question of how we have arrived here from where we come
from can best be answered by history. It deepens the bond among the people that they
come from a single stock. History is the basis of a people's culture and traditions. The
religious beliefs, customs and traditions, kinship, ancestry, hero and all the other components
of the culture of a people are shaped and embedded in history.
Common Language
The existence of a common language is another important feature of a nation. It is one of
the indices that can be used to express people's feelings and thoughts which can bind the
people together as members of one entity.
Government
The people of a nation are organized under their leaders who may be kings, chiefs or emirs
among others, and who manage the affairs of the people. The government of a nation is not
as powerful as that of the state. Besides, the former uses persuasion to enforce its decisions,
while the latter, with the backing of the coercive apparatus uses force to ensure compliance
to its decisions. Moreover, the government of the state is sovereign, a feature which the
government of a nation lacks.
Distinction between State and Nation

Having understood the meanings and concepts of the state and nation, it is now possible
for us to strike a distinction between them. The following are the main points of distinction
The State 31
identified.
Statehood is politico-legal while a nation is historical. What this means is that

statehood emerged as a product of political and legal agreements made between
the individual people, that is the ruled and the rulers who are the administrators of
the state. As per the social contract theories, nationhood on the other hand emerged
as a product of a merger of clans and ethnic groups.
A nation is made up of people of homogenous characteristics and are united by

common ties, while a state may be composed of people of homogenous or
heterogeneous cultures. In other words, a nation is made up of people with the
same cultural traits but a state may be composed of peoples with different cultural
practices and political aspirations. Nigeria as a state is composed of different nations
like the Yoruba, Ibo, Efik and the Ibibio, among others. Ghana also has different
nations like the Asante and Dagomba. A state at any point in time has a fixed
territory, which may be altered as a result of force. But a nation being a stable
historical community cannot be expanded or reduced at will. An alteration of this
nature requires a relatively long period of time.
A state is not necessarily a product of historical evolution. It may be created or

carved out of an existing larger community or by the merger of small communities.
On the other hand, a nation is the outcome of prolonged common living.
A nation may not necessarily be sovereign. For a nation to be sovereign, it may

have to be independent and must have the power to make and enforce its laws
without any rival authority either from within or without.
A state has a definite territory. But a nation may not necessary be so. The situation
of the Jews before the establishment of the state of Israel is a case in point.
Nationhood predates statehood. The emergence of a state is recent, but that of a

nation is ancient. Statehood emerged only after the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648,
but nationhood has been in existence since time immemorial.
The inhabitants of states and nations are bound by different factors. The people of
a nation are bound by factors such as common history, tradition and blood ties
and, in some cases, common language, the people of a state have different factors
that unite them. Among them are political symbols of the state namely, currency,
anthem, coat of arms and flag.
• Government at the level of a nation is weak and subordinate to that of the state.
The government of the state wields enormous powers and can exercise authority
over all other entities within the state including the nation.
• The monopoly over the use of force is the preserve of the state. The authority of
the state cannot be questioned by any entity. However, the exercise of authority by
a nation can be challenged by the state and other entities. The nation relies on
persuasion to enforce its will on the people. Obedience to the nation is voluntary.
The same cannot be said about the state, citizens are obliged to obey the state and
failure to do so attracts sanctions is visited by appropriate sanctions.
Similarities Between State and Nation

In spite of the differences between the state and nation, the two entities have certain things
in common. Both the state and the nation have a population. None of these entities can be
conceived of without this feature. In both cases too, the people are permanently settled in
a particular location of the earth's surface. They both have territory as a distinct feature.
Both the state and nation have organized administration or government which takes decisions
and manages affairs on behalf of the inhabitants.
The Concept of Nation-State

It is common to have a state which is composed of more than one nation, that is, people
with common cultural and historical identities. It is also common to have a state whose
membership is made up of only one nation.
In many instances, people who live in a state are not necessarily from one ethnic group.
Most states are made up of heterogeneous societies. In spite of the differences in language
and other attributes, the people strive to assume a common identity as members of a state.
They therefore see themselves as a nation. The people of Ghana for example have a
common history, the history being that they were once colonized by the British. It took the
toil of their forefathers to wrestle for colonial freedom from the British. Their forefathers
have become their heroes. The people somehow have common ways of doing things and
share the same aspirations as members of a state. They have adopted English, which is the
language of their former colonial master as the official language for transacting business
and a medium of communication. These common features give the people of Ghana some
resemblance of a nation. It can be stated that a nation-state is a situation where people of
different ethnic backgrounds form the population of a state and they are prepared to defend
the state at all times even at the peril of their lives. Ghana can thus be called a nation-state -
a state whose peoples share certain features in common. This is the position of one
The State 33
school of thought on the concept of nation-state.
There is another school which holds a different position. This school is of the view that a
nation-state is a state whose entire population is made up of people of one nation or ethnic
group. The closest examples are Botswana, Algeria and North and South Korea. In
Botswana, a little over 90% of the populace are Twana (an ethnic group). In Algeria,
almost 98% of the people are Arabic Berbers. The same can be said about the North and
South Korea.
State and Government

People sometimes use the state to refer to government and the vice versa. Though they can
be right in some situations, the use of the two terms synonymously cannot be wholly true at
all times. Government refers to the people entrusted with the power to manage the affairs
of the state on behalf of the citizens. Government may refer to the institutions and agencies
vested with power by the people to run the affairs of the state. It is the agency through
which the will of the state is formulated, expressed and implemented (Agarwal et al 1994:
74).
Di stinction between State and Government

• One distinction between state and government is that, while the former is total, the
latter is fractional. The state comprises the people and every other entity within the
given geographical location. Government, on the other hand, is only apart of the
state, that is, a small section of the people who are either elected, appointed or
imposed on the populace to manage the affairs of the state (Agarwal et al, 1994:
76;Heywood,jl994:38).
• The state is abs tract in nature, but government is concrete. We can see the people
who are functionaries of government- those who formulate and implement policies,
arrest and prosecute offenders of the laws of the state. But we cannot physically
visualize the state in action (Agarwal et al, 1994:76).
• The state also differs from government in terms of membership. While the
membership of a state consists of all the people, that of government comprises
only a small part of the total population of the state (Agarwal et al, 1994:76).
• Another point of departure is that the state is permanent, but government is

temporary. The state exists forever though in some cases a state can be divided
into two or more sovereign states. The erstwhile Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
(USSR) and the Sudan are cases in point. The state has a longer or indefinite life.
Contrariwise, governments come and go; they are short-lived and therefore not
permanent. It is common to come across governments that have existed for a long
time, but the life of such regimes will not be longer than that of the state.
Notwithstanding the protracted life span of some regimes, governments change
overtime (Hey wood 1994:38).
• States are sovereign, but governments are not. The power of the state, in theory, is
not subject to any limitations whatsoever. Thus, the state exercises absolute powers.
In practice however, governments are subject to various limitations and legal
constraints.
• Every state must have a government of a sort. It is said that a state without a
government is inconceivable. It is possible to have a government without a state,
but it is impossible to have a state without a government Nations have governments.
The people of Palestine have a government, but they do not constitute a state.
State Capacity
It has been stated that the state is an inanimate entity and its functions are performed on its
behalf by its animate representative called government The government of a state is vested
with the power and authority to implement policies for the advancement of the state. The
ability of a government to implement its policies and accomplish its goals is what is referred
to as state capacity (Brautigam 1996:83). Effective bureaucratic machinery, skilled and
committed leaders and officials and adequate financial support are central to the capacity
of a state.
State capacity can be put into four broad dimensions: regulatory, administrative, technical
and extractive.
Regulatory capacity entails the ability of the state to make and enforce the rules that regulate
social conduct. This means its ability to establish rule of law and live up to its tenets.
Administrative capacity has to do with the routine ability of the state to manage its people
and resources and to ensure accountability and efficiency in service delivery. Technical
capacity comprises the expertise and knowledge needed to formulate and carry out technical
decisions. It deals with the tools for making and implementing public policies. Extractive
capacity refers to the ability of the state to raise revenues needed to manage the affairs of
the state (Brautigam 1996:83).
Summary
• The state is a community of people occupying a definite portion of the earth's
The State 35
surface, independent of external control and have a government. For an entity to

be called a state, it must have certain elements including population, defined
geographical area, government, a system of laws, sovereignty, universal recognition,
permanence and compulsory membership.
There are a number of rival theories of the origin of the state. They include the
divine theory, social contract theories, force theory and genetic theory. The divine
right theory postulates that the state is the creation of God and that its leaders are
God's own appointees ordained to rule. The social contract theories in contrast to
the divine theory contend that the state was the creation of man. Force theory
views die creation of the state as the product of wars. The genetic theory holds the
view that the state is the extension of family.
The state performs a range of functions including maintenance of law and order,
protection of individual rights and liberties, provision of economic and social services,
national defence and security, international relations and promotion of morality.
The etymology and meaning of the word nation have been rendered differently by
various writers. A nation can be explained as a group of people who may or may
not be living in a defined territorial area but who by historical background, language,
culture and religion or racial relations believe that they have common ancestry. The
common features of a nation include territory, population, history, government and
common language. A nation and a state have certain similarities but the two entities
also differ in certain respects.
• State and government are terms used synonymously by many people. Government
refers to the people entrusted with the power to manage the affairs of the state.
Government differs from the state in several respects. Whilst the state comprises
the people and every other entity within the geographical location, government is
only a part of the state. The state is abstract but government is concrete. While the
membership of the state consists of all the people and is permanent, government
comprises only a small part of the total population and is temporary.
Revision Questions
1. What is the state? Explain the features of the state.
2. Describe the distinctive features that set the state apart from similar other entities.
3. Explain briefly each of the following theories of the evolution of the state:
4. i The divine right theory
ii The force theory
iii The social contract theorie
iv. The genetic theory

4. Compare and contrast the divine right and the social contract theories of the
evolution of the state.
5. Explain the concept of the state. What does the state do?
6. What is the main purpose for the existence of the state?
7. Describe the role of the state.
8. Compare and contrast the meanings of the concepts of the state and nation.
9. Outline the similarities and differences between the state and nation.
10. The state and nation converge and diverge. Discuss.
11. In what ways does the state differ from a nation?
Chapter Three
THE CONCEPTS OF POWER, INFLUENCE,

AUTHORITY, LEGITIMACY AND SOVEREIGNTY
Key Issues
1. The concept of power
2. Meaning of influence
3. Authority
4. Legitimacy
5. Sovereignty
To be grounded in the discourse of politics, one needs a thorough understanding of a

number of concepts. One cannot simply jump into a discipline of study without having
adequate knowledge of its basic tools - concepts. It is important to be abreast of some
concepts in politics first as we embark on the journey into the study of political science. A
concept is simply a general idea about something. This idea can be expressed in a word or
phrase. Concepts serve as a tool that helps us to think, argue, criticize, explain and analyze
issues. A good understanding of the basic concepts in politics will equip readers with the
requisite tools to understand and analyse political issues better (Hey wood, 2004; Haque
&Harrop,2010).
The concepts of power, influence, authority, legitimacy and sovereignty are common-place
terminologies in political science analysis. A content analysis of the writings of great social
and political theories from Plato and Aristotle through Machiavelli and Hobbes to Pareto
and Weber depicts power as the central point around which attempts to explain politics
revolve. These thinkers have devoted a great deal of attention to power and the phenomena
associated with it (Anifowose, 1999). To some writers, politics involves power and influence.
In the opinion of Harold Lasswell, politics is who gets what, when, and how. But for
Abraham Caplan politics involves influence and the influential. Power is often used
interchangeably with influence, authority, legitimacy and perhaps sovereignty. But these
concepts do not mean the same thing. What then do these concepts actually mean. Each of
them is explained in detail below.
37
POWER
The term power has been interpreted differently by different writers. The word power is
derived from the Latin word potere or the French verb pouvoir, both of which mean "to
be able to". Power thus means having the capacity or ability to bring about intended effect
(Hague & Harrop 2010; Russell, 1938; Dickerson & Flanagan, 1990). Power can also
be seen as the capacity to impose one's will over another by reliance on effective sanctions
in case of non compliance. Power is the ability to influence the behavior of others in
accordance with one's own ends. It may also be defined as the capacity of an individual or
group to influence another to act in such a manner which the individual or the group desires.
In the context of national politics, power can be understood as the ability of a person or
institution to control policy decisions. State institutions must have sufficient power so that
they can, for example, tell striking workers who use the strike weapon unlawfully to call off
their action, exact taxes on the citizens, ban the use of illicit drugs and stop drivers from
flouting road traffic regulations. The above definitions coincide with Max Weber's position.
He sees the concept as the possibility of imposing one's will upon the behaviour of other
persons. For him, power involves domination (Agarwal et al, 1994; Dickerson & Flanagan,
1990; Heywood, 1994; Patterson, 1993). Bertrand Russell (1938) gives a concise definition
of power as the production of intended results on other persons.
Characteristics of Power
Power exhibits certain unique features which are discussed as below:
• For power to occur, there must be at least two individuals or parties. That is the
one who exercises power (the subject) and the one over whom power is exercised,
that is the victim of power.
• There is a goal attainment feature. If power is explained as the ability or capacity

of a person to influence another's behaviour, then it means that there must be a
goal intended to be achieved by the one who exercises the power. Power is always
exercised with the view to attaining a specific goal. It is only when this goal is
attained that power is said to have been exercised.
• Power has influence feature. The exercise of power is to influence a particular

behaviour on the one on whom power is exercised, that is, the victim of power.
Power leads to the causation of a certain form of behaviour by the one who exercises
it over the other on whom it is exercised.
• Again, power has an instrumental feature. It is used as an instrument for achieving

an intended goal. As an instrument, power can be used by the one who exercises
it either to reward or punish the person or party on whom it is exercised.
The Concepts of Power, Influence, Authority, Legitimacy and Sovereignty 39
• Lastly, power has a capacity feature. The one who exercises power must have the
capacity to induce obedience from the one on whom it is exercised (Nnoli, 1986;
Anifowose & Enemuo, 1999).
Sources of Power
There are so many means by which power can be obtained and these constitute the sources
of power. The one who exercises power must be equipped with knowledge so that he can
induce obedience. Knowledge helps a person to give precise directions which will lead to
the attainment of specific goals intended to be achieved by the one who exercises power.
One's status also serves as a source of power. People are able to induce obedience because
of the positions they occupy. Some of these positions can be social, economic or political.
The personality of an individual can also constitute an important source of power. Personality
can both be acquired and inherent, and they include such unique characteristics as charisma,
oratory, physical appearance and so on.
Media plays a powerful role in shaping the thoughts and behaviour of people. Through
their roles of educating, informing and entertaining people, the media influence people's
behaviour (Agarwal et al, 1994).
Modes of Exercising Power

Nnoli (1986) has explained a variety of ways by which power can be exercised. These
include the use of persuasion, use of force, threat of sanction and offer of reward.
Persuasion
Persuasion is one means of exercising power. In persuasion, the one who exercises power
makes an offer to the other on whom power is exercised. Upon consideration of the offer,
the one on whom power is exercised decides to give in to the demand of the subject.
Use of Force
"If persuasion fails force is applied," this is a common saying. Force is one means by which
power is exercised. Here the subject uses force to coerce the victim to act in a way that
satisfies the wishes of the subject.
Threat of Sanction
The one who exercises power can threaten to apply sanctions on the victim if the latter fails
to do the bidding of the former. If the victim accepts to act in a manner that will satisfy the
wishes of the subject in order to avoid the application of sanction, power is said to have
been exercised.
Offer of Reward
Another way by which power can be exercised is through the offer of reward. With this,
the subject entices the victim with a reward if the latter complies with the demands of the
former. Offer of reward is different from persuasion in the sense that, in the former, the
reward offered serves as the basis for accepting or to acting in compliance of the orders of
the subject, while in the latter, the victim is cajoled to do the bidding of the subject.
INFLUENCE
One concept which is most often ignored by political scientists is influence. Because of its
neglect, people often confuse it with power and authority. But a clear distinction needs to
be struck between influence and other similar concepts. Influence can be explained as the
ability to convince a decision maker to reach a certain decision. Jackson & Jackson (2003)
define influence as the ability to persuade or convince others to act in a way that will satisfy
the subject. The concept means the ability of a subject to convince others to act in a way
that will satisfy him or her (subject). Influence shapes the behaviour of an individual but
unlike power, it carries no sanctions.
Forms of Influence
Influence comes in various forms. One of them is by persuasion. With this a person uses
the power of argument to cause others to change their thoughts or actions. The arguments
should be so convincing such that it can cause a change in action or thought of others.
Another form of influence is by inducement. Inducement is said to have occurred when a
person offers another something of value to the latter so as to influence his or her decisions or
thoughts. Power is also another form of influence. In this case, a person instructs another to
carry out an order. The order is carried out with the fear that failure to do so will lead to the
deprivation of something of value to the one who is to carry out the order. Force
occurs when a person orders another to execute a task by using physical means. Coercion
as a form of influence prevails when a person decides to obey another person's demands
because of the fear that if he fails or she fails to do so, the former will carry out a declared
threat. Coercion, in essence, is the absence of persuasion. Manipulation is another form of
influence. It comes into being when a subject influences a victim by communication in
which the former deliberately distorts, falsifies or misleadingly omits aspects of truth which
the latter knows but which the former believes that if it is communicated, it would suffice
to influence his or her thinking (Dahl & Stinebrickner 2003:41).
AUTHORITY
Authority is another concept which is mistakenly used synonymously with power. The
term authority is derived from the Latin word auctoritas, which means agreement or
approval. Auctoritas was closely connected with the Roman Senate which was used to
determine the validity of the laws passed by the People's Assembly (Agarwal et al, 1994:
616; Das & Chodhury, 2002). The rulers of a state ought to possess the right to exercise
power and influence on the ruled. The ruled on their part must also recognise those in
government as havingjthe right to exercise power over them. This recognition of the right to
exercise power over the ruled is what is known as authority. From the above, authority can
simply be defined as the right to rule. The concept can also be explained as the recognised
rights of an individual to exercise power. Robert Dahl explains authority as legitimate exercise
of power. A Dictionary of Modern Politics defines authority as "the right to give an order,
which will be obeyed with no question..." Parents have authority over their children, so are
teachers; they have firm authority over the students they handle. The right to exercise
power by parents and teachers over their children and students, respectively, cannot be
questioned. |
Features of Authority
Authority is distinguished from other related concepts by the following features. First,
authority relates to a person or a position one occupies. Once the subjects accord respect
to the office of the chief of a given society, that same respect is extended to the one who
occupies that office. A chief, for example, commands authority over his subjects because
of his person and the office he occupies. Second, authority involves two classes of people;
one being a superior and the other, a subordinate. Authority brings to the fore a
superior-subordinate relationship in which the superior is accorded the recognition and
acceptance by the subordinates as having the right to exercise power and influence.
Third, as an important resource in politics, authority is available to people who occupy
positions in formal and informal settings. The structure of authority is pyramidal; it has a
broad base and tapering top. Four, authority is essential for the running of government.
Governments must be accorded authority by the citizens. That is, the citizens must
recognise and accept the people in authority as having the right to exercise power over
them.
Types of Authority
A German sociologist, Maximilian Carl Emil Weber (1864-1920), commonly known as
Max Weber, who has pone a detailed study of authority has identified three pure types of
authority namely traditional, charismatic and legal rational.
Traditional Authority
The word tradition encompasses anything that is transmitted or handed down from the
past to the present. It follows from the above that anything from long-standing customs
and practices to political institutions and social systems, or a body of beliefs can all be
regarded as tradition. What is, however, difficult to determine is the length of time a belief,
practice or an institution has to survive before it can be regarded as tradition (Heywood,
2004). I
Traditional authority as the name implies is based on tradition which embodies the customs
and beliefs of a people. Suffice it to say, traditional authority depends upon the acceptance
of traditional practices and moral values Of a particular society. It simply refers to a system
of rule in which secular powers are exercised by chiefs, kings, queens or emirs based on
traditions and principle of inheritance. Traditional societies are guided by the past, and
such societies evaluate particular actions as right and proper simply because they have
been accepted for very long. When compliance to orders is founded on traditions and
customs of a society, the authority is characterised as traditional (Das & Choudhury, 2002;
Gerth & Mills, 1946). Leaders who exercise this type of authority are regarded as sacred
by their subjects and whose authority is determined by hereditary. Furthermore, subjects
pledge their unflinching loyalty to their traditional leaders. This makes it possible for the
subjects to render obedience to their leaders. The institution of chieftaincy which is commonly
found in Africa is a typical example of the traditional system of authority. Aside Africa,
countries like Oman, Saudi Arabia, the Netherlands and Britain also have traditional
authorities. It must be noted that in modem times, the traditional authority system is fast
losing its grip over society because of social change.
Arguments in favour of Traditional System of Authority

The traditional system of government is relevant for a number of reasons. In the first place, it
ensures continuity in the administration of society. The system has an in-built succession
plan which makes it possible for vacancies to be filled as soon as they occur. Secondly, this
system of authority promotes political stability. The in-built succession mechanism which
ensures that vacancies are filled promptly makes the system more stable. Finally, the system
promotes the rich culture of the people. This system of authority is built around the customs
and traditions of the people.
Arguments against Traditional System of Authority

In spite of its significance, the traditional system of authority is beset with problems. In the
first place, the mode of selecting leaders is criticised as being undemocratic and
discriminatory. It is only people from the royal lineage who are eligible to select people and be
selected to occupy vacant positions under this system. Second, because succession is
strictly by inheritance, it sometimes becomes difficult to remove an errant or anon-performing
chief from office. Lastly, the installation of leaders under this system is sometimes
characterised by inefficiency. The fact that the previous leader was efficient does not ,
necessarily mean that his or her successor will equally be efficient.
Charismatic Authority
Another form of authority identified by Max Weber is the charismatic system. By this
system, society is organised under the leadership of a special person like a religious figure
head, war lord, hero or military leader. The charismatic system of authority is based on
charisma, that is, special qualities, a leader is perceived to possess, which enable him "to
inspire enthusiasm, hope, interest or affection in others by means of personal charm or
influence". Weber borrowed the word charisma from Rudolf Sohm, the Strassburg church
historian and jurist. The term, which is derived from early Christian terminology, literary
means "a favour speciajly given by God's grace" or the "gift of grace" (Harley, 1980). The
term charisma was used to refer to a certain quality of an individual personality by virtue of
which he is set apart from the ordinary man and treated as endowed with supernatural or
exceptional powers or qualities. In other words, charismatic leaders are perceived by their
followers to be endowed with certain extraordinary qualities or characteristics that are
given to them by God which enable people to follow, obey and respect them. Weber used
the term to characterise self-appointed leaders who are followed by people who are in
distress and who need to follow the leader because they believe in him to be extraordinary
qualified
Charismatic leaders emerge in times of psychic, physical, economic, ethical and political
distress and have been neither office holders nor incumbents of an occupation. That is,
they are not men who lave acquired expert knowledge and served for remuneration.
Rather, they are natural leaders who emerged in times of crisis and who have been holders
of specific gift of the body and spirit to be supernatural and not accessible to everybody.
Examples of well-known charismatic leaders are Jesus Christ of Nazareth, Winston
Churchill of Great Britain, Charles de Gaul of France and J.F. Kennedy, Franklin Delano
Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln all of the United States of America. Other leaders who
have also enjoyed charismatic authority include: Mahatma Ghandi of India, Vladimir Lenin
of the former Soviet Union, Bernito Mussolini of Italy, Adolf Hitler of Germany,
MaoTse-Tung of China, Kwame ] slkrumah of Ghana, Julius Nyerere of Tanzania and Nelson
Mandela of South Africa (Das & Choudhury 2002).
By its very nature, the existence of charismatic authority is not static but specifically unstable.
Charismatic leaders hold power for a transient period. The holder may forgo his charisma;
he may feel forsaken by his God or maker as Jesus Christ did on the cross. Such leaders
may also prove to their followers that the virtue in them has evaporated or waned.
Charismatic powers or the unusual magical qualities are not transferable, so as soon as the
power wanes the leader is disserted by his following. Such leaders become extremely
unpopular as soon as the special qualities they possess disappear. It behoves such leaders
to leave the scene of political power immediately they realise that the power in them is
gone. Those who are power thirsty and will still want to continue to cling to it, resort to the
use of legal- rational source of authority in order to legitimise their stay in power.
Arguments for Charismatic Authority

A number of benefits can be derived from charismatic system of authority. One reason is
that leaders who enjoy charismatic power often tend to command huge following which
enables them to implement tough decisions which otherwise would have been difficult
under different systems of authority. Another reason is that because of the massive support
such leaders receive from their following, those who are visionary leaders are able to
develop their society or country during their period of rule. Yet another reason is that
charismatic leaders are able to carry out tough policies which traditional or legal rational
leaders will not be able to do due to the fear of becoming unpopular.
Arguments against Charismatic Authority

The above benefits notwithstanding, charismatic authority system is fraught with challenges.
One of them is that the super normal qualities charismatic leaders are believed to possess
may tend to blind their following to the extent that they find it difficult to criticise their
leaders when they lose track. This may lead to abuse of authority by the leaders. Another
challenge this system of authority is beset with is that the following tend to shower unnecessary
praise and adoration on their leaders by giving them undeserving accolades which may
tend to make the leaders complacent. Such leaders may lose focus in the end (Oquaye,
1980). Charismatic leadership does not necessarily translate into efficiency of a leader.
The fact that a leader is believed to possess charisma and emerges in times of crisis does
not mean that he will be able to find lasting solutions to all problems confronting his people.
Lastly, relative to traditional authority, this system of authority is usually unstable. Charismatic
leaders rule so long as the spell-binding powers in them allow them to hold on to power.
As soon as this power disappears they lose their popularity. Charismatic leaders thus rule
for very short period.
Legal-Rational system of Authority

The third and the final system of authority identified by Max Weber is legal-rational authority.
As the name implies, legal rational authority is the type of authority that is primarily based
on law and reason. It is simply termed as the rule of law and reason. From Weber's view
point, the world was increasingly becoming more sophisticated and rational in dealing with
social and economic phenomena. There was therefore the urgent need for corresponding
changes to be made in organizational and administrative structures to cope and contain the
rapidly emerging changing trends. The first two forms of authority identified by Weber
proved to be inadequate in dealing with the changing trend. The search for a new way of
organising society and to address the inadequacy led to the discovery of the legal rational
mode of organization. This is the domination by virtue of the belief in the validity of legal
stature and functional competence based on rationally created rules. This is the system in
which modern servants of the state exercise political power. The system is based on a
known set of principles, known aims and objectives, specified rules, regulations and
procedures. With this system, the subjects believe and obey their leaders not because of
the special qualities they are believed to possess or their traditional backgrounds, but that
the positions and actions of the incumbents are prescribed by law.
Strengths of the Legal Rational Authority

The following are the strengths of the legal-rational system of authority. First, the system
has an inbuilt mechanism to check abuse of power by the incumbent. The laws and
procedures set out to regulate the conduct of incumbents place limitations on them thereby
preventing them from abusing their authority. Second, the selection of leaders in this regime
is legally determined. The law specifically prescribes who qualifies to be appointed as a
leader and other conditions of appointment including tenure. Third, the system promotes
confidence in administration. Since the law constitutes the expression of the will of the
people, it engenders confidence in the people.
Weaknesses of the Legal Rational Authority

There are two major weaknesses inherent in the legal-rational system of authority. First,
the excessive bureaucracy which characterises the system has the tendency to slow down
decision-making processes and thereby making it impossible to respond to emergencies
with dispatch. Second, the system places emphasis on specialization of tasks which leads
to narrow-mindedness and all its associated problems.
LEGITIMACY
The word legitimacy is derived from the Latin word legitimare meaning to declare lawful
(Heywood, 2007; Hague and Harrop, 2010). Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-4BBC) used
the word legitimum to refer to the power constituted by law (Agarwal et al, 1994).
Legitimacy may be explained simply as lawful or rightfulness (Heywood, 2004). The term
legitimacy places much emphasis on law or rules. It also relates to acceptance or compliance.
Legitimacy today refers to the right of the people in government to exercise authority and
the recognition accorded them by the governed. A legitimate system of government is one
based on authority; that is, the subjects recognise their rulers as having the right to make
decisions and exercise r, lower over them. In the opinion of Max Weber, legitimacy refers
to nothing more or less than a belief in the right to rule (Heywood, 2004). Apolitical regime
is considered to be legitimate when it is accepted as right and proper by most of its members
(Bealeyetal.,1999).
Characteristics of Legitimacy
Legitimacy is distinguished by the following features. First, it has to do
with the exercise of authority. Authority is explained as the right to exercise power. Legitimacy
goes beyond
the right to exercise power to include the recognition or acceptability of the subject over
whom that right is exercised. There is, therefore, a clear link between authority and legitimacy.
Second, legitimacy focuses on the lawful nature of authority. It is based on the subjects'
recognition of their leaders as having the right to exercise authority over them. Third, legitimacy
thrives on the consent of the people, that is, the ruled. It exists when the ruled recognise
and accept the authority of their rulers. Finally, it is one basic condition for rule. Without
legitimacy, no leader can function effectively. Leaders must be accepted by their subjects
and when this recognition is not there they lose their legitimacy.
SOVEREIGNTY
Sovereignty is one of the most abstract concepts in political science. It is at the same time
one of the most important features of the state that distinguishes it from other similar entities.
During the Middle Ages the terms used, which came close to the modern conception of
sovereignty, were summapotestas (meaning highest power of the state) and plenitude
potestatis (also meaning supreme authority of the state) (Johari, 2005). "Sovereignty" is a
term derived from the Latin word superanus which means supremacy (Appadorai 2003).
The word sovereign originally meant one seated above. Sovereign body refers to an
institution unlimited by higher authority. Sovereignty can therefore be explained as the
supreme power of a state unrestrained by any other power (Hague and Harrop 2010). To
say that the state is sovereign is to mean that it exercises absolute and unrestricted power
in that it stands above all similar entities in the state (Heywood, 2007). Jean Bodin, one of
the classical writers on the concept of sovereignty explains the term as "supreme power
over citizens and subjects unrestrained by law." So by this, Bodin meant that sovereignty
refers to that power of the state which is superior to any other power and which is not
limited by any law (Sabine, 2009:405; Agarwal et al, 1994:149). On his part, Appadorai
(2003) explains the concept of sovereignty as the power of the state to make and enforce
laws with all the coercive powers at its disposal.
Features of Sovereignty
A number of features can be identified from the thoughts of the earlier writers of sovereignty.
The classical writers saw the sovereign power as absolute, indivisible, inalienable, permanent
or perpetual, comprehensive, exclusive, determinate, ultimate and unlimited by law. Let us
now examine how each of these features relates to the sovereign power of the state.
Absoluteness
To say that sovereignty is absolute is to mean that the sovereign power of the state is
without any restriction. As we have earlier indicated, sovereignty is the power of a state
over the citizens unrestrained by any law. It is the supreme characteristic of a state and
therefore recognizes no limit. The state has the power to impose sanctions or punishments
on any of its citizens. Sovereignty is supreme over all individuals, groups and organizations
within the state, and externally the state is independent of any other entity.
Indivisibility
By this feature the sovereign power cannot be divided or shared between and among a
number of persons and institutions. It must therefore be total. To divide and share sovereign
power will amount to weakening the body that exercises it. In the words of Calhoun
"sovereignty is an entire thing, to divide it is to destroy it. It is the supreme power in a state
and we might just as well speak of half a square or half a triangle as of half sovereignty"
(Cited in Agarwal et al, 1994). A divided sovereignty is, therefore, a contradiction in terms.
Inalienable feature of the sovereign power

The inalienability of the sovereign power flows from the indivisibility feature. It means the
sovereign power cannot be parted with or transferred. The feature simply means the non-
transferability of the power. If sovereignty is total, absolute and indivisible, then it cannot
be transferred. Once it is transferred it cannot be regained. In that case, it will cease to be
supreme and unrestrained power.
Permanence or perpetual
Just as the state is permanent, or exists in perpetuity, so is the sovereign power which is a
significant attribute of a state. The termination of sovereignty means the termination of the
existence of a state. Governments can change but sovereignty and the state cannot.
Universality
The sovereign power of a state is all-comprehensive and universal. This attribute of a state
is all encompassing and affects residents of a state. It is therefore comprehensive in its
scope. No individual or association is free from this universal authority within the jurisdiction
of a state (Agarwal et al, 1994).
Exclusiveness
The exercise of the sovereign power is exclusive to the state. There can only be one
sovereign authority within a state which is legally competent to command obedience of all
inhabitants on the land
Determinate
Sovereignty is deterrninable; that is, the one who exercises sovereignty can easily be identified
or located.
Ultimate
The origin of the word sovereignty is traceable to the Latin word superanus, which means
of the military junta exercise both legislative and executive functions and arrogate to
themselves some of the judicial powers. This makes the military a very powerful body,
especially in states where military intervention is rife. Could they be said to be the seat of
sovereignty? On the first day of assumption of power, the military leaders appeal to the
people to give them the support they need as they try to clear the mess they inherit in office,
and as soon as sanity is restored they will hand over power to a civilian regime and go
back to the barracks. This appeal is a pointer to the fact that sovereignty does not reside
in the military.
In a federal system of government, power is shared by both the federal and the unit state
governments. When it comes to concurrent powers, the powers of the federal supercede
that of the unit government. We can rightly locate the seat of sovereignty in the federal
government. However, since it shares this power which is said to be indivisible with the
component units, it is deprived of the sovereign power.
From the foregoing, it is difficult if not impossible to locate the seat of sovereignty or better
still who wields this supreme power. So is there anything like sovereign power? If yes, who
wields it? Is sovereignty a myth or a reality? In fact it seems to be an empty boast since it
is not clear what sovereignty is and where it can be located, and even who wields it.
Types of sovereignty
The difficulties arising out of the attempt to locate the seat of sovereignty in the state
compelled A. V. Dicey to come out with his typology of sovereignty. Dicey classified
sovereignty into two - legal and popular or political.
This categorization of sovereignty can be traced back to the writings of the classical scholars
on sovereignty, namely Jean Bodin and Thomas Hobbes. Jean Bodin in his work, The Six
Books of the Commonwealth (1576), argued for a sovereign who made laws but was
himself not bound by the laws. The laws amounted to the command of the sovereign and
subjects were required to obey. For Thomas Hobbes in his Leviathan (1651), sovereignty
is a monopoly of coercive power which is vested in the hands of a single ruler. The opinion
of the two scholars helps put sovereignty in two categories as espoused by Dicey. One
reflects the authority, and the other, power. Legal sovereignty is based on the belief that the
ultimate and final authority resides in the laws of the state (Hey wood, 1994). For Johari
(2006), a legal sovereign is one who has the highest power for making and enforcing a law.
A law made by such a sovereign is binding on all concerned people and parties. Legal
sovereignty describes the set of legal rules and legal institutions established for the
administration of the state. They include the legislature, which enacts laws for the state; the
executive which formulates and implements policies in the state, and the judiciary which
settles all manner of disputes between individuals, on the one hand, and between individuals
and the state on the other. The established legal rules also refer to the fundamental laws of
the land, the constitution and all its provisions including the amendment procedures, acts of
parliament and other laws recognized as such for the administration of the state. In summary,
legal sovereignty refers to all the legally established political institutions necessary for the
smooth administration of the state (Heywood, 1994; Agarwal et al, 1994).
The popular sovereignty is said to rest with the people in whom sovereignty ultimately
resides. The people exercise their rights as members of the state by actively participating in
the management of the affairs of the state. This takes various forms including voting in
general elections to choose leaders of the state, voting in a referendum to decide fundamental
issues like endorsing a new constitution, amending an entrenched provision and engaging
in recall of a representative in parliament. Besides all these, the people also have every
right to criticize policies of the government and offer alternative suggestions either through
the mass media or through the activities of pressure groups and political parties (Heywood,
1994; Agarwal et al, 1994).
Dicey's classifications has not been spared of criticisms. Sovereignty is said to be absolute,
comprehensive, total, exclusive, inalienable and indivisible. Dicey has got it all wrong right
from the outset by his attempt to put sovereignty into two categories. Calhoun is quoted as
saying that "sovereignty is an entire thing, to divide it is to destroy it...". Dicey's attempt to
categorize the indivisible power weakens the foundation of his argument.
Limitations on the sovereignty of a state

We have identified from the foregoing that the concept of sovereignty and its attendant
attempt to locate the seat of sovereign power in the state are beset with a number of
problems and limitations. The sovereign power is limited in many respects and thus creating
the impression that there is nothing like the supreme power of the state. We will at this
stage examine the numerous factors that put limitations on sovereignty.
In the first place, sovereign power is limited by the fundamental rights of the people. The
state and governing apparatus must recognize these individual rights enjoyed by the people
and seek to protect them. These rights are usually protected by entrenched provisions in
the constitution, and government cannot easily tamper with them. They can also be amended
after the people have given their consent in a referendum. If this does not put a limitation on
the sovereign power of the state, then what else does it?
Secondly, the existence of a constitution also sets limitations on a state's sovereignty. The
document establishes the organs of government and other supporting state institutions and
allocates them their powers. It sets limits to the scope within which each of the organs and
institutions can operate. The same document gives review powers to the judiciary, specifically
to the highest court of the land to set aside laws of the legislature and actions of the executive
that are at variance with the provisions of the constitution. From this view point, it can be
argued that a constitution limits the sovereign power of the state.
Thirdly, there is international limitation on the authority of a state. The uneven distribution
of natural resources coupled with the unbalanced income status of nations has brought into
being interdependence among nations. To promote interstate relations and peaceful co-
existence, a number of international agreements, treaties, conventions and protocols have
been reached which states have ratified. All these put limitations on the sovereignty of the
state.
Fourthly, international boundaries also set limits regarding the sphere of influence of a
state. People commit serious crimes and flee their states to seek refuge in other states. But
governments of their home states cannot extend their sovereign power beyond their territorial
frontiers to effect their arrest or exact punishment on them, since their jurisdiction does not
extend to the other states. They only bring action against such individuals through the
collaboration of other international bodies and agencies such as the Interpol.
Finally, the participation of the people in governance is also another source of limitation to
the sovereign power of the state. The people from whom sovereignty emanates have the
power to make and unmake governments. They vote to choose leaders and replace one
set of people in government with another. They renew and withdraw their mandate to
government as and when they deem fit. Through civil disobedience, they can bring the
activities of an incompetent and an illegitimate government to a halt. They also participate
in governance by expressing their support or displeasure for or against the government
policy through the use of public opinion instruments like strikes, boycotts, demonstrations
and other means.
Notwithstanding the limitations and the problems associated with the location of sovereignty,
it remains a very important concept in the area of political science and law. It still forms a
very important attribute of a state which differentiates the state from other similar entities
within or without the state.
Summary
• Power can be explained as the ability or the capacity of an individual or group to
influence another to act in such a manner which the former desires. Power occurs
between at least two individuals or parties, that is, the one who exercises power
(the subject) and the one over whom power is exercised (the victim). For power
to be exercised, there must be an intended goal the subject seeks to attain. The
exercise of power is to influence a particular behavior on the one on whom it is
exercised. Power has an instrumental feature. It is used as an instrument by the
subject either to reward or punish the victim in order to achieve the intended goal.
Sources of power include knowledge, status and personality possessed by the
subject of power as well as the media. The variety of ways by which power can be
exercised include persuasion, use of force, threat of sanction and offer of reward.
Influence is the ability to persuade or convince others to act in a way that will
satisfy the subject. Persuasion is one form of exercising influence. Influence can
also be exercised by inducement, power, force, coercion and manipulation.
Authority is defined as the right to rule or the legitimate exercise of power. Authority
is about a superior-subordinate relationship in which the superior is accorded to
recognition and acceptance by the subordinates as having the right to exercise
power and influence. Max Weber has classified authority into three namely
traditional, charismatic and legal-rational. Traditional authority refers to a system
of rule in which secular power is exercised by chiefs, kings, queens or emirs based
on traditions and principle of inheritance. Charismatic authority is based on the
perception of a leader believed to possess super natural qualities which enable him
or her to influence people. Legal-rational authority is based on rationally created
rules and procedures. It is simply a type of authority based on law.
Legitimacy refers to the right of the people in government to exercise authority and
the recognition accorded them by the governed. Law defines the basis of authority
of such leaders.
Sovereignty is explained as the supreme power of a state over citizens unrestrained

by any other power or law. Sovereignty is absolute, indivisible, permanent,
inalienable, universal, exclusive, determinate, ultimate and unlimited. Attempts have
been made to locate the seat of the sovereign power of the state in the people and
state institutions such as the legislature, executive, judiciary, constitution and the
military, but to no avail. A.V Dicey has classified sovereignty into popular and
legal. State sovereignty is limited by factors including the fundamental human rights
of the people, constitution, interdependence among states, international boundaries
and the inalienable rights of the people to participate in the process of government.
Revision Questions
1. Briefly explain each of the following concepts in political science:
i Power
ii. Influence
iii. Authority
iv. Legitimacy
v. Sovereignty
2. What is power? Describe the characteristics of power.

3. Explain the concept of power. Outline the various sources of power.
4. In what different ways can power be exercised?
5. What is authority? Briefly describe the three main types of authority.
6. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the following forms of authority:
L Traditional authority
i Charismatic authority
ii Legal-rational authority
7. Explain the concept of sovereignty. Outline the features of sovereignty.

8. Sovereignty is a myth. Discuss.
9. Is sovereignty a myth or a reality?
10. Can sovereignty be located in a state?
11. What factors place limitations on the sovereign power of the state?
Chapter Four
Key Issues IDEOLOGY
 The concept of ideology

 Feudalism
 Liberalism
 Conservatism
 Capitalism
 Socialism
 Marxism-Leninism
 Communism
 Fascism
 Nazism
 Anarchism
It is not uncommon to hear politicians talk about the ideologies of their political parties and
national ideologies. Many politicians claim that they are guided by one form of ideology or
the other when formulating policies for the development of their states. This means that
ideology plays a crucial role in politics. It is important at this juncture to take a closer look
at ideology which has become a catch-phrase in politics.
The word ideology has a long and chequered history. The concept owes its origin to an
eighteenth century French philosopher, Antoine Louis Claude Destutt de Tracy
(1754-1836) in the late eighteenth century (Heywood 2007:44: Cord etal
1974:152:Baradat 1997:6). Destutt de Tracy first used the word in papers presented in
installments to the National Institute in Paris. He used the word to describe a new
empirical science of ideas. The term took a pejorative connotation to imply dangerous
radicalism. It was later used to denote a political doctrine in general (Vincent,
1992).
The word "ideology" has a compound of two Greek words eidos (meaning ideas) and
logos (meaning study of science). With this background, the word ideology can be explained
as the science or the study of ideas. De Tracy wanted a new term for a new science as he
rejected the term metaphysique (metaphysics) and psychology as inadequate, misleading
55
and discredited. He believed that people could use science to improve social and political
conditions. To him, ideology was the study of the process of forming ideas - a "science of
ideas". De Tracy sought to apply the knowledge derived from his "science of ideas" to
improve human life. The "science of ideas", as Tracy noted was to enable him demystify
and inquire into the hidden origins of certain thoughts and ideas of the human society (Ball
& Dagger 1991:4-5; Vincent, 1992).
De Tracy believed that all aspects of human experience, which hitherto had been examined
in terms of theology, should now be examined by reason through the use of his new ideas.
The science of ideas was to investigate the natural origin of ideas. To him, ideology was "/#
theorie des theories" which preceded all other sciences which of necessity ultilized "ideas"
(Vincent 1992:2).
Meaning of Ideology
Political thinkers have not concurred on the meaning of ideology. It has been defined
variously by different political thinkers and writers. Anthony Downs (1957:96; Cord,
Medeiros & Jones 1974:153; Roskin et al 1991:102) explain ideology as "a verbal
image of the good society, and chief means of constructing such a society." The concept
can also be generally understood as a set of attitudes about political behaviour on both
international and domestic levels. It is both an interrelated collection of beliefs about the
nature and purpose of man and society and a guide to attaining these beliefs. Ideologies
deal with such questions as who should rule, how rulers should be chosen and by what
principles they should govern (Cord et al 1974:153). Hey wood (2007:45) perceives
ideology as "a more or less coherent set of ideas that provides the basis for organized
political action, whether this is intended to preserve, modify or overthrow the existing
system of power relationships." Sargent (1972) approaches the definition of ideology from
a different perspective. He is of the view that ideologies are simplistic in their approach to
problem solving. Sargent stated that ideologies provide the believer with a picture of the
world both as it is and as it should be, and in so doing,... organizes the tremendous
complexity of the world into something fairly simple and understandable (Baradat 1997:
8). In his view, Ball explains ideology as "an agenda of things to discuss, questions to ask
[and] hypotheses to make" (Baradat 1997:8).
Ball and Dagger (1991: 12) in their work, Political Ideologies and the Democratic
Ideal state that an ideology offers an explanation of why social, political and economic
conditions are as they are. They add that "if everything seems to be going well in society,
most people are not likely to worry about these conditions. However, when there is a crisis
or a essence that things are somehow out of order, people will search, sometimes frantically
for some explanations of what is happening...."
Ideology 57
Features of Ideology
Ideologies share certain features in common which make them distinctive. One basic feature
is that they tend to arise in crisis situations. Ideologies are usually developed either to save
people who are disadvantaged in a crisis situation to justify their rejection of the system or
help the beneficiaries to justify their privilege. Another feature of ideologies is that they
constitute a system for explaining real life situations in human society. Ideologies also form
a systematic pattern of political thought. They embody the essential elements of the real life
situations they seek to describe, explain and correct through change. Ideologies tend to be
personalized and turned into sacred beliefs similar to religious beliefs. Ideologues or adherents
of ideologies tend to imbibe the principles of their respective ideological positions and live
by them just like the religious people do (Nnoli 1986:149-150). Finally, the main tenets of
ideologies are documented. Mention can be made of the Communist Manifesto and Das
Kapital which contain the principles of Marxism. Mein Kampf is also the document on
Nazism (Khanna 2001:157). In addition to the above, every ideology is linked with
human nature, which includes human drives, motivations, possibilities and limitations which
contribute to shape the understanding of the realities of life.
Functions of Ideology
Ideology performs a number of useful functions in the organization of society. First, it offers
a vivid explanation, justification and understanding of events that affect the general
well-being of individuals in society. This constitutes the explanatory function of ideology.
Without ideology, it would be difficult if not impossible to conceptualize such happenings
in the political society. For example, ideology offers explanation to issues like why and
how the poor must be catered for, why some states are in favour or against competition as
well as how and to what extent human freedom can be regulated by the state (Nnoli
1986:150, Ball and Dagger 1991:8-9). Second, ideology performs an evaluative function.
It serves as a measuring rod for assessing social conditions of life and recommending
appropriate remedies to deal with problems identified. A feminist ideology, for example, will
always be interested in identifying whether a social policy will advance the interest of
women in a society. A capitalist on the other hand will be interested in knowing whether a
government policy produces fair grounds for competition. Third, ideology plays an
orientation role by providing basic information and training that equip the individuals with
tools to surmount specific personality needs in society. This provides the basis for the
individual to appreciate conditions of his or her society and relate it to other societies. It is a
fact that adherents of Nazism believe in the superiority of the white race. Fourth, ideology
prescribes a programme of action and rules of conduct for the attainment of specific social
and political goals. It offers its adherents focus and direction towards the attainment of
social and political goals. Finally, ideology serves as a dynamic force in motivating people
to participate actively in politics. The strong attachment people have for their chosen
positions exemplifies the point. Thus, ideology energizes people for changes in the social
and economic order (Nnoli
1986:150: Cord et al 1974:154; Ball & Dagger 1991:8-10).
Classification of Ideology
Skidmore (1993:7-8) has classified ideology into three broad types, according to what
they seek to do. From his perspective, ideology either seeks to preserve what is in existence
or cause a change in what exists. The three main categories of ideology, Skidmore puts
across, are status quo, reform and revolutionary.
Change is inevitable in every society, but how the change is attained differs from one
society to another. In a society, we can identify people who want a total change of the
existing order (revolutionary), others who want the existing order to remain (status quo)
and those who want change, but in a gradual and an orderly fashion (reform). These three
positions on change is what Skidmore refers to as revolutionary, status quo and reform
ideologies.
THE LEFT-RIGHT CONTINUUM OF IDEOLOGY

It is fashionable in contemporary times, just like the years before, for parties and political
leaders to style themselves as "rightists", "leftists" and "centrists" to describe the ideological
positions they share. This style of classifying of political ideologies has been a popular way
of placing them along a spectrum, with anarchy and revolution being on the left, reactionary
and conservatism on the right, and all others somewhere at the centre. The mode of
classification dates back to the First French Republic when the National Assembly composed
of three political groupings met in Paris in 1789. The meeting hall was an amphi-theatre
structured in a horse shoe shape with the Speaker of the House sitting in the middle portion
(Cord et al, 1974; Hague and Harrop, 2010; Skidmore, 1993).
Figure 1: The seating arrangements at the 1789 French National Assembly.

Speaker
Leftists (Radicals) Centrists Rightists

Secular state (Moderates) (Conservatives)
Constitution Believe in gradual change Preservation of
monarchy
Free press
Fairer taxation
Trial by jury
Ideology 59
To the left of the speaker sat the radicals (that is, those who were in support of drastic
change in the existing political order). They advocated the reduction of the position of the
monarch to a symbolic figure head. It was also the position of the leftists that political
power emanates from the people and as such it should be exercised by the people's
elected representatives (Dickerson & Flanagan, 1990). The group, which comprised both
the radicals and the commoners, called themselves leftists, reflecting their seating location
in the House. They advocated a secular republic, liberty and equality, a constitution, free
press, trial by jury and fairer taxation. The leftists are "reformers" and "modernizers", who
are more ideological and are in favour of the principle of equality and policies that reduce
inequality, and nationalisation. One of the radical or leftist ideologies is anarchism, which is
positioned at the extreme left of the political spectrum. As we will soon learn, anarchism
advocates the abolition of all governments and resists governmental controls of any kind.
Also lying in the extreme left are communism and socialism (Cord et al, 1974; Hague &
Harrop,2010).
The conservatives sat on the right of the speaker. They were mostly noble royalists. As
corollary of their seating location, they called themselves the rightists. This group supported
the maintenance of the status quo (that is, the preservation of the monarchy). Supporters
of this ideological position held an elitist view (the belief that some people are superior to
others and therefore deserve to be treated differently) (Skidmore 1993:9). The rightists,
as we have noted, were "traditionalists" and" conservatives". They were less ideological
and mainly supported the free market and natural inequality (Hague & Harrop, 2010). It
was the belief of the rightists that political power was conferred on the King by God
through inheritance. They therefore expressed their support for the retention of substantial
powers of the monarch. For the rightists, the appointment of judges and vetoing of
legislations were part and parcel of the substantial powers of the monarch (Dickerson &
Flanagan, 1990).
At the centre were the liberals also known as the centrists or moderates. They sought a
compromise or balance of the positions (Dickerson & Flanagan, 1990). This group
advocated limited representation. The centrists believed in change but in a gradual manner,
hence the name moderates. Though the 1789 Assembly was short-lived, the ideological
terms of left, right and centre continued to be used till date (Cord et al, 1974; Hague &
Harrop, 2010).
The two tables below (Tables 3 and 4) summarize the major ideologies and their favoured
policies.
Table 3: Some tenets associated with the various ideological position
Left Centre Right
Communism Social Reform Liberalism Classical Conservatism Fascism

Democracy Liberalism
Adopted from Dickerson and Flanagan, An Introduction to Government and Politics, 3rd
edp.167
Table 4: A table showing some tenets associated with the various ideological positions in
the continuum.
Left Centre Right
Equality of Condition Equality of Opportunity Equality of Aristocracy Hierarchy

Right
Communism Social Democracy Reform Conservatism Fascism

Liberalism
Adopted from Dickerson and Flanagan, An Introduction to Government and Politics, 3rd
edp.168
MAJOR IDEOLOGIES
We have now learnt about the meaning, features and classification of ideologies. We now
have to turn our attention to examine in detail some of the major ideologies. These will
include feudalism, liberalism, conservatism, capitalism, socialism, Marxism-Leninism,
fascism, Nazism and anarchism.
FEUDALISM
Feudalism is reckoned to be one of the oldest social systems in the world. This system
emerged after the collapse of Roman rule which left Western Europe in the Dark Ages
(AD 476 - 800). The period called the Dark Ages was marked by a decline in law and
order, trade and housing as well as a reduction in population. Political power and authority
became fragmented among many petty kings and warlords who provided some amount of
security from local lawlessness and barbarian raids (Henderson 1998:34). Feudalism was
the coinage of historians after the Middle Ages and was used to describe the type of
Ideology 61
government institutions and the general social and political relationships that existed among
the dominant warrior- landholders during the period in Europe (Greer & Lewis, 2002). It
was a name used to refer to the form of society and government which prevailed in Europe
between the fifth and fourteenth centuries. Feudalism was a very complex system which is a
bit difficult to comprehend, but in essence, it was a kind of local government that came
into existence prior to the emergence of statehood (Palmer & Colton, 1992). Feudalism is
traceable to the word fief (derived from an old Frankish word meaning property) ox feud
(from the Medieval Latin word feudum) which refers to a piece of land granted by a lord
to a vassal (Appadorai, 2004; Williams, 1966).
The Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics defines feudalism as a system in which vassals
acknowledged and fought for a lord in return for his protection for their person and land
tenure. The lord in turn paid allegiance to a king in return for his granting of their status
(Appadorai, 2004). Some writers explained the concept as a social system in which people
rendered services to a lord by working and fighting for him in exchange for land and
protection. It could be understood from the foregoing that feudalism was based on the
exchange of land for military service.
To understand the key issues of feudalism, it is important to appreciate the relationship

between the major actors in the system. They were the King, the Nobles, Knights or
Vassal, Freemen, Yeomen, Servants and Peasants, also known as Serfs or Villeins. The
system was hierarchically structured. At the apex was die King, who claimed ownership of
the land. The feudal King was primus inter pares among his vassals and was only answerable
to the Pope. As the owner of the land, the King granted portions of the fief to important
Nobles who pledged their loyalty by swearing to serve and protect him. He could also
grant fief to the less powerful military men (the Knights) also called the Vassals. The Vassals
agreed to fight for the King in exchange for their fief. At the base of the pyramidal structure
were the peasant Serfs, who belonged to die land and could not leave without permission.
Figure 2: The structure of feudalism
As per the feudal arrangement, it was possible for everyone to move up the ladder of the
pyramid and that was exactly what everyone aspired to do.
It was the duty of the lord to protect his vassals, that is, to use his army to defend his
vassals against attacks. The lord also had the power to punish the vassals for any
wrongdoing. Furthermore, the lord was obligated to defend the rights of his vassals and
also to secure them justice in all matters. To ensure this, the lord maintained a court where
vassals could receive a hearing for any grievances (Appadorai, 2004; Harrison, Sullivan &
Sherman, 1990).
In return for these privileges, the vassal owed his lord fidelity, which was a promise the
former made to the latter at a ceremony of homage. At this ceremony, the vassal appeared
before the lord, bare headed and unarmed, and made a declaration on his knees that he
would become his "subject". By this voluntary act called homage (after the Latin word
homo, meaning man) the first party became a vassal and the second a lord. After the
declaration, the lord will then lift the vassal who had sworn before him, and kiss him to
signify his acceptance of his status as a vassal. After that the vassal swore an oath of fidelity
or fealty to be faithful to his lord. The lord then gave him a piece of the earth from the new
lands, a flag or some object which could be a ring to signify the true possession by the
vassal. This ceremony was called investiture (from Latin word investio, meaning clothe
and hence give), which symbolized the granting of a fief- usually a piece of land or money,
which the vassal was to live on (Appadorai, 2004; Harrison, Sullivan & Sherman, 1990;
Ideology 63
Williams, 1966). The vassal had rights and obligations. He was entitled by usufruct to the
use of the lord's property - fief for his survival. The vassal had some obligations. First, the
vassal was to render military service, usually for forty days in a year, which he was to
provide at his own expense. One of such military services was guard duty at the lord's
fortress (Sabine, 2009). Second, the vassal served as an advisor to the lord's court. Third,
he was obliged to give aid in a form of money payments on such occasions as knighting of
the lord's eldest son, marriage dowry of the lord's eldest daughter and make payments
towards the release of the lord in the event of his capture in a war (Sabine, 2009). Fourthly,
he was to provide accommodation and hospitality for the lord and his follower whenever
they visited the fief. Finally, he was required to maintain the fief in good condition at all
times. It should be mentioned that if a vassal died without heirs, the fief reverted to the lord
(Appadorai, 2004; Harrison et al, 1990).
| LIBERALISM
Liber is the Latin wore! from which liberalism derives its origin and it means free. In a
liberal society the people enjoy the freedom to express their ideas and interests without
many restrictions (Roskin et al, 1991; Ball & Dagger, 1991; Das, 1996; Dickerson &
Flanagan, 1990; Jackson & Jackson, 2003). John Locke, an English philosopher,
contributed enormously to the development of liberalism as an ideology. He stressed
individual liberty largely because of his position that most people are capable of living
freely. In his book Two Treatises on Civil Government, Locke contended that all
individuals are entitled to the right to life, liberty and property and that is why governments
are created to protect these rights. Locke did not mince words when he added that if the
government fails in this task, the citizens have every right to overthrow it (Bealey, Chapman
& Sheehan, 1998). He further argued that in a liberal society, individuals must be free to
exercise their individual rights including the acquisition of property. He also acknowledged
that individuals must be free to exercise their rights to reason (Heywood, 2007; Jackson &
Jackson, 2003).
The collapse of feudalism and the subsequent birth of capitalism conflated with the inception
of the Industrial Revolution triggered discussions on liberalism. This was the time liberalist
theorists like David Hume (1711-1776), Adam Smith (1723-1790), Jeremy Bentham
(1748-1832) and Johnj Stuart Mill (1806-) 1873 were vociferous on ideas of "the greatest
good for the greatest number", "the unseen hand of the market" "Laissez Faire economics"
and utilitarianism. All these ideas bandied about by the theorists dwelt on the role of
government to protect he weak, while at the same time giving the strong the opportunity to
carry out their business (Lawson, 2003).
Liberalism as an ideology emerged as a product of the collapse of the feudalist system and
the growth of a market and a capitalist society (Das, 1996). Liberalism started as a political
doctrine which attacked absolutism and feudal privilege. It did not initially advocate
constitutional and representative government.
Features of Liberalism
The following are the distinctive features of liberalism: individualism, freedom, reason,
toleration, consent, constitutionalism, equality and justice.
One core principle of the liberal ideology is individualism. Individualism reflects a belief in
the supreme importance of the individual as a person as opposed to any social group or
collective body. It recognizes human beings first and foremost as individuals implying that
they are of equal moral value and also possess separate and unique identities. The ultimate
goal of the liberal ideology is therefore to build a society within which the individual can
flourish according to the best of their abilities as they are capable of pursuing their own
interest and that external interference will not have any effect (Hey wood, 2007; Das,
1996).
Individual freedom or liberty is another core value of the liberal ideology. It will be recalled
that the meaning of the root word of liberty, liber means free. The enunciators of this
ideology held the belief that each individual should be given the freedom to act in a manner
that will enable him or her gain satisfaction. Freedom is essential for the development of
human talent. Proponents of the liberal ideology have over the years sought to create the
environment in which all people will enjoy their freedoms. For them, the only way individuals
can enjoy their freedoms satisfactorily is when such freedoms are regulated by law. The
use of law to regulate human behavior, in the opinion of the liberalists, will reduce the
incidence of the abuse of freedom, in which case life in society will be found quite enjoyable
by all (Heywood, 2007; Das, 1996).
Reason is another striking feature of liberalism. Like freedom, reason is also an important
aspect of the liberal ideology. One way by which individuals will be able to make wise
judgment and exercise control over their interests is to be allowed to reason freely. The use
of reason will in no doubt equip the individuals with the skills and knowledge to resolve
their differences amicably without recourse to confrontation. As rational and reasonable
beings, individuals are capable of taking their own decisions and making their judgments.
There is, therefore, no reason for external authority to impose any decision on them.
According to Mill, the only justification permissible for government to interfere in the life of
an individual is to prevent them from harming others. The liberals are of the view that real
progress of society could only be attained through individual initiative (Heywood, 2007;
Das, 1996).
Ideology 65
Equality of the individual is another cardinal principle of liberalism. This principle hinges on
the belief that individuals are "born equal" at least in terms of moral wealth (Heywood,
2007). The liberalist position is that each person ought to be free so that he or she can live
life the way he or she deem tit. In furtherance of that, each individual is to have equal
access to opportunities that will make him or her enjoy liberty. It must be borne in mind
that no individual's liberty supersedes that of any other person (Ball & Dagger, 1991;
Dickerson& Flanagan, 1990).
Liberalism thus seeks for the individual an equal chance to be successful in life. Proponents
of liberalism campaigned for the creation of an equal playing field for all individuals so they
can unearth their hidden potentials. This position reflects in legal equality of the individual
as embodied in the rule of law principle and political equality (one man one vote). It must
be noted from the foregoing that liberals support the principle of meritocracy (Heywood,
2007).
Freedom and equality are two core values of liberalism. These principles place an injunction
on individuals to tolerate the actions and inactions of others in a society. It is also notable
that every society is made up of a conglomeration of varied groups with different opinions,
beliefs and faiths. Members of all these groups must co-exist peacefully in society. This
requires a very high degree of tolerance. Tolerance therefore becomes another cardinal
principle of liberalism (Heywood, 2007; Das, 1996).
Power has the potential to corrupt those who wield it, and to forestall this, adherents of
liberalism have advocated the introduction of rules and regulations to check the use of
unbridled power. This, the liberal philosophers argue, can be attained through the introduction
of a constitution which prescribes the powers of government and also defines and protects
individual rights and freedoms (Heywood, 2007).
The liberalists believe that government must be based on the consent of the people, that is,
the ruled. Flowing from this, laws, policies and programmes emanating from leaders must
of necessity receive the approval of the people. As part of the consent, government is
required to render accounts to the bulk of the people (Heywood, 2005; Dickerson &
Flanagan, 1990).
Classical Liberalism
The classical variant of liberalism places emphasis on the individual as an important figure
in the state. The classical scholars recommend the state to keep off from the management
of the economy, implying that individuals should be the managers of the economy. The
state's only role should be the establishment of order, provision of security and ensuring
the enforcement of contracts. Private individuals should be allowed the freedom to pursue
their individual economic interests. It is the belief of these scholars that the economy works
best when government keeps off from its management. This idea is in tune with the capitalist
principle of laissez faire which guarantees prosperity and upholds individual liberty, thus
allowing individuals to take their rightful positions in the economy (Heywood, 2007; Roskin
etal,1991).
Modern Liberalism
Contrary to the position of the classical liberal philosophy which emphasizes the non-
intervention of the state in the economy, modem liberalism argues for state intervention.
Free competition which characterized industrial capitalism exposed the individual to the
full effects of the capitalist market - unequal competition, ignorance and inefficiency among
others, necessitated the new proposal. Modem liberalism recommends state intervention
as a means of addressing the challenges associated with classical liberalism such as want,
ignorance, squalor, idleness and disease. The ultimate aim of this new proposal is to ensure
individual liberty, growth and development which constitute the foundation of welfare policies
(Baradat, 1997; Heywood, 2007).
Neo-liberalism
Modem liberalism, just like its predecessor, classical liberalism could not adequately address
the challenges of society. The need therefore arose for a new approach to be formulated
leading to the emergence of the neo-liberalism ideology. Neo-liberalism realized the need
to roll back the frontiers of the state. This was formulated in the belief that unregulated
market capitalism will deliver efficiency, growth and widespread prosperity. Neo-liberalism
therefore emerged as an updated variant of classical liberalism (Heywood, 2007).
CONSERVATISM
The period between the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries saw the emergence
of conservatism as a counter to liberalism. While adherents of liberalism sought reforms in
the existing social orders, their opponents defended the status quo. The position of the
latter became known as conservatism. According to The Oxford Companion to the
Politics of the World, the term conservatism was coined by Chateaubriand in the 1820s
to describe the more moderate supporters of the restorationist monarchy in France.
Conservatism derives its origin from the Latin word conservare, which means to save or
preserve. The word conservatism connotes the desire to conserve or preserve something
which is usually related to the traditional or customary way of life of the people of a society.
The word conservatism is often used to refer to people who resist change (Ball & Dagger,
1999). It follows from the above that conservatives are skeptical about change, and will
always strive to keep existing traditions intact. Nothing best expressed the conservative
Ideology 67
attitude towards change than the old adage "If it is not necessary to change, it is necessary
not to change". Expressing their fear about change, the conservative held the notion that it
is desirable not to tamper with the status quo which has stood the test of time. The position
of the conservatives has been made abundantly clear that they have a strong attachment to
the present or status quo. The admission of the conservatives that the status quo is not
static but keeps changing from time to time gives an ample indication that they believe in
change, but to them, su ch changes must be gradual to enable people to adjust to them
(Dickerson & Flanagan, 1990). As a political ideology, conservatism seeks to preserve
what is thought to be the 1 Dest in established societies and opposes radical change. Buttressing
this position, Hayek (1899-1992) in his work, The Road to Serfdom wrote:
Conservatism proper is a legitimate, probably necessary, and certainly
widespread attitude of opposition to drastic change (Cited in
Sargent2006) Conservatives as Sargent observed, are not opposed to
change, but are hesitant about any change no matter its form.
The conservatives campaigned against the increasing pace of harsh economic and political
change that prevailed during the late eighteenth and the early nineteenth centuries. Thus,
the ideology was propounded to deal with the challenges brought about by the growth of
liberalism, socialism and nationalism. It sought to preserve the traditional social order
(Hey wood, 2007).
In essence, as Michael Oakeshott, a contemporary British political theorist and a

well-known conservative observed, conservatism is a disposition. He observed that most
people are disposed:
"... to prefer the familiar to the unknown, the tried to the untried, fact to
mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the
near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient
to the perfect, present laughter to Utopian bliss " (Cited in Dickerson
& Flanagan, 1990:117).
The idea of conservatism had been in existence long before the eighteenth century. It
however gained prominence as a political philosophy when Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
began his writing on issues concerning the ideology. It must be indicated that two forms of
conservatism emerged right from the outset, namely, the one which was completely autocratic
and reactionary and which rejected outright any idea of reform; and the other championed
by Edmund Burke and other conservatives which favoured change, but in moderation in
order to preserve the status quo (Baradat, 1997; Heywood, 2007; Ball & Dagger, 1999).
Elements of Conservatism
Just like all other ideologies, conservatism is built upon certain tenets which are explained
below. Reverence for tradition is one of the key elements of conservatism. The central
question around which the idea of conservatism revolves is connected to the perceived
virtues of tradition, respect for established customs and practices and institutions that have
been tried and tested for a reasonable period of time. Conservatism has the virtue of
promoting stability and security thus giving the individual in society a sense of social and
historical belonging. Tradition reflects the accumulated wisdom of the past and institutions
and practices that have been in use for a long time (Sargent, 2006; Hey wood, 2007).
One other component of conservatism is pragmatism. Pragmatists emphasize the use of

practical ways of achieving results rather than theories and ideas. Pragmatism is the belief
that actions of individuals should be shaped by practical circumstances and practical goals.
As pragmatists, conservatives believe in things that work towards the realization of their
goals.
Human imperfection is another tenet of conservatism. The proponents of this ideology

view human beings in a negative light. They have pessimistic perception of human nature.
For them, human beings are intellectually and morally imperfect, limited, dependent and
always seek security. In addition, they see individuals to be morally corrupt and are tainted
by selfishness, greed and thirst for power. They argue that the root cause of crime and
disorder reside in the individual rather than the society. They recommend a strong legal
regime for the maintenance of order (Ball & Dagger, 1999; Hey wood, 2007).
Conservatives view society to be hierarchically structured, and this is reflected in Edmund

Burke's position on conservatism. People at each level of the structure have different roles
and responsibilities in spite of the inequality that exists among the people within the hierarchy.
Conflicts are rarely experienced as there exist mutual obligations and reciprocal duties
(Jackson & Jackson, 2003; Heywood, 2007; Baradat, 1997).
Authority is another cardinal tenet underpinning the conservative ideology. Adherents of

this position are of the view that authority emanates from the top and descend to the
bottom of the social structure. It provides leadership, guidance and support for people
who lack knowledge, experience or education. Burke posited that the elite are obliged to
rule benevolently and effectively, and admonished the ruling elite not to use power to
suppress the masses (Baradat, 1997; Heywood, 2007).
Conservatism places premium on property ownership; as it provides them with a sense of

security. They argued that government has no legitimate power to interfere with ownership
Ideology 69
of private property unless it poses a risk to other interests within the society. Conservatives
believe that property ownership makes the individual less dependent on government. For
them, property owners must discharge certain responsibilities to the society (Baradat,
1997; Heywood, 2007).
Classical Conservatism
Classical Conservatism emerged in the nineteenth century. The central issues in this ideology
are expressed in Edmund Burke's publication, Reflections on the Revolution in France.
Burke condemned the way and manner in which liberalism was applied in France. He,
however, supported the liberalists position that free market was the best economic system
for any human society. Burke also acknowledged the importance of reason in human society;
nonetheless, he was worried about the undue emphasis placed on it arguing that human
reason was not capable of addressing all societal challenges. In his view, traditions, institutions
and standards are important building blocks in developing human society. He argued that
when these building blocks are neglected society will lose its relevance. Burke stressed the
need to maintain institutions, traditions and standards because of their usefulness. He
welcomed change as necessary in human society but however cautioned that it must be
gradual to allow for people to adjust to it. Burke identified religion, tradition and morality
as critical in molding human behaviour (Sargent, 2006; Baradat, 1997; Dickerson and
Flanagan, 1990).
Neo-conservatism
Neo-conservatism emerged in the nineteenth century. This strand of conservatism recognizes
the importance of authority as a tool for ensuring social stability. In the opinion of tlie
neo-conservatives, tradition generates responsibility and discipline while values and
culture bring social cohesion, which makes civilized existence attainable (Heywood,
2007).
CAPITALISM
The true status of capitalism as an ideology is quite unclear as authors find it very difficult to
state lucidly whether it is an ideology or just a mere economic system. The Oxford
Companion to Politics of the World vindicates this position in its discussion on the concept
by stating that:
"Despite the suffix- 'ism', capitalism refers neither to an ideology nor

a movement. It refers, if anything, to a set of economic and legal
institutions which together make the production of things for private
profit the normal cause of economic organizing. In short, it is a mode
of production, a way of organizing economic activity" (p.l 12).
In spite of this, Jackson and Jackson (2003) on their part view capitalism both as an
ideology and economic system, which has transformed societies in the modern world
(p. 184). They were, however, quick to point out that, it is not a complete ideology, but a
powerful force in political movements, parties and government policy-making in many
states. A Dictionary of Modern Politics corroborates this position by stating that the
concept is both an ideology and economic theory. As an ideology, the dictionary defines
capitalism as an economic system where there is a combination of private property, a
relatively free and competitive market and a general assumption that the bulk of the
workforce will be engaged in employment by private (non-governmental) employers
engaged in producing goods they sell at profit. Notwithstanding the controversy over its
status, the understanding of the concept is very important to the study of politics. The word
capitalism is of recent origin. It was coined by William Makepeace Thacekeray in the
mid-nineteenth century.
In defining the concept, Appadorai (2004:115) viewed capitalism as an economic system

in which private persons are permitted (under regulations laid down by the State) to
undertake enterprises, providing or borrowing the necessary capital, and taking the profits,
if any, after all the costs of the enterprise have been met.
Capitalism emerged from a theory known as laissez-faire (meaning "to allow to do" in
French) (Turner et al, 1996). In the capitalist system, the major means of production are
owned by individuals rather than the state. It emphasizes private ownership and
laissez-faire market economy which is less regulated by government. It also places
emphasis on individualism and promotes the rights of individuals to seek their own
economic self-interest (Jackson & Jackson, 2003).
The rudiment of the capitalist ideology is rooted in the ideas of European scholars such as
Adam Smith, David Ricardo and Thomas Malthus. Adam Smith (1723-1790), a Scottish
economist and moral philosopher who is regarded as the "intellectual father of capitalism"
in his book, The Wealth of Nations advocated the principle of laissez-faire which
demanded that the government should not pursue any economic policy. Instead, it should
distance itself from economic matters and thus encourage competition (Baradat, 1997).
Another leading light in the development of capitalism is David Ricardo (1772-1823).

Ricardo developed the theory of the Iron Law of Wages in which he suggested that the
owner of the factory and the machines will be driven by the profit motive to pay the
workers only enough to bring them to the factory to work another day (Baradat, 1997). It
can be seen from the views of the early theorists that capitalism has a number of features
which make it distinct from other ideologies and economic systems. One of the outstanding
Ideology 71
features of capitalism is free or private enterprise. This allows individuals to own and
control business activities, but under regulations set by the state. Such business engagements
are directed at profit (Turner et al, 1996). One other feature of capitalism is the
laissez-faire principle. With this the people are allowed to operate as they wish in the
economy. Government is not to meddle in the economic interests of the people. The
government can however intervene in trade, business or industry whose returns are low
and therefore unattractive to the private entrepreneur or involved huge capital outlays. Also
distinguishing capitalism is the principle of demand and supply. In the capitalist
economy, there is no price ceiling for any particular commodity. Prices of goods and
services are determined by market forces of demand and supply. Price changes according
to the number of buyers who demand a particular good or service in relation to the number
of sellers who are willing to supply it. Changes in price correspond with levels of profit to
be earned.
By way of summary, traditional capitalism is characterized by private ownership of property,
no legal limit on accumulation of property, the free market - no government intervention in
the economy and the profit motive which is seen as the driving force of capitalism (Sargent,
1990).
SOCIALISM
The classical scholars recommend for the state to keep off from the management of the
economy, In contrast with the classical liberalist ideas, modern liberalism supports state
interventioa In our earlier discussion on liberalism, we identified the two contrasting positions
the liberalists held on the role of the state in the management of the economy. While the
modem liberalists support state intervention of the economy, the classical liberalists oppose
this position. In the early nineteenth century, a new group of political thinkers emerged who
shared the modern liberalist's position of state intervention in the economy. The ideas of
these scholars constituted the basis of socialism.
Etymologically, socialism derives its meaning from the Lain word sociare which means to
combine or share. Appadorai (2003:115) defines socialism as a theory that aimed at the
collective organization of the community in the interest of the masses through the common
ownership and collective control of the means of production and exchange. The Oxford
Concise Dictionary of Politics defines socialism as "a political and economic theory or
system of social organization based on collective or state ownership of the means of
production, distribution and exchange." On his part, Hey wood (2007) views socialism as
an ideology that is characterized by a belief in community co-operation, equality and common
ownership. I
Socialism emerged as an ideology in the first few decades of the nineteenth century, when
a new breed of scholars began to question capitalism and its principle that government
should not be involved in the management of the economy of the state. This group of
scholars came out with a new ideology of socialism, which they claimed had answers to
the economic problems caused by the privately-owned industrial development in the
capitalist system (Jackson & Jackson, 2003).
Socialism was developed in response to capitalism. Its main aim was to challenge and put
an end to capitalism and its exploitation of labour with the ultimate objective to replace it
with a system in which all members of the society are cared for and collectively own the
means of production (Hey wood, 2002:51; Jackson & Jackson, 2003:168). The new
ideology, socialism, places emphasis on public ownership, a planned economy and state
intervention of market forces. In this regard, socialism is seen as the direct opposite of
capitalism as it criticized the private ownership of property and profit motive. Socialism
owes its origin to philosophers such as Robert Owen (1771-1858), Charles Fourier
(1772-1837) and William Morris (1854-1896).
Even though socialist ideas date back to the seventeenth century with the enunciation of Sir
Thomas More's Utopia (from the Greek eu- and outopos, which suggest either a "good or
happy place", "no place" or "land of nowhere"), socialism as a political ideology did not
take full shape until the early nineteenth century (Ball & Dagger, 1991; Heywood, 2002).
As indicated earlier, socialism emerged as a reaction against the emergence of industrial
capitalism. It articulated the interest of artisan and craftsmen who were threatened by the
expansion of factory production. Towards the end of the nineteenth century, a new form of
socialism surfaced. This reflected the gradual integration of the working masses into capitalist
society through an improvement in the conditions of the working class and the growth of
trade unions (Heywood, 2002). This new form of socialism was a form of revisionist
Marxism. By the twentieth century, two socialist movements had emerged. These were the
revolutionary socialists who called themselves communists and the reformist socialists.
The former followed the example of Lenin and the Bolsheviks while the latter practised a
form of constitutional politics and came to be called social democrats (Heywood, 2002).
According to A Dictionary of Modern Politics, socialism in all its forms emphasizes the
egalitarian doctrine of equality of humankind. Socialism seeks to create a society in which
all are cared for by society, with no need either for poverty or the relief of poverty by
private charity. This reflects the socialist cliché "from each according to his ability, to each
according to his need", which was first used by the French socialist, Louis Blanc. The
basic types of socialism can be classified on a spectrum according to how much control of
the economy and how much equality are deemed as necessary or desirable.
Ideology 73
Features of Socialism
Andrew Heywood (2002) h as discussed the basic tenets of socialism as follows: community,
fraternity, social equity, need, social class and common ownership.
Community
At the very centre of the socialism doctrine is the idea that human beings are by our very
nature social beings who are not only tightly knit to one another but also interdependent It
is a known fact that no human being lives in a splendid isolation; each person lives in the
company of other people in a society or social organization. This brings to the fore the
relevance of the community which promotes social interaction and a sense of identity among
its members. It is obvious that these interactions among members of the society or community
tend to shape individual behaviour.
Fraternity
The socialists see themselves as people who share certain things in common. They also
regard themselves as a community who are bound by qualities including a sense of
brotherhood and cooperation. They believe that these qualities help the people to put their
energies together for effective utilization and also strengthen the bond of unity in the
community. The socialists prefer cooperation to competition as they argue that
competition creates division, and breeds ill-feeling, anger and conflict among the
people.
Social equality
The socialists believe in the equality of human kind and as such all people should enjoy
equal rights and opportunities. This principle as we have observed reflects the egalitarian
doctrine. It is the belief of the socialists that justice or fairness can only be attained through
social equality. For them] justice cannot exist if there are gross inequalities among different
sections of the people. When all citizens think that they are all equal, a feeling of co-
operation will automatically be a reality. The socialists are of the view that inequality in
talents will lead to inequality in income, wealth and status. In reality it is impossible to have
a society where every member is equal and enjoys the so-called equal opportunities. While
admitting that people cannot be equal in all respects, it is the belief of the socialists that
something can be done to reduce the marked inequalities of wealth, income and status.
Common ownership and a planned economy will be one of the means to address the
imbalance (Dickerson & Flanagan, 1990). Influenced by this position, the socialists argue
that each member of the society must be catered for in accordance with the socialist
principle of "each according to his needs" and in return, each member must contribute his
quota to the maintenance of society and develop according to their talents and capabilities.
This in effect will lead to stability and unity in the state (Heywood, 2002). Without co-
operation and brotherhood, socialism will be a mere academic doctrine, whose real existence
will only be imaginative (Das, 1996).
Need
Satisfaction of need is the fulcrum of socialism. The socialists believe that the satisfaction of
the basic needs of man - hunger, thirst, shelter, health and personal security, among others,
is a necessary requirement for a worthwhile human existence and participation in social
life.
Social class
Social class is another principle upon which socialism is founded. Socialists tend to analyze
society in terms of the distribution of income or wealth. They therefore see class as significant
cleavage. They also seek the interest of the oppressed and the exploited working class and
have traditionally perceived the working class as an agent of social change. The socialists
thus regard a social class as an integral part of a socialist society since such a society is not a
communist or classless society. The goal of the socialists is to eradicate economic and
social inequities or have it reduced substantially.
Common ownership
Public ownership and control of the major means of production constitutes a basic principle
of socialism. Nationalization which occurs when the government takes over the ownership
of an industry is a traditional way of socializing an economy. Socialists roundly condemn
private ownership of productive property such as land, factories, means of transport and
communication. It is their belief that public ownership of such property will have a trickle
down effect to the benefit of all, but not a small group of private owners (Dickerson &
Flanagan, 1990). Harnessing material resources for the common public good is the
socialist case for common ownership. Private ownership is seen by the socialist to promote
selfishness, eagerness to possess wealth and social division. The socialists have concluded
that to bring an end to inequality, poverty and exploitation, common ownership of the
means of production must be established, while private ownership of property should be
done away with (Das, 1996; Baradat, 1997).
MARXISM-LENINISM
Marxism or the Marxist conception of sociology was developed by a German-born Jewish
philosopher called Karl Heinrich Marx (1818-1883). Karl Marx was the oldest son in a
Jewish family. His father was a lawyer and converted from the Jewish religion to Christianity.
His mother however, remained a strict orthodox Jew.
Karl was a disappointing student at the university. He spent much of his time relaxing in the
local beer gardens and talking with friends. He first entered the University of Bonn Law
Ideology 75
School and later transferred to the University of Berlin at the instance of his father. He later
went to the University of Jena from where he obtained his doctorate in Philosophy. After
traveling from one European country to another being forced out in each case, Marx finally
settled in England, where he spent the last 34 years of his life at the British Museum
studying and writing. His research finding or thesis is what came to be known as Marxism.
Karl Marx received a lot of assistance including financial support from this friend, Friedrich
Engels (1820-1895). Engels continued the work of Marx, Das Kapital after Karl Marx's
death (Baradat 1997:166-167; Heywood 2007:55; Agarwal et al, 1994: 529; Mukherjee
&Ramaswamy, 2008: 351-352; Ball and Dagger, 199: 131-132).
After theorizing his ideology which became known as Marxism (that is, named after him),
Karl Marx did not live to implement his ideology in any country as he never became a
leader of any state. It was later in 1917, that is 34 years after his death, that Vladimir Ilyich
Ulyanov Lenin, the leader of the Bolshevik revolution tried the theory for the administration
of the Soviet state. Lenin made some slight modifications to Marx's theory to improve
upon it. The exposition was thus named after him too, and it became known as Marxism
-Leninism or the Marxist Leninist ideology.
The ideology, which matured into socialism and was expected to bloom into communism,
was practised in the whole of Eastern Europe in the days preceding and during the Cold
War era. It, however, died with the Cold War. Even with the collapse of the Cold War,
countries including North Korea, China, Cuba, Laos People's Republic and some other
countries still practise some aspects of the ideology.
The Principle of Marxism

The main tenets of Marxism are found in the two monumental works of Karl Marx, the
Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital. The Communist Manifesto, believed to be the
most widely read Socialist document contained the most compact statement of Marx's
theory. It is referred to as "the Bible of Communism". The following are the major tenets
that undergird the ideology.
Dialectical Materialism
Hegel's dialectics marked the starting point of Marxism. Dialectic, which literally means,
discussion was a concept Marx borrowed from Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
(1770-1831) to aid him in the analysis of his theory. According to Hegel, social or human
evolution has not been on a straight line. It has moved in a zig-zag way and it is made up of
contrasts, negations and contradictions. The theory states that, every state in history, call
it thesis gives birth to its opposite; anti-thesis and out of the conflict between the thesis
and antithesis will result the synthesis, which reconciles the opposite tendencies present
in the
earlier systems in a new higher level. The Marxian dialectic holds that contrary forces are
present in every stage of society and constitute the moving force in history. For instance,
communalism developed into feudalism whose anti-thesis was capitalism. The capitalist
state also had its anti-thesis - the proletariat. According to Marx, the bourgeois and the
proletariat or workers were in conflict with each other. He predicted that the outcome of
this class struggle will be the establishment of a society where there shall be no classes and
therefore no class struggle (Sabine, 2009; Coser, 2008).
Figure 3: The zig-zag illustration of dialectical materialism

THESIS --------------------------------------------------------------- ANTI-
THESIS
SYNTHESIS
(THESIS) — -------------------------------------------------------------------- THESIS
Theory of Surplus Value

Another important contribution of Marx is the Theory of Surplus Value which has amply
been discussed in his work Das Kapital. The doctrine is an extension of David Ricardo's
Theory of Value. According to this Theory, the value of commodity is determined by the
value of labour expended on it. That is, according to him, the value of a commodity is equal
to the value of labour necessary for its production. Marx singled out labour as the only
variable of all the factors of production - land, labour, capital and entrepreneur. Labour
power produces a surplus over and above its equivalent while the other factors do not
change their value in the production process. However, the value which the labourer gets
for his or her services is much less than the value he or she produces. The difference
between the value paid for labour power and the value received by the capitalists is what
Marx calls surplus value or concealed value. The capitalists, according Marx, appropriate
the surplus value for themselves and this clearly demonstrates sheer exploitation of labour
by the capitalist. To him, the capitalist is not interested in producing the means of production
and consumer goods needed by society. They are only interested in extracting as much
surplus value as possible (Heywood, 2007; Agarwal et al, 1994).
The Doctrine of Class-war

According to Marx, the history of all the existing societies is characterized by class struggle.
Ideology 77
All along, there has been a succession of struggle between the oppressor and the oppressed
classes. In every age, society becomes divided into major contending classes, the privileged
or "haves" who own the means of production and the toiling class or the "have-nots" who
earn livelihood by working for others. The two classes are always in conflict with each
other as the "haves" try! to exploit the "have-nots". The modem capitalist society has not
done away with this class antagonism. The capitalists want to secure labour power of the
worker at the lowest cost to enable them to maximize profit. The fact that labour-power is
perishable and cannot be preserved for the next day puts in the hands of the employer a
great weapon of exploitation and the capitalist takes full advantage of this situation. Marx
stated that this will not go on forever and predicted that the workers will soon become
conscious of their exploitation and will organize themselves to revolt against the practice.
In this struggle, the proletariat class will come out victorious (Heywood, 2007; Sargent,
2006; Agarwal et al, 1994; Johari, 2005; Sabine, 2009; Coser, 2008; Mukhrjee &
Ramaswamy, 1999).
Destruction of Capitalism
In the words of Marx, the strength of the proletariat increases in the same proportion as
the bourgeoisie develops. As capitalism expands, the working class also grows in numbers,
strength, organizing capacity, self-consciousness and political influence. The ranks of the
proletariat increase as capitalism concentrates capital in fewer and fewer hands. The victory
of the proletariat and the subsequent fall of capitalism are equally inevitable. Class struggle
will end with the disappearance of class distinctions. The victorious proletariat will use its
political power to eliminate every remnant of capitalism till class distinction vanishes from
society. The motto of the new classless society that will emerge would be: "from each
according to his capacity, to each according to his needs" (Heywood, 2007; Ball & Dagger,
1991; Johari, 2009).
Dictatorship of the Proletariat

The collapse of capitalism will not lead to the immediate creation of communism. In other
words, communism will not be born immediately after the demise of capitalism. There will
be a transient transitional or change-over period during which the proletariat will rule in a
dictatorship regime. The state during the interim period will be a revolutionary dictatorship
of the proletariat. The interim period of dictatorship is necessary to guard against counter
revolution. During the period of transition, new revolutionary programmes based on the
principle 'from each according to his ability, to each to each according to his work' will be
launched. This short interim period of dictatorship is therefore very necessary for the
completion of the revolution and to prepare the way for the final victory of socialism. In the
communist society, people will become acclimatized to the observance of the elementary
rules of the society without compulsion, without subordination and without the apparatus
for compulsion called the state. Policies to abolish all private ownership of property, abolish
child labour and to introduce free education for all children will be put in place. In addition, a
heaveily progressive income tax regime and the abolision of the right of inheritance will be
introduced. In the opinion of Fredrich Engels, the state will witther away when these
steps are completed culminating in the emergeance of communism (Magstadt & Schotten,
1984). According to the proponents of the theory, the state will not be abolished, it will just
die out or witther away to end the transition to communism, which is a stateless society.
Marx was of the belief that the withering away of the state was based on the logic that the
elimination of private property and the division of labour will result in the elimination of
social inequity. And the elimination of social conflict will lead to the elimination of armed
conflict, because there will no longer be class struggle. The elimination of class struggle will
lead to the eventual emergence of communist system where the state will no longer relevant.
with the disappearance of social classes, state and government will fade into oblivion thus
ending the transition process (Magstadt & Schotten, 1984). When socialism blossoms into
communism, there will be no conflict; hence no need for police service, and there will be
no jail, no government and no authority. It will be a classless and stateless society (Agarwal
et al, 1994; Heywood, 2007; Sabine, 2009; Mukhrjee & Ramaswamy, 1999).
COMMUNISM
Communism refers to an economic theory that advocates collective ownership by the
people. The principles of communism are found in the writings of Karl Marx, who made a
prediction that the proletariat will rise up against the bourgeoisie in the proletariat revolution
which will lead to the eventual collapse of capitalism. Though the brain child of communism,
Marx, never got the opportunity to put his ideas into practice since he was never directly
involved in government (Cord et al, 1974). His noble ideas were translated into practice
for the first time in the Soviet Union by Lenin and later Joseph Stalin. Communism is best
understood as a form of Marxism-Leninism. That is, the tenets enunciated by Marx blended
with Leninist modification, the principles underlying this ideology are found in
Marxism-Leninism. Marx, in outlining his theory, mentioned among other factors that "to
stabilize the result of the revolution.. .the proletariat will confiscate all private capital,
organize labour, compel all to work, centralize credit and finance, establish state
factories, concentrate means of production and speed up production" (Appadorai,
2004:118). When this process is complete, the state will then wither away. Capitalism will
completely be proscribed and the existence of the state will no longer be relevant.
Contributing to the theory, Friedrich Engels wrote that society will banish the whole state
machinery to a place which will then be the most proper for it - the museum of antiquities.
The new society that will emerge after the collapse of the state will then be organized on the
principle of' 'from each according to his capacity, to which according his need." This will
mean that each person will contribute to the social wealth by his labour as much as he can,
and will take from it what he needs.
Ideology 79
Marx himself described the new society as the communist society, which will be the last
stage of the process of transition of socialism. If his statement is anything to go by, then no
state has ever reached there. Yet, some states such as China, Cuba, North Korea and
some states in Eastern Europe still see themselves as communist states (Roskin et al,
1991; Ball & Dagger, 1991).
Karl Marx was very sketchy on the specific features of a future communist society as he
thought that the shift of such a society could only be decided by the people who will be
blessed to live in it. He, however, mentioned that it will be an open and democratic society
in which all citizens will actively participate in its governance. He also indicated that the
major means of production will be publicly owned. Economic production in Marx's
envisioned communist society will be planned and orderly, and distribution of goods and
services will be based on need, but not on privilege or wealth, thus reiterating the principle
of "from each according to his ability and to each according to his need". Marx was of the
view that after extricating themselves from the chains of exploitation, alienations and
ideological illusions, people living in the communist society will experience real freedom,
and will be in a position to fully develop their talents (Ball and Dagger, 1991).
FASCISM AND NAZISM

Fascism and Nazism are both totalitarian regimes which emerged after the First World
War in Italy and Germany respectively. Both concepts were formulated to provide solutions
to the social, economic and political unrest the two countries witnessed after the war. The
two concepts were propounded by leaders who were anti-democratic and anti-Marxist.
Both leaders used force to assume political power in their respective countries. Critics
have assailed both concepts as lacking what it takes to be fully described as ideologies.
Let us at this stage examine how each of them evolved and the tenets upon which the
conceptions were developed.
FASCISM
Fascism developed as an Italian ideology of the 20th century by Bernito Mussolini
(1883-1945). It arose in the period immediately following the First World War. It emerged
at the time the country was experiencing the post-war economic and social disorganization.
There were spiral price hikes. Labour unions embarked on strikes for wage increases.
There was gross discontentment among the war returning soldiers as unemployment
figures increased astronomically. The country witnessed political instability during the same
period (Agarwal et al, 1994). It was during this period that Mussolini seized control of
the government and proclaimed Fascismo. He had in 1919 organized ex-soldiers./asc/o
di combattimento, who formed his fighting band (Palmer & Colton, 1992). Mussolini
and the Italian Fascist coined the word totalitarian to define their revolutionary aims and
to
distinguish their ideology from liberalism and socialism (Ball & Dagger, 1991).
Meaning of Fascism
The term fascism is derived from the Italian wordfascio,fasci orfasciare (bundle, as in a
bundle of sticks or to bind or fasten), which connotes the Latin fasces referring to "the
bundle of birch rods and an axe carried by lictors", which was the symbol of authority in
ancient Rome (Palmer & Colton, 1992; Johari, 2005). The symbol stood for unity, strength
and discipline. The aim of the Fascist Party was to bind the Italian people together to
overcome the divisions that weakened their state (Ball & Dagger, 1991). According to an
Italian philosopher, Gentile fascism meant to take life seriously. Life is a toil, effort, sacrifice
and hard work. Fascism had as its slogan "Believe, Obey, Fight" (Khanna, 1992). Fascism
was not any clear cut ideology. It was a body of ideas taken from various sources and put
together to fit the exigencies of circumstance. Mussolini himself admitted this absence of
logic and coherence in his so-called ideological position when he remarked, "we permit
ourselves, the luxury of being aristocrats and democrats, conservatives, reactionaries and
revolutionaries, legalitarians and illigalitarians according to the circumstances of times, place
and environment..." (Agarwal et al, 1994).
Tenets of Fascism
The following were the main ideas underlining the doctrine of fascism. Fascism was opposed
to democracy and socialism. It described democracy as the worst form of government
stating that it is "stupid, corrupt, slow moving, impracticable and inefficient." The fascist
likened democracy to a decaying corpse. Fascism was also opposed to socialism and all of
its variants, laissez-faire, individualism and liberalism. It believed in one-party rule and
thus did not tolerate any opposition to its rule. The fascist doctrine was also against
internationalism and openly advocated aggressive warfare on imperialist expansion.
According to the fascists, the duty of the state was only to itself but not to the world as a
whole. In the opinion of its leader, the world body at the time, the League of Nations, did
not deserve the support of the fascist Italy. For him, any effort aimed at attaining international
peace was the coward's dream (Agarwal et al, 1994).
The Fascists openly advocated war and violence as a means of achieving political aims. It
should be noted that the fascist leader- Mussolini gained power in Italy through violent
means. The fascists also justified war. They had no faith in disarmament. As in the words of
Mussolini it is only through armament that wars can successively be fought. For him, a
state that does not go to war wastes its military might. The armed forces should not be
allowed to get rusted. According to Mussolini "war is to man as maternity ward is to
woman." He indicated that only war carries human energies to the highest level and puts
Ideology 81
the seal of nobility upon people who have the courage to undertake it (Khanna, 2001).
Mussolini believed that a strong army required more man-power in the country. He therefore
favoured increase in the Italian population. Family planning was prohibited, while the
minimum age of marriage for both male and female was lowered. Incentives were given for
large families. Newly married couples were also given rail travel facilities for visiting Rome.
The Fascist state was totalitarian in character. Fascism stood for an omnipotent state. The
authority of the state is absolute, unlimited and indivisible. To them, the interest of the
nation-state must always predominate over any other interest be it private or international
(Agarwal et al, 1994). The state was to control everything, and everyone was to serve the
state. The Italians were reminded repeatedly that "everything in the state, nothing outside
the state, nothing against the state, nothing above it." The interest of the individual is
secondary to the interest of the state. This meant that freedom for the fascist was not
individual liberty, but the freedom of the nation. They saw individual liberty as an obstacle
to freedom, because it distracted people from their true mission to "believe, obey, fight."
The position of the fascist was that freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and the
freedom to live were all useless liberties. The only freedom that truly matters is the freedom
to serve the state. The Italian people were indoctrinated to believe that "Mussolini is
always right!" This was taught in schools, in speeches and in slogans written on walls and
in the mass media (Ball & Dagger, 1991; Johari, 2005). The fascist ideology was built on
the cult of its founder and leader, II Duce (meaning, the Great Man). None of the tenets of
the ideology was documented. Everything reflected the weak intellectual foundation of
Mussolini, the founder of the ideology. It is evident from the foregoing that fascism had no
coherent doctrine or ideology.
NAZISM
Nazism, like Fascism, also arose in Germany after the First World War as a variant of
fascism. It was founded by Adolf Hitler (1889-1945). Like Fascism, Nazism lacked
coherent doctrine to be properly described as an ideology, but unlike the former, the
principles underlying the latter were contained in a publication called Meln Kampf '(My
Struggle). The document was authored by Adulf Hitler when he was serving a jail term in
Forteress of Landsberg am Lech in 1924 (Khanna, 2001). Mein Kampf was written
several years before Hitler came to power and also even before Mussolini developed his
fascist ideology (Baradat, 1997).
The Life of Adolf Hitler

Adolf Hitler was born in 1889 in Austria. He did not acquire German citizenship until
1932. His father, a customs official in Austria wanted him to enter the civil service, but the
young Hilter was more interested in fine arts and later decided to read a course in architecture.
He became a painter, but spent part of his spare time in reading literature on racial, moral,
social and economic problems of the German-speaking people. He came to believe in the
purity and superiority of the German race and strongly hated the Jews (Khanna, 2001:
Palmer and Colton, 1992; Ball and Dagger, 1991).
Adolf Hitler joined the German Army when the First World War broke out in 1914. He
had earlier declined to join the Austrian Army. He fought gallantly during the war as a
German soldier and got wounded. After the war he was decorated for his services and
promoted to the rank of a corporal in the Army. Hitler demonstrated that he was an
eccentric, queer and an unbalanced person who never hid his hatred for the Jews, priests
and the social democrats (Palmer & Colton, 1992). He was a charismatic leader and had
a mystic personality. He learnt the ability to lie, twist facts, cheat and flatter. The Nazi
leader never trusted anyone and never committed himself to anyone. He was logical and
clear-sighted in the pursuit of his goals. Hitler also knew how to excite the mob. As an
orator, he was repetitive, verbose and used language in a difficult and complicated way.
Hitler's voice was forceful and could present speeches in such a manner that he easily
captivated the mood and attention of his audience. With his capacity for self-dramatization,
he could work up his own passion and make his people believe anything. He could also
use facts, dates and names to dazzle his audience (Khanna, 2001). Hitler can aptly be
described as a charlatan, demagogue and trickster.
In 1922, Adolf Hitler joined the German Workers Party (GWP), which was renamed the
National Socialist German Workers Party (German: NationalsoZialistische Deutsche
Arbeter Partei) abbreviated NSDP commonly known in English as the Nazi Party. The
term Nazi is German and is derived from the German word Nationalsozialist. He was the
seventh member of the party. In 1920, Hitler left the German Army and thereafter devoted
himself to the building of the party which he later called the National Socialist Party or the
Nazi Party. Hitler was arrested in 1923 and tried for treason and was sentenced to serve
a five-year jail term. This was after his abortive revolt in Bavaraia. While serving his jailed
term which was commuted to nine months, he used his spare time to work on the publication,
Mein Kampf which contained the principles underlying his founded theory of Nazism.
Adolf Hitler had no stakes in life, no roots, no family, no loyalties, no traditions and no
respect for God or man. He neither smoked nor drank and remained a vegetarian throughout
his life. He also remained a bachelor for most part of his life (Khanna, 2001). Hitler became
the leader (der Fuhrer) of his party which grew both in strength and prestige in the early
1930s. On December 30,1933, Hitler became the Chancellor (the Prime Minister) of
Germany. His assumption of power came at the time when the German economy was on
Ideology
83
the brink of collapse. Unemployment had risen to 6 million people and people had lost
faith in the economic system. The people looked about desperately for someone to save
them from this situation. Hitler inflamed all such feelings by his propaganda and denounced
declared that Germans the Treaty of Versailles as a national humiliation. He called for
a true democracy and must rely on themselves (Paler & Colten, 1992).
The Principles underlying Nazism

Like fascism, Nazism which was the German version, lacks coherent theories. There were
very scanty principles which were contained in his autobiography, Mein Kampf. In that
book, Hitler made clear the basic outlines of his ideologies. He wrote in the book that
Germany had a great destiny if only the German folk can join forces and throw off those
enemies who divide and betray them. He was making direct reference to the Communists
and Jews. He stated that, the Germans will not be able to achieve this aim without forming
a single party with a supreme leader who can forge them into a united force (Ball & Dagger
1991).
The following are some of the principles:
The theory of conquest and dictatorship - Hitler in this theory claimed the superiority
of the Aryan or Germanic race. There was a general belief in the racial superiority
of Germans to other peoples in the neighbouring states such as the Poles, Czechs
and Russians. This racial theory was linked to Pan-Germanism (Sabine, 2009).
Hitler was of the view that of all races in the world, the white race was the best and
of all the whites, the Aryans or the Germans were the best. Among the Germans,
there was the el ite, that was, the Nazi Party, which represented the excellence,
and of the Nazi Party, there was the leader (der Fuhrer), referring to Adolf Hitler
himself, who represented the best of the excellent. The Germans therefore had the
right to conquer the world and subjugate other races. The theory further added
that the Nazis had the right to rule in Germany and the Fuhrer had the supreme
right to rule all cj>f them (Ball & Dagger 1991:191-194).
The Nazi implemented an educational policy in which all subjects were revised to
reflect Hitlers's anti-Semitic racial theories. Students were taught racial doctrines
that justified the Nazi political order. Almost every academic subject highlighted
the expected triumph of the Aryans over their racial inferiors. The academic subjects
were infused with ideological contents so history for example became "racial
history", and biology was transformed into racial biology. School administrators
who were suspected of opposing Hitler's Nazism or Nazi educational reforms
were relieved on their positions. Special schools were established to train future
party elites, military leaders, party officials and government administrators

(Magstadt & Schotten, 1984).
• Under Nazism, every aspect of German life was politicized through an officially
sponsored cultural revolution which called for the purging of all artists, journalists
and academics whose political opinions could not be trusted. New governmental
agencies such as a chamber for literature, press, broadcasting, theatre, music and
fine arts were created to censure potentially dangerous reportage and artists
impressions. All these were to help propagate Nazi values. The programme of
mass indoctrination made it possible for Hitler to carry out the murderous racial
policies that culminated in the Holocaust. Shortly after assumption of power, Hitler
implemented anti-Jewish policy in the state. First, a systematic campaign was carried
out to isolate the Jewish from the main stream of German life. Next, Jews who had
not fled Germany between 1933 and 1938 were forcibly sent to infamous
concentration camps. This was followed by his murderous scheme in which he
planned to wipe out Jews from Germany (Magstadt & Schotten, 1984).
ANARCHISM
In the ordinary usage of the word, anarchy connotes chaos or disorder. Contrary to this
meaning derived from the ordinary usage of the word, however, anarchy from which the
political ideology anarchism derives its origin does not mean chaos or confusion. Neither
does it mean that anarchists favour chaos or confusion. The term anarchism derives its
origin from the Greek anarchos, meaning "no rule, no government or without rule"
(Heywood, 2002; Ball & Dagger, 1991). Anarchism can also mean without a chief or
ruler, or rule by no one (Sargent, 2006).
An anarchist is thus someone who advocates abolition of the state and calls for its coercive
force to be replaced with voluntary co-operation among freely consenting and co-operating
individuals. It is the position of the anarchists that government by its very nature is evil and
immoral. In their opinion, all governments force people to do things they otherwise will not
want to do; such as, payment of taxes, fighting in wars and following orders (Ball, 1991). It
is the belief of the anarchists that the state is evil and therefore not necessary. All anarchists
hold the notion that the state is evil and should be abolished and a system of voluntary co-
operation put in its stead. They insist that given the opportunity, people can live together
peacefully without the coercive authority over them. They argued further that formal
government is part of the human problem, but not part of its solution (Donovan et al,
1981). Anarchists do not believe that law, government and the state serve any useful purpose
in society (Heywood, 2002).
Ideology 85
From the background information provided, it is deemed appropriate now to attempt to

define the concept anarchism. The Academic's Dictionary of Political Science explains
the concept as the doctrine that posits that political authority in any form is unnecessary
and should be replaced. It continues that anarchism is opposed to political authority.
Anarchism can also be explained as a political doctrine that condemns the state and political
authority as evil and advocates its replacement by a system of stateless society in which
free individuals manage their own affairs through voluntary agreement and co-operation.
In an attempt to give a classical definition of the term, Goldman (1970:37) states that "all
forms of government rely on some measure of violence and are therefore inappropriate for
the development of human existence." She further states that anarchism is the philosophy
of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law. In her view, anarchism
introduces the possibility of having a human society without formal government and laws
and without legal and repressive systems (Knuttila & Kubik, 2000). The central theme
underpinning this ideology is the belief that political authority in all its forms, especially the
form of the state is both evil and unnecessary (Hey wood, 2002). All in all the position of
the anarchists is that no 'group in society should compel anyone to do anything against their
will, and again there should be a wide array of groups to co-ordinate social functions
(Sargent, 2006).
In theory, anarchism is built on the moral assumption that freedom is of absolute value and
that no one should ever be forced to obey authority having freely consented to do so.
Empirically, the doctrine rests on the assumption of the possibility of organizing genuine
voluntary associations dedicated to co-operative work and mutual aid. The arch proponents
of anarchism are Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865), a French man, and Mikhail
Alexandrovich Bakunin (1814-1876), and Prince Pyotr (the Russian name for Peter)
Proudhon (1842-1921 ), both Russians. Other are Count Leo Tolstoi (1828-1910), Max
Stirner(1806-1856), William Godwin (1756-1836), EricoMalatesta, Benjamin Tucker
(1854-1939), Elisee Reclus (1830-1905) and William Morris (1834-1896). There are
also other anarchists like Murray Bookchin, Paul Goodman, Naomi Chomsky and Frank
Harrisson. These ideologists held the view that human beings are rational and selfless and
because of that they are able to live in decent life with their neighbours without the central
control exercised over them by the state.
On his part, Mikhail (Michael) Alexandrovich Bakunin, referred to as the master of anarchy
thinkers, argues that by the processes of destroying the state and other institutions such as
the church, human beings will gain their freedom and will find their new way free from
external oppression (Hey wood, 2002).
Another proponent of the theory is Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921), a Russian, who became
the leading anarchy theorist in Europe after Mikhail Bakunin's demise in 1876. Having
suffered incarcerations twice in Russia and France, Kropotkin gained popularity for
propagating radical ideas. He maintained that human beings are by their nature naturally
good and that they do not require any formal mechanism of social control to keep them
from being aggressive to their neighbours (Donovan et al, 1981). Kropotkin predicted the
extinction of the current social, economic and political order and its replacement by a new
form of social organization. For him, human society must be organized in a way that will
create the necessary conditions for man to attain the greatest happiness. To achieve this,
he called for total proscription of all laws that govern human society as most of them have
lost their relevance. Living in free association will enable individuals to develop their potentials
and capabilities (Knuttila and Kubik, 2000).
He also put forward a theory of anarchocommunism, which blends tenets of both anarchism
and communism. The central principles underpinning this theory were common ownership,
decentralization and self-management. Anarchists draw heavily on some tenets such
community, cooperation, equality and common ownership, which they borrow mainly from
socialism and communism. Contrary to this communist inclination was a new version of
anarchism, anarchocapitalism. The brain behind this idea was William Godwin
(1756-1836), who was of the conviction that without the state, individuals will be better
placed to handle their own affairs in a more peaceful manner, and that government is
nothing, but an unwanted tool in the hands of the state used to coerce people to do its
bidding against their will (Heywood, 2002). It is a widely held view that government is
relevant because it offers protection to all individuals within the state, but to the
anarchists, government is rather harmful because no single individual can be trusted to
protect every individual. It is therefore the belief of the anarchists that human beings are
capable of managing their own affairs without anyone exercising authority over them
(Sargent, 2006). Another anarchist, Alexander Berkman (1870-1936) wrote in his book,
ABC of Anarchism:
Anarchism teaches that we can live in a society where there is no

compulsion of any kind. A life without compulsion naturally means
liberty; it means freedom from being forced or coerced, a chance to
lead the life that suits you best" (1964, p. 10; Sargent, 2006).
For the anarchists, it is possible to have a peaceful life without rules and regulations. Anarchist
movements used to be very powerful in states such as Spain, France, Russia and Mexico
during the early twentieth century, incidentally, no anarchist party has ever won political
power in any state (Hey wood, 2002).
Ideology 87
Summary
• The concept, ideology, owes its origin to a French Philosopher, Antoine Louis
Claude de Tracy. Ideology can be explained as a collection of beliefs about the
nature and purpose of man and society and a guide to attaining those beliefs. It is a
coherent set of beliefs that provides the basis for organized political action which is
intended to preserve, modify or overthrow the existing power relations.
• The feudal system of government prevailed in Europe between the fifth and fourteenth
centuries and in this system vassals acknowledged and fought for a lord in return
for protection for their person and land tenure.
• Liberalism advocates the enjoyment of freedom by the people without many

restrictions. It is the positions of the liberalists that all individuals are entitled to the
right to life, liberty and property and this is why governments are created to protect
these rights.
• Conservatism as an ideology seeks to preserve what is thought to be the best in

established society and opposes radical change. The word is often used to refer to
people who resist change. Conservatives are skeptical about change and always
strive to keep existing traditions intact. The belief of the conservative is anchored
in the fear that they have about the unknown.
• In the capitalist system, the major means of production are owned by the individuals
rather than the state. A capitalist system allows a relatively free and competitive
market to operate. It is also hinged on the belief that the bulk of the work force will
be employed by private employers to produce goods which sell at profit.
• The principles of capitalism contrast sharply with the principles of socialism in

which the social organization is based on collective or state ownership of the means
of production, distribution or exchange.
• Communism is the extreme form of socialism which predicted the collapse of

capitalism and the emergence of socialism which will eventually culminate in
communism - a situation where the state and its machinery will no longer be relevant
and the production and distribution of goods will be based on the capacity and
needs of the individual.
• Both Fascism and Nazism are totalitarian regimes which emerged after the First
World War in Italy and Germany respectively. Fascism was not any clear-cut
ideology; it was a body of ideas from various sources put together to fit the
exigencies of the circumstances. It was opposed to democracy and socialism,
internationalism and advocated aggressive warfare on imperialist expansionism.
Like fascism, Nazism lacked coherent doctrine to be properly described as an
ideology. It placed premium on the racial superiority of the Aryan race. The
application of the ideology led to the extermination of Jews from Germany.
• Anarchism is an ideology which advocates the abolition of the states and its coercive
force and calls for their replacement with voluntary co-operation among freely
consenting and co-operating individuals.
Revision Questions
1. What is ideology? What are its distinctive features?
2. Explain the concept of ideology. Outline the role of ideology in the
administration of a state.
3. Explain the left-right-centre spectrum of political ideology.
4. Describe the concept and features of each of the following ideologies:
i Liberalism
ii Conservatism
iii. Feudalism
iv. Capitalism
v. Socialism
vi. Communism
5. Explain the concept and tenets of the following ideologies:
i Marxism-Leninism
ii Fascism
iil Nazism
6. Discuss the central themes underpinning the anarchists' ideological position.
7. "Formal government is part of the human problem, but not part of its solution".
Discuss this view in the context of the anarchist ideologues.
8. Identify and explain the common theme around which anarchism and
communism revolve.
Chapter Five
SYSTEMS OF GOVERNMENT
Key Issues
The Presidential executive system
Parliamentary system
Hybrid/Mixed system
Unitary system
Federation
Confederation
State constitutions allocate political power and authority in the state in many different ways.
The way by which constitutions do the allocation of political power is what is referred to as
state systems. The type of state system that operates in a particular state determines the
form or type of government that is in place. Two broad types of state systems can be
identified. One form depends on how political power or authority has either been confined
or concentrated at a particular location within the state or distributed geographically across
the state by the Constitution. In the system where the Constitution has concentrated political
power at one particular location, usually at the national capital, the form of government is
called unitary government. In this case the whole country is managed as a unit from the
central location of the state. In another system, the Constitution has distributed total
governmental power across regional or geographical boundaries within a state and shared
between the centre, that is, the national and the lower levels of state governments, such as
regions, cantons, provinces or counties. This form of government is federal. There is yet
another system which is neither unitary nor federal. It is the confederal system or
confederation (Johari, 2011). This system of power distribution will be discussed in detail
later in this chapter.
There is another broad type of government which is determined by the extent to which the
Constitution has either separated the three organs of government from one another or
fused them particularly, the executive and the legislature. This classification is based on the
89
number of persons who head the executive arm of government and the mode by which
they are recruited into office. This institutional arrangement also distinguishes states according
to forms of government and the principle of separation of powers inherent in the government.
Here too three lines of division can be identified. In the first type, the various arms of
government, particularly the executive and the legislature are fused in terms of personnel,
structure, functions and location. In addition to the fusion, the executive organ of government
is headed by two separate personalities who perform separate roles as head of government
and head of state. This is distinguished by the parliamentary or cabinet system of government
In the second sub-type, the three arms of government are separated and are autonomous
of one another in terms of personnel, functions, structure and location. Each arm is also
vested with constitutional powers to check the powers of one another in order to guard
against any intrusion by any arm of government. This gives rise to the presidential model of
government.
The third sub-type combines a partial separation as well as a partial fusion of powers
among the three arms of government. It is called the mixed or hybrid model of government.
We will now turn our attention to do a detailed discussion of the second strand of our
classification, that is the presidential, parliamentary and the hybrid models of government
before revisiting the earlier strand - unitary, federal and confederal systems of government.
THE PRESIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE SYSTEM

The presidential executive system refers to a system of government in which the electorate
directly or indirectly vote to elect a single chief executive of the country through a popular
election to perform a dual role as the ceremonial head of state and head of government.
The election held to select the chief executive or the president is separate and independent
of that held for the selection of legislators. This single executive system of government is
traditionally practised mostly in republican states, where the head of state is not selected
on hereditary basis, but is elected by the people to perform the dual role as the head of
state and head of government.
This system contrasts sharply with the parliamentary system, which is traditionally practised
in Britain and in which there is a ceremonial head of state who may be a monarch or a
president who wields only ceremonial powers and is only a titular head of state. Such
ceremonial head of state cedes the exercise of real executive powers to a prime minister
who in most cases is the leader of the majority party in parliament.
In the presidential system, the executive power of the state, both in theory and in practice,
is vested in one person - the president, who is directly elected by the people and exercises
Systems of Government 91
the powers in accordance with the Constitution of the state. The Presidential Executive
system is described variously as the single executive system because of die election of a
single executive leader for the state. It may also be described as the non-parliamentary
system. Whichever way the system is described, the form is practised in its ideal form in
the United States.
Features of the Presidential Executive System

The American Model[ as the presidential executive is sometimes called, is distinguished
from other variants of the model currently in practice in many countries by the salient
features discussed belpw (Roskin et al, 1991; Appadorai, 2004; Hague & Harrop, 2010;
Danziger, 1998; Dick3rson& Flanagan, 1990; Johari, 2005, Agarwaletal, 1994).
Monocephalous Executive System

One outstanding feature of the presidential system of government is the single or
monocephalous nature of the executive. The elected individual is both the head of stale
and the head of government. In that regard, he or she exercises both ceremonial and real
executive powers. This implies that there is a single executive leader for the country and he or
she performs a dual 'ole as the head of state and head of government. The unified nature of
the executive functions makes the president more influential and his or her position
prestigious. The ceremonial functions of the president include gracing important national
ceremonies with his or [her presence, assent to bills to become laws, reception of important
foreign dignitaries and envoys and the exercise of the prerogative of mercy. The formation
of cabinet to help formulate sound policies for the development of the state and the role of
the president as a liaison between the state and other actors in the international community
constitute some of the real executive functions (Danziger, 1998; Appadorai, 2004; Agarwal
etal, 1994).
The Principle of Separation of Powers

Another distinguishing feature of tlie presidential model is that there is a distinct separation
of powers between tlie organs of government, namely the legislature, executive and judiciary
in terms of personnel, functions, location and structure, This means each of tlie three organs
of government is comp etely independent of one another. Under this system, the president
selects his or her ministers from outside parliament. Members of parliament who are
nominated by the president to become ministers must first resign their seats. What this
means is that ministers appointed under the presidential system of government cannot be
members of parliament at the same time (Johari, 2005; Dickerson & Flanagan, 1990;
Magstadt & Schotten,'. 984). This arrangement is to ensure that each of the three organs
is given sufficient powers to be able to check the powers of the other organs.
Security of Tenure
One other unique characteristic of the system is the security of tenure the president and his
or her cabinet as well as the legislature enjoy. The president is elected into office by the
electorate for a fixed term of office, usually four years. He or she can be eligible for re-
election for a second term, but no more afterwards. Because the president is chosen by
the entire population of the country, it is only the citizenry or their elected representatives
(in this case the parliament) that can remove or unseat him or her from office. The implication
is that the president can only be removed from office pre-maturely through constitutional
means and under extraordinary circumstances such as impeachment when he or she may
be tried for offences considered treasonable or for gross misconduct that will bring the
high office into disrepute. In the system, neither the tenure of the executive nor that of the
legislature can be truncated abruptly. Just as the legislature is debarred from truncating the
tenure of the executive through censure motion so is the president constitutionally constrained
from dissolving parliament until it has duly completed its term. The secure tenure provides
not only for a strong and effective executive but also a stable life of the legislature.
Weak Party Discipline

Party discipline in the presidential system is usually weak. Members of parliament are at
liberty to vote according to their conscience and do not usually toe party lines when it
comes to voting on important national issues. The president does not depend on party
support to get his or her bills passed. This is in contrast with the parliamentary system
where parliamentarians vote on party lines.
Direct Responsibility of the President to the Electorate

It is important to mention that the executive president is directly responsible to the people
on whose mandate he or she assumes the high office. This feature is in contrast with the
parliamentary system in which the prime minister is directly responsible to the legislature
and indirectly responsible to the people.
Executive Power in the hands of the president

One other notable feature of the presidential system is that executive power is vested in the
president only. He or she does not share his or executive powers with any other persons.
The president is, however, assisted by a vice president whom he or she nominates as a
running mate during the electioneering campaign period. The vice president assists the
president in the discharge of his or her constitutionally mandated duties. In the absence of
the president or in the event of his or her inability to perform his or her functions due to ill
health or any other means, the vice president takes over as the president to complete the
unfinished term. It must be stated that both the president and vice president are jointly
elected into office by the electorate. So under no circumstances can the former on a whim
dismiss the latter.
Subordination of Ministers to the President

It is also notable that In the system under review, the president nominates ministers whose
nominations must be approved by parliament before they can assume office. The president
himself or herself does not require anybody's approval again since he or she has the mandate
of the entire people, for this very reason, the executive president is a boss in his or her
own right and the ministers are his or her subordinates. Both the president and the ministers
are not co-equals or colleagues as in the case of the parliamentary system where the prime
minister is seen as primus inter pares, that is, first among equals. The ministers in the
presidential system are responsible to the president who is vested with the power to hire
and fire them at will.
Supremacy of the Constitution

Contrary to the parliamentary system in which parliament consists of the cabinet and the
assembly and is regarded as supreme, in the presidential executive system, it is rather the
constitution that is supreme. The constitution is the source of power of all the organs and
institutions of state and any act by any institution that runs counter to the constitutional
provision is rendered null and void and legally ineffective.
Powers and Function of the Executive President

As noted in our earlier discussion, the executive president is a person who has been elected
by the people through a popularly contested general election to occupy the high office of
the land. In the ideal presidential system as it pertains in the United States, the executive
president performs a dual role as the ceremonial head of state and
For the purposes of c head of government.
arity the two functions, that is, the ceremonial and real executive
functions are discussed separately.
Ceremonial Functions
As part of the ceremon al functions, the president graces veiy important national ceremonies.
The president is also considered as the fount of honour and is bestowed the power to
honour citizens for their meritorious services to the state. The honour can also be extended
to foreigners who have distinguished themselves in various fields of endeavours.
The executive president exercises the prerogative of mercy by which he or she can reprieve
or grant pardon to commute the sentences handed down to convicts by courts of law.
General amnesty can also be granted to citizens who for various reasons flee into exile.
The president is also supreme commander or the commander-in-chief of the country's

Armed Forces and can order them into action in defence of the state in times of external
aggresion. In his capacity as the head of state, the president has to assent to bills enacted
by the legislature to become laws. Constitutionally, the president reserves the power to
veto a bill enacted by parliament either in part or in whole, if he or she finds that such a bill
might not serve the supreme interest of the citizens. This power is scarcely used since in the
presidential systems most bills are initiated by cabinet of which the president is the chairman.
The power of veto of the president can however be overturned by a two-thirds majority
vote by parliament.
Acting in the same capacity, the president receives foreign dignitaries and envoys accredited
to the country, and inspects their letters of accreditation.
It must be noted that under the parliament system the ceremonial functions explained above
are exercised exclusively by the head of state.
Real Executive Functions

As we have indicated earlier in this chapter, the executive president performs real executive
functions aside the ceremonial functions in his or her capacity as the head of government.
In this regard, the president appoints ministers to form the cabinet of which he or she is a
chairman to initiate policies for the sound administration of the state. All major policies
initiated by cabinet must be approved by parliament before they can be put into effect.
As the head of government, the president determines with cabinet the foreign policy direction of
the country. He of she also negotiates and signs foreign treaties with other states and
international organizations on behalf of the people. Such treaties entered into with other
states and organizations equally require the approval of parliament before they become t
effective. The president also represents the country abroad at all international meetings,
conferences, summits and fora. He or she also leads delegations to visit other countries on
duty tours or working visits. As a head of government, the president is directly responsible
and accountable to the people for any shortcomings in the administration of the state. He or
she must explain critical issues of interest to the people in order to win their support.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Presidential System

The practice of the presidential system of government is beneficial for a number of reasons.
For one reason, the selection of the president is more democratic. The president is not a
hereditary ruler or monarch but one who is directly elected by the people in a popular
election. The election held for the selection of the president is independent of the one held
for the election of legislators. The leader therefore becomes more accountable and
responsible to the electorate. Furthermore, the concentration of all executive powers in the
hands of one leader, the executive president, provides for a strong president needed for
effective administration of the state. Also, the secure tenure enjoyed by both the president
^ertC
and the legislature provides for a relative stable administration. Except under the least
expected circumstances, the president cannot be removed from office pre-maturely until
his or her tenure is over. The administration cannot be truncated mid-way. The legislature
enjoys its full life because of the absence of censure motion or vote of no confidence under
this system. The stable administration ordinarily is to enable the government to develop
long-term projects to hasten the country's development drive.
Moreover, there is no personality conflict at the top executive level because there is only
one executive leader who is the president. The system of government promotes efficiency
in the administration as each organ specializes in the function assigned to it exclusively by
the constitution.
Finally, the strict adherence to the principle of separation of powers serves as the greatest
institutional device to prevent abuse of power by any branch of government.
The above benefits of the system notwithstanding, the presidential executive model has a
couple of problems. Firstly, the fixed tenure of the executive implies that even when the
government has become most unpopular or proven to be insensitive to the plight of the
people, there is no means of effecting a change of government as would have been the
case in the parliamentary system. The people only have to wait impatiently and helplessly
until the expiration of the tenure. Secondly, the concentration of all executive powers in the
hands of a single leader as per this system coupled with difficulties associated with
impeachment processes can promote dictatorial tendencies. Thirdly, the weak party
discipline inherent in the system can frustrate the president's efforts at achieving his or her
set goals as members of parliament including those from his party can vote against some of
his policies. Lastly there is the likelihood of the executive blending state functions, which
are purely ceremonial in nature with pure partisan activities, thus, making it difficult to
differentiate one activity from the other. President Ronald Reagan's active campaign for
George H.W. Bush, his vice president, who became his successor, is a case in point. Such a
situation seriously undermines the national loyalty and unity of the people (Agarwal et al,
1994; Johari, 2005; Appadorai, 2004).
THE CABINET OR PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT

The parliamentary system also known as the dual executive system is the kind of government
in which the functions or roles of the head of state and the head of government are performed
by two separate personalities. The system is essentially the British form of constitutional
government. It is distinguished by the split executive and the fusion of powers or unified
powers. The fusion of powers refers to the close relationship between the executive (that is
the cabinet) and legislative organs of government inherent in the system. The members of
the executive are at the same time members of the legislature and therefore play a dual role
as cabinet executives or ministers and parliamentarians. The head of cabinet, the Prime
Minister, together with his cabinet is chosen from the leading members of the majority
party or a coalition of parties in parliament and is also responsible to the legislature for their
actions and inactions. Indeed, the executive is borne out of the legislature and the authority
of the former emanates from the latter.
The system of government under review is also called the cabinet system or the Westminster
model. The ideal form of this model of government is practised in Britain. Other former
colonies like Australia, Canada, India and New Zealand have also adopted it. Ghana
experimented the system in her short-lived Second Republic, which spanned 1969 to
1972. It must be pointed out before, the present institutional arrangement under Ghana's
Fourth Republic is slightly different from the pure presidential or pure parliamentary systems.
It should be understood that in the parliamentary system executive power is split into two
namely ceremonial and real or dignified executive powers, and shared between two
personalities, the head of state and head of government respectively. The head of state
may be a king, queen or emperor as in the case of constitutional monarchical regimes, or
an elected leader as in the case of a republican state (Danziger, 1998; Hague & Harrop,
2010; Johari, 2005; Roskin et al, 1991).
Features of the Parliamentary System of Government

The ideal type of parliamentary system of government is distinguished by the following
features:
Dual or Bicephalous executive

One distinctive feature that characterises the parliamentary model is the dual, split or
bicephalous executive. This means that, the executive power is split into two; the head of
state and head of government. The Prime Minister, who occupies the post as the head of
government performs real or dignified executive functions as the head of cabinet. He or
she together with cabinet takes all major decisions for the administration of the state. The
head of state on the other hand, exercises nominal or ceremonial functions. We will
examine these functions soon. The nominal head of state may be a monarch as in the case
of Britain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden and Swaziland among others. In the case of
non-monarchical or republican state, the ceremonial president may be indirectly elected
on behalf of the electorate by an electoral college (Magstadt & Schotten, 1984). During
Ghana's Second Republic for example, the choice between Mr. Edward Akufo-Addo
and Dr. I. B. Asafu-Adjaye for the post of a ceremonial head of state was made by an
electoral college made up of eminent chiefs and parliamentarians (Martison 2001:201).
Another well known feature of the parliamentary system is that the head of government or
the prime minister is always appointed by the head of state or the ceremonial president.
The appointment often appeai-s to be detennined by the results of the parliamentary elections.
As a norm, it is the leader of the party with majority seats in parliament or the head of the
senior partner in a coalition government who is named as the Prime-Minister (Hauss, 200;
O'Neil, Fields & Share, 2006; Lawson, 2003).
Appointment of Ministers by the Prime Minister

The Prime Minister appoints his or her ministers to form the cabinet. The cabinet is a small
working committee or a body of most senior ministers who take major policy decisions
with the Prime Minister (Price, 1975). The Prime Minister presides over cabinet meetings. It
must be stated that the size of cabinet is not fixed, but it is determined by the prime
minister taking into consideration the party and personal positions. In composing the cabinet,
the prime minister must of necessity include holders of certain ministerial portfolios such as
finance, defence foreign affairs and the attorney general among others. The head of state,
in appointing the Prime Minister, does not have any other choice than the leader of the
party with the majority seats in parliament. Because the Prime Minister is a Parliamentarian
who represents a constituency and at the same time is the head of cabinet, he or she enjoys
much power, support and influence from both cabinet and the legislature. However, in the
appointment of ministers, the Prime Minister has a lot of room for personal choice. The
selection of ministers is a personal responsibility of the Prime Minister which he or she
does not share with any other authority. Even though the Prime Minister is a parliamentarian
just like any of his ministers, his or her position is of distinctive importance or is unique
hence, the description Primus inter pares, meaning the first among equals (Dickerson &
Flanagan, 1990; Hague & Harrop, 2010; Johari, 2005; Hauss, 2000).
The cabinet is born out of parliament

In the British parliamentary system of government, the cabinet or government is formed
out of the people's representatives in parliament. The procedure is that after an election of
representatives into parliament, the political party with the majority of the elected
representatives is automatically given the recognition to form government. As we have
noted earlier, the head of the majority party becomes the Prime Minster and names his or
her cabinet by selecting his colleagues in parliament usually from his or her party. In a case
where there are many political parties in parliament with none winning a clear majority, the
government is usually formed by a.coalition of parties and the leader of the senior partner
in the coalition becomes the Prime Minister (Dickerson & Flanagan, 1990).
Ministers as Parliamentarians
In a typical parliamentary model, ministers can only be chosen from among members of
parliament This implies that all ministers are at the same time parliamentarians and therefore
perform a dual role as ministers of government and members of parliament. Parliament and
cabinet are fused with each other without any separation between the two powers. It
should be mentioned that members of parliament who are appointed as ministers are senior
members of the Prime Minister's party. This system of government is called the parliamentary
system due to the simple reason that the ministers are drawn from parliament. A substantial
modification of this practice has however been introduced by some states, including Norway,
Sweden, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. What is only required is that all ministers
should come from parliament.
Principle of Collective Responsibility

One other notable characteristic of the parliamentary model is the practice of the doctrine
of collective responsibility. This means that the cabinet comprising the Prime Minister and
his or her chosen ministers work together jointly as a team and are held responsible for the
effects or performance of their policies. They take the praise when a policy their government
introduces succeeds and equally share the blame and as well suffer the consequences as a
team when there is a policy failure. The entire cabinet must stand together to collectively
defend every major policy the government introduces. When there is a policy failure or
when the cabinet is found wanting on a major policy lapse, the entire cabinet must resign
and the Prime Minister will usually call for fresh elections to be conducted. The cabinet
thus stands and falls together as a team. In a case where a particular cabinet member
disagrees with his or her colleagues over a major policy issue, the only option for the
member is to resign from the cabinet else he or she is bound by it, and is held personally
responsible for it and must support and defend it in public (Price, 1975; Johari, 2005;
Hauss,2000).
Censure Motion
Another striking feature of the parliamentary system is the question of a vote of no confidence
otherwise known as vote of censure. In this system, the government is formed out of the
majority party and is responsible to the latter. The assembly or parliament can withdraw its
support for the government, especially if it is dissatisfied with its performance. Since the
government is formed out of the majority party in parliament it is expected to have the
confidence of the majority of the parliamentarians. Each time the minority in parliament
feels that the government has lost the confidence or is out of touch with the people through
their representatives, the opposition party initiates a move through voting to test the popularity
or otherwise of the government. The vote of no confidence motion can also be passed
against the government when the policy of the majority becomes most unpopular or if the
government is involved in a scandal that severely tarnishes its image. If the response of
the voting of members of parliament shows that most legislators are dissatisfied with the
performance of the government, then it is said that a vote of censure has been passed
against the government and in that case it should resign paving the way for fresh elections
to be conducted within a matter of weeks. It is a convention in Britain that whenever
cabinet resigns, the Prime Minister asks the Monarch to dissolve parliament and call for
fresh elections to be hejld. (Hauss, 2000, Johari, 2005; O'Neil et al, 2006; Magstadt &
Schotten, 1984).
Parliament as Political Platform

It is also a known feature in the parliamentary system that parliament is the main political
platform and the focus of power. The political system fuses what otherwise should have
been two distinct bodies namely the executive and the assembly. The system therefore
splits the executive functions into ceremonial and dignified. The fact that ministers are
selected from parliament gives an indication mat there is a fusion of executive and legislative
powers. The fusion turns parliament into the main political centre stage in the country. The
parliament thus becomes the place where politicians gain or lose reputation and where
governments rise or fall. It has been stated earlier that should the assembly lose confidence
in the executive and pass es a vote of no confidence in the administration, the entire cabinet
must resign and in that case the government collapses. Again, should the government be
found wanting or if its major policy fails the entire cabinet must resign and leave the corridors
of power.
Indeterminate Term Limit

One other unique aspect of the pure form of parliamentary system as it operates in Britain is
the unlimited tenure of the executive. Though the government in parliament is theoretically
elected to serve a definite period of five years, the term can in practice be extended
indefinitely through the manipulation of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister can exploit
his or her prerogative to dissolve parliament and call for fresh elections, to achieve this.
What happens is that the Prime Minister calls for fresh elections to be conducted ahead of
time of the expiration of the government's term of office just to let the electorate vote the
government into power again and thereby renew its mandate. This is done especially when
the government thinks that judging from the opinion of the public, it has a reasonable
support and confidence from the people and can thus renew its mandate. Premier Margaret
Thatcher strategically employed this weapon to extend her rule for more than a decade.
She became the British Prime Minister in 1979, and was supposed to serve a five year
tenure which was to expire in 1984. But realizing her popularity and that of the party at the
time, she called for fresh elections in 1983, just one year ahead of the expiration of her
term. She won the election and was thus given another five year mandate from 1983 which
was supposed to end in 1988. Another four years into her new term, that is in 1987, the
Premier repeated her strategy; she called for fresh election and again won the renewed
mandate of the people for another five years which was expected to have ended in 1992.
Three years into her term, that is, in 1990, Thatcher's popularity dipped following the
introduction of poll tax regime which many British considered to be regressive and unfair.
She came under intense attack from within her party and subsequently resigned as a Prime
Minister and the leader of the Conservative Party. She was succeeded by John Major
(Magstadt, 2006: 161; Magstadt 2009:189). It must be noted that the resignation or
death of a Prime Minister does not necessarily lead to the collapse of the government. The
government continues under the leadership of a newly appointed Premier. The exit of
Premier Thatcher and her replacement by John Major clearly exemplifies this point the
resignation of a Prime Neville Chamberlain in 1940 and his succession by Winston Churchill
is yet another example (Magstadt & Schotten, 1984).
Power to Dissolve Parliament

The Prime Minister, who is the head of government, wields much power in the system of
administration which he or she uses to control the assembly. The Prime Minister may
recommend or advise the head of state to dissolve parliament at any time before the
expiration of the government's term and call for fresh elections to be conducted. The
power of the Prime Minister to recommend the dissolution of parliament may be used for
two reasons. First, it is used as a means to make the executive hold on to power for a
longer period than what the electorate will initially give it. This is used especially when the
government knows that it has the confidence and support of the electorate. Secondly, it
may be used as a threat to secure greater party loyalty. When the party in power realizes
that there is deep division among its members in parliament over a major policy issue
which can threaten its tenure, it may then issue the threat of dissolution of parliament in
order to secure greater support. In any case, this prerogative of the Prime Minister may be
seen as a weapon which the executive wields to balance the authority of the legislature to
hold cabinet accountable through the vote of confidence.
Supremacy of Parliament
One other characteristic of the parliamentary system is the supremacy of parliament, a
principle which underpins the system. In the pure parliamentary system, emphasis is placed
on the people's representatives in parliament. Parliament in this system technically consists
of two parts, namely the cabinet or government and the assembly. The house itself and its
decisions are sacrosanct, and supreme over any of its constituent parts. In the words of Sir
William Blackstone, "Parliament can do everything that is not naturally impossible." This
implies that parliament can do everything except to change man to woman and vice versa.
Parliament can make any law and no other body except parliament itself can overturn its
decisions on the grounds that they are unconstitutional. This makes parliament a supreme
body in the state.
Responsibility of Parliament
In this regime, the people do not choose the government. As noted earlier, the Prime
Minister is appointed by the head of state and after the appointment, the former in turn
appoints his or her mir isters from parliament. The government therefore functions as a
committee of parliament. The government becomes directly
its actions and inaction responsible to parliament for
5 and only indirectly responsible to the electorate.
Strict Party Discipline

There is strict party discipline in this regime. Members of the respective parties, both in
government and in opposition, work in unison or are united in their action. They toe the line of
their respective parties. The strict party discipline is due to the simple reason that a
defeat in the major policy of the government or in the censure motion will lead to the
collapse of cabinet and the subsequent dissolution of parliament. Because of this, parties in
the parliamentary system tend to vote enbloc either in support or against a policy. A
parliamentarian who does not support their party's position risks being "purged" from the
party. What this means is that, come the next election, that member will not be nominated
by the party to contest (Magstadt & Schotten, 1984). Members of the ruling party are
often united in their support for the policies of die government. This strong party discipline
does not however mean that parliamentarians always have to vote in support of their
party's position. There are instances where members of the ruling party cross the aisle to
vote with the opposition There are also instances where disaffected parliamentarians abstain
from an important vote. (Magstadt, 2006).
Official Opposition in Parliament

In view of the principle of collective responsibilities of cabinet and strong party discipline
coupled with the fear of being thrown out of office through a censure motion, the party in
government always ensures that all its major policies gain approval in parliament. It needs
to be explained that the n majority party in parliament forms the government while the
minority party or parties form the official opposition whose leader becomes the
opposition leader or the shadow prime minister. To provide an effective check on the
government, the opposition leader may appoint shadow cabinet ministers to monitor the
activities of the various ministries. The shadow Prime Minister together with the shadow
ministers forms the shadow cabinet. The role of the opposition is crucial in this system
of government because it plays an effective role of criticizing policies of the ruling party
which it thinks are not in the best interest of the people and offers better alternatives to them.
The opposition party regards itself as the government in-waiting and that should the
government or the ruling party fall, it is most probable that it will form the next
government. It thus plays the more crucial role by stating its position on major policy issues
more clearly and responsibly. It must be noted that, in the British Parliamentary practice,
no stigma is attached to the
notion of opposition.
Status and Role of the Prime Minister

The Prime Minister is the effective head of government in the parliamentary system. He or
she is the elected leader of the party that commands the majority seats in government. As
the leader of government, the Prime Minister performs a range of functions. In the first
place, he or she nominates ministers from his or her party or the parties in coalition to form
the cabinet over which he or she presides and plans with them policies for the sound
administration of the state. Together with the cabinet, the Prime Minister formulates both
domestic and foreign policies to achieve goals set by the state. The domestic policies
include those on agriculture, trade, health, education and internal security among others.
Foreign policy, on the other hand, deals with policies regarding the state and its activities
with other states and international organizations. Secondly, the Prime Minister serves as a
liaison between his or her state and other states. In that regard, he or she leads his or her
country's delegation to such important national meetings and conferences as the United
Nations (UN), Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and 'the African
Union (AU) summits and also to negotiate and sign deals with other states and international
agencies. Such deals may be on trade, defence, education or any other form of bilateral
and multilateral co-operation. Thirdly, the person who occupies the position of Prime Minister
has formal links with the head of state. He or she must hold regular meetings with the
ceremonial head of state to keep him or her informed of decisions cabinet has taken on
matters of public business. The Prime Minister may again advise the head of state on bills
passed by parliament which the latter has to sign into laws, as well as the appointment of
certain persons to take up top national appointments and the exercise of prerogative of
mercy. He or she also has the prerogative to advise the head of state to dissolve parliament
should it become necessary. Fourthly, the person appointed to the position of Prime Minister
is the leader of the ruling party or the coalition and therefore leads his or her team to defend
policies the government proposes for the consideration of parliament. He or she thus takes
active part in deliberations in parliament. He or she is also an elected representative of the
people of the constituency he or she represents in parliament. Finally, the Prime Minister
has direct relationship with the electorate and the nation as a whole. He or she is the one
whom the people look up to for direction. He or she can make a nation-wide tour and
address the citizenry through the media to explain government policies and appeal to them
for their continuous support.
Arguments for and against the Parliamentary System of Government

The parliamentary system of government has a number of advantages over its closest
alternative, the presidential system. The practice can be one way of preventing the emergence
of a dictatorship regime and the abuse of individual liberties. The split of executive
responsibilities and sharing them between a ceremonial leader and a leader of government
affairs prevents a situation where power is lumped into the hands of a single person. Absolute
power, as Lord Acton has clearly expressed in his dictum, corrupts absolutely. The division
of power as it operates in the system prevents any of the leaders to monopolise the use of
power in the state which leads to abuse of freedoms of the people.
An added advantage of the system is that the bicephalous or dual nature of the executive
helps to distinguish ceremonial or state functions from other functions which are purely
partisan. The head of state performs ceremonial functions, while the Prime Minister, who is a
political leader also performs functions which are quite often partisan in nature. The
separation of the two functions promotes national unity and loyalty among the citizens as
partisan activities are not fused with ceremonial ones. This affords the people the opportunity
to assess whether the government is pursuing their interests or not.
Another strength of the parliamentary system is that, as we have noted, the Prime Minister
and his or her cabinet are drawn from the majority party in parliament. This, therefore,
means that members of cabinet are at the same time legislators. The fusion of powers and
personnel of the legislature and the executive promotes a healthy relationship and co-
operation between the two organs of government for smooth administration of the state.
Again, the incidence of counting on the majority party in parliament, together with strong
party discipline in the system, helps to reduce friction between the executive and the legislative
aims of government. This condition is necessary for the promotion of stable administration.
Moreover, the bicephalous nature of the executive that characterises the system reduces
work load on the two Executive heads. It can be said that the parliamentary system of
government is the most appropriate system of government as it shares executive
responsibilities between two persons. The sages say that "shared burden is easy to bear."
To ensure effectiveness in the discharge of their responsibilities, the executive heads need
not be overburdened with numerous tasks. It is in this light that the sharing of executive
functions between the two personalities becomes relevant; as workload is shared, it
becomes easy for the two national leaders to bear. Furthermore, the parliamentary system
ensures continuity in governance during a change-over period from one political regime to
another. The head of state remains in office during such change-over periods to ensure a
smooth transition and to avoid administrative interregnum or hiatus. In addition to the
foregoing, the presidential system, unlike the parliamentary system of government, is more
responsive to the needs of the citizenry. The fear of the usage of censure motion puts the
government on its toes to deliver the public good.
It can also be said conclusively that the parliamentary system of government promotes
efficiency in governance. This is evident in the number of important factors inherent in the
system such as responsiveness in governance, reduction in the workload of the executive

heads, existence of greater party discipline and due recognition given to minority parties in
parliament.
Finally, the due recognition given to the opposition party or the minority parties in parliament
and the effective role they play as the government-in-waiting help put the government right
on its toes to offer good administration. The opposition group plays this role by criticising
the extremist actions by the government that might not serve the supreme interest of the
people. While the opposition party may go the whole hog to expose weaknesses inherent
in the administration, the government on its part will also avoid doing acts that will create
fertile grounds for the opposition to criticize them.
In spite of these merits, the system is not free from problems. An outstanding one is the
personality clashes between the two top executive heads which some developing countries
encounter in their attempt to put the system into practice. This usually occurs when the role
and powers of the two top leaders are not well delineated. The state is plunged into chaos
when the two leaders disagree over fundamental issues and this sometimes creates
opportunity for military adventurists to seize political power under the pretence of maintaining
sanity. The personality clash between President Kasavubu and Prime Minister Patrice
Lumumba of the Congo in 1960 and the one that ensued between President Mobutu Sese
Seku and his Prime Minister Etienne Tshisekedi of Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of
Congo), as well as the one that occurred between President Gnassingbe Eyadema and
Prime Minister Joseph Kokou Koffigo are all cases in point. Secondly, the tenure of
government may also be unstable and uncertain; for example, the cabinet could be unseated
or removed prematurely through the passing of vote of no confidence or a censure motion.
In the same way, parliament could also be dissolved by the head of state anytime the need
arises. The truncated tenure that usually characterises the system can retard national
development as governments may not enjoy their full tenure to complete their initiated
projects and programmes. Such a situation also creates panic, fear and unnecessary tension
among the people. Thirdly, the system leads to unhealthy wrangling between the ruling and
opposition parties. The opposition party may sometimes fiercely oppose policies of the
government just for the mere sake of opposition and will not co-operate with the former.
This situation does not help in national development. Fourthly, the fusion of powers between
the executive and the legislative arms of government which is the major feature of the
parliamentary system of government violates the theory of the separation of powers which
stipulates that each of the three arms of government should be composed of different sets
of personnel who perform separate roles. Finally, the practice of ministers doubling as
parliamentarians increases their workload. Their attention is divided as they combine the
two schedules and it thus affects their effectiveness and efficiency.
Systems of Government
105
THE MIXED OR HYBRID SYSTEM

As the name suggests the hybrid model is a blend of some of the salient features of the two
ideal models of government we have already discussed. Any model that combines a partial
separation and a partial fusion of powers among the three branches of government fits into
the description of the hybrid model. The current practice in Ghana where the majority of
ministers are drawn from parliament with some selected from outside the house is a typical
example of the hybrid model. Even though there is a single executive leader in the Ghanaian
case, certain key features inherent in the system such as the one discussed above deny it of
the ideal presidential mode as in practice under the American Constitution. France (under
the Fifth Republic) has adopted a form of government that combines some elements of
both the presidential and parliamentary systems of government (Magstadt & Schotten,
1984; Danziger, 1998). This hybrid system was adopted to overcome the highly unstable
nature inherent in the cabinet system which was used under the Fourth Republic of France
(Magstadt, 2006). In the hybrid system of France, the Prime Minister and cabinet are
responsible for the day-to-day running of the government, while the President wields
enormous powers. The President is elected in a popularly contested election for a fixed
term of seven years after which he selects his Prime Minister. It should be mentioned that
the President can dissolve the legislature but retain the cabinet. Another example of the
hybrid typology is the one practised in India where the President is elected by the legislature
for a five-year term. He or she also exercises notable responsibilities including the
appointment of state governors and also the right to take over governance of the state
during emergencies. It is instructive to note however that the Prime Minster is the dominant
political force in the system, while the President performs ceremonial roles. States like
Germany, Austria and Ireland have similar systems in place. There is yet another variant of
the mixed system where power is shared between the President and the cabinet in a more
balanced manner. A typical example is the form practised in Finland. Here both the President
and the Prime Minister must sign a law before it is enacted. The president attends meetings
of parliament on major legislations (Danziger, 1998).
THE UNITARY SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT

The unitary system of government is one in which the total governmental power is lumped
together and concentrated in a single authority located at a central point usually, the
administrative capital of the state. This is to say that, in a unitary state, there is a central
government that holds all legitimate power (Danziger, 1998; Agarwal et al, 1994; Dickerson
& Flanagan, 1990). A state is said to be unitary where there is no constitutional division of
authority between the centre and the units into which the country is divided. Sovereignty
lies exclusively with the central government (Hague & Harrop, 2010). In the unitary system,
the whole state is governed as one unit or entity. The central government can create
governments at the lower levels, that is, in the regions or counties and delegate powers and
functional responsibilities to them, but these powers can be revoked at any time the state
wills. The system can also be explained as the concentration of the totality of governmental
powers in a central body confined to a definite geographical location in a state with other
units subordinate to the centre. Though local government bodies exist in the geographical
parts of the state, their powers are given to them by the central government to which they
are subordinates. Some examples of states that are unitary are Benin, Belgium, Britain,
China, Ghana and Zimbabwe.
Features of Unitary States

Unitary states are distinguished from others that practise the other forms of government by
the following features:
Centralization of Governmental Powers

All powers and authority for the administration of the state are lumped together and
concentrated in the hands of one central authority, the central government. There is no
constitutional division of powers between the central government and the local government
units. The central government wields all governmental powers which it may delegate to
subordinate or local government bodies.
Subordination of Local Government Units

All local government bodies within the state are created by the central government. There
is no constitutional division of power between the central government and the local authorities.
The local government bodies are therefore subordinates to the central government and
they exist at its mercy.
Suitable for Homogenous States

Unitary states are mostly homogenous with respect to ethnic, racial, religious and other
cultural diversities. Put differently such diversities are not usually sharp to spark off frequent
sectional conflicts among the groups. Allied to this point is the fact that almost all the unitary
states with the exception of a few such as China usually have small population and
geographical sizes.
Reasons for Adoption

The unitary system of government is the most popular among the countries on the globe.
More than two-thirds of all countries in the world practise this system of government. The
popularity of the system is due to the many benefits derived from its adoption.
Promotion of National Unity and Integration

The unitary system promotes national unity and integration among the people of the state.
Systems of Government \ 07
Unlike the federal system where citizens owe dual allegiance to both the central and
constituent state governments, in the unitary system, all the people are brought together
under a single government on which they depend for direction and development and under
which they remain united. The incidence where a section of the people make attempts to
secede or break away from the state to form their own sovereign state does not frequently
occur as it does in a federation. Such attempts are suppressed and fiercely resisted by the
central government.
It is Less Expensive
The unitary system, compared to its closest opposite, the federal system, is less expensive
in terms of human, material and financial resources required for its administration. With a
few trained personnel and a relatively small financial outlay, and using a simple administrative
structure, the entire state can be administered from a central point without encountering
much administrative difficulties. There is no duplication of political institutions at the
sub-national level.
It Promotes Uniform Development

The unitary system of government promotes a uniform development in the state. It is only
the central government that is responsible for the administration of the entire state. The
government is guided by a central national development plan in the distribution of
development projects. Ideally, no particular region or geographical part of the state develops
faster while the others lag behind.
Speedy Implementation of Policies

There is speedy and effective implementation of policies for rapid national development.
The central government does not need to consult any rival or partner within the state when
formulating and implementing national policies. This contrasts with the federal system where
the implementation of certain policies by government requires the approval of a substantial
number of governments of the component states.
Simple Administrative Structure

The administrative structure of the unitary system is less complex as compared to the
multiplicity of structures in the federal system. For this much, the unitary system avoids the
duplication of functions and institutions by the multiple and complex institutions and structure
inherent in the other systems, namely federation and confederation.
Strong Government
The concentration in on y one level of government, that is, the central government, provides
for a very strong government that commands the total loyalty
and respect of the entire
citizenry of the state. The central government does not share its authority with any other
rival body and thus exercises ultimate control over the entire state.
Peaceful and Harmonious Relationship

The exercise of ultimate authority by a single level government promotes peace, harmony
and stability in the state. Peaceful and harmonious relationships exist among all the
governmental institutions in the state. The overlaps and frequent frictions that occur between
governments of the component states and the central government are avoided in the unitary
system. This results from the existence of one and only one central government that does
not recognise any institution with rival authority.
Problems Associated with the Unitary System

Notwithstanding the numerous benefits derived from the adoption of unitary system, it is
not spared problems.
Breeds Dictatorship
We will recall Lord Acton's famous dictum, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts
absolutely." Political power has the tendency to corrupt, especially if it is concentrated in
the hands of a few persons or institutions. In other words, political power has the tendency
to corrupt absolutely if it is not decentralized. The concentration of the total governmental
powers and authority in the hands of only the central government has the tendency of
promoting dictatorship. This stems from the fact that the decentralized or local government
units in the unitary system do not possess, sufficient constitutional powers with which they
can check the wide powers exercised by the central government. They are only subordinate
agencies to the central government.
Creation of Remoteness
The centralization of administration and authority as in the case of unitary system creates
remoteness. The concentration of political power and administrative functions at a central
location creates a situation in which a section of the people would be far removed from the
centre of power and this has its related negative consequences.
Lack of Initiative
The unitary system of government that does not permit marked decentralization kills initiative
building and thus lowers the involvement of the people in the political affairs in their localities.
This situation arises because the people are all the time made to look up to the central
government for direction and approval of development projects and programmes before
their implementation. The people on their own cannot initiate and implement their
development project. A situation of this sort breads apathy.
Delays in Project Implementation

Over centralization of authority and administrative institutions in unitary states can lead to
delays in the implementation of government policies. The majority of the people in various
locations of the state travel, some over long distances, to the centre of power, the
administrative capital pf the state to transact businesses of various forms and also to seek
approval for execution of projects and for direction. This situation creates administrative
bottlenecks and excessive bureaucratic procedures, all of which lead to delays in delivery
schedules. As work piles up on the centre, the centralized political and administrative
institutions become overloaded and corruption becomes the order of the day.
Low Political Participation

The unitary system does not encourage active political participation among the people in
governance at the grassroot level. Active.participation in political activities usually takes
place only at the central or national level and does not in the majority of cases trickle down
to the local level. As a result, the people in the localities do not acquire the necessary
training and experience required for higher or national level politics.
Low Human Resource Utilization

Another demerit associated with the unitary system is that it does not usually encourage
maximum utilization of state resources, especially the human resources. Only a fraction of
the country's trained human resource is needed for the administration of the entire state
from the central point of power. No practical effort is, therefore, made to put the rest of the
human resources to full use for the total benefit of the state.
Over Concentration on National Issues

The system tends to saddle the central government with a lot of administrative burden of
concern to both the national and local governments. The government might concentrate its
attention on issues of national importance and play down on those that affect the localities.
Not Suitable for Populous States

The unitary system of government is sometimes slammed on the ground that it is not suitable
for the administration of slates with relatively large geographical sizes and huge populations
such as the United States, Brazil, India, Nigeria and the erstwhile Soviet Union, to mention
but these few.
FEDERATION
The woxd federation (derives its origin from the Latin woidfoedus, which means an
agreement or a treaty (Agarwal et al, 1994). In the federal system of government, there is
an agreement between two levels of government; that is, the government for the whole
state also called the federal government and governments for the geographical parts of the
state (Dickerson & Flanagan, 1990; Patterson, 1993). The geographical parts that form
the federal state are called different names in different places. They can be called provinces,
regions, cantons, counties or simply states. In this book and as it is the designation in most
federal states, the geographical parts will be called the components or constituent states.
From the above, federation can be explained as a system of government in which political
power is shared between the government for the whole state, called the federal government
and governments for the geographical parts, the constituents state. K.C Wheare (1978) in
his Modern Constitutions has defined federation as a system of government in which the
total governmental power has been divided and shared between the government for the
whole state and governments for parts of the state. The division of power is done in such
a way that each government is legally independent within its own sphere and neither is
subordinate to the other, but they both coordinate and co-operate. In a federation there
are two levels of government; a government for the whole state located in the federal
capital and governments for the various component units, also located in the respective
component state capitals (Patterson 1993:37). Each of the two levels of government is
constitutionally independent of the other and exercises some form of powers. A Dictionary
of Modern Politics explains federation as a form of government in which power is
constitutionally divided between different authorities in such a way that each exercises
responsibility for a particular set of functions and maintains its own institutions to discharge
those functions.
Federalism is often seen as a complex and cumbersome method of government because it

involves a number of potentially overlapping jurisdictions and the maintenance of similar
institutions at each level of administration. The countries that practise federalism are not
many relative to the unitary states. Examples of federal states are Argentina, Austria, Australia,
Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Canada, Comoros, Germany, Ethiopia, India,
Iraq, Malaysia, Mexico, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sudan, South Sudan, Switzerland, the
United States and Venezuela. The former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR)
was also a federal state until the collapse and disintegration of the Union in 1989.
There should be no confusion in the use of the word "state" in this section. The word has
been used in two different senses to refer to two jurisdictions; one is made with reference
to the entire national level of government and the other the level of government at the
constituent parts. It should be recalled that the state is explained in Chapter Two of this
book as a collection of people who live in a clearly defined geographical area and have a
government and are independent of any such entity. With this definition, the people of
Lagos State in Nigeria, for example, who live in a well-defined geographical area (Lagos
State) and have their own government which has some level of autonomy can be said to
Systems of Government
constitute a state. So are those in Ogun State. The Lagos State and Ogun State come
together with several others to constitute the entire federal state of Nigeria. Because they
constitute the Federal State they are called the constituent, component or unit states within
the Federal state of Nigeria. In this book, we will use constituent, component or unit to
refer to the geographical parts and federal state to refer to the entire state.
■
Distinguishing Features of Federalism

Federation involves a complex system of administration. It is distinguished from the other
systems of government by a number of features which shed light on the powers, functions
and the relationship that exist between the centre and component units.
Two Levels of Government

As explained in previous sections there must be two levels of government in every federal
system. There is the federal government, which is located at the federal capital that is
responsible for the administration of the whole state. In Nigeria for example, the federal
capital is located in Abuja. There are also governments for the various geographical parts
of the state that constitute the federation. They are called the component or constituent
governments and they are located in the state capitals. The division of powers between the
federal and component state governments is guaranteed by the federal constitution. The
citizens live under two sets of state laws (the laws at federal and unit levels) and as such
owe double allegiance and also have divided loyalty as a result of the two spheres of state
and governments.
Bicameral Legislature
Another notable feature of federation is bicameral legislature or a two-chamber parliament.
Representatives of the lower house of parliament are selected through elections based on
the population size of each of the component states, while an equal number of representatives
is drawn from each of the component states regardless of their numerical strength. For
example, each of the fifty states in the United States regardless of their population sizes
sends two representatives to the upper house of parliament - the Senate. The equality of
representation in the upper house is meant to ensure federal balance or equilibrium in
geographical representation in the legislature. The Nigerian Senate is composed of three
representatives from each of the thirty-six states forming the federation, while in Brazil
each of the twenty-six states sends three representatives to the upper house.
Rigidity of the Federal Constitution

Constitutions of federal states are usually written with rigid amendment procedures regarding
especially provisions that regulate the relationship between the federal government and the
constituent governments. The constitution should stipulate the powers and functions of
both levels of government and those provisions must be entrenched to avoid any possible
manipulation, especially by the federal government to suit its parochial interest.
Supremacy of the Federal Constitution

The federal constitution is regarded as supreme. In other words, there is the supremacy of
the federal constitution. This implies that the federal constitution takes precedence over
everything else and any act or law committed or enacted by any institution that contradicts
the provisions of the constitution is rendered legally inoperative and therefore null and
void.
Specific Amendment Procedures

There must also be specific or agreed upon procedures for amending the federal constitution.
Any proposed amendment to the constitution must be agreed upon or approved by all the
component states before it can be carried through. In the Constitution of the United States,
just like that of many other federal states, a proposed constitutional amendment requires
the approval of two-thirds majority support of the two legislative bodies and three-quarters
majority of the assemblies of the respective component states.
The Existence of a Federal Supreme Court

One other essential feature of the federal system is the existence of a Federal Supreme
Court. The Court is vested with constitutional powers to regulate the relationship between
the central and the component state governments. This arrangement is to forestall conflicts
from arising between the two levels of government. The verdict of the court in all constitutional
disputes is final and binding on all institutions of the state.
Formal Division of Powers

Another distinctive feature of a federation is the formal division of governmental powers
between the federal government and governments of the component units by the federal
constitution. This constitutional arrangement is meant to give a relative autonomy to the
component states. The distribution of political power is done in such a way that the
constituent states must enjoy some amount of autonomy to formulate policies in certain
subjects or areas. There is a three way division of powers consisting of exclusive, concurrent
and residuary powers allocated to the two levels of governments. This issue of power
distribution is discussed in detail below.
Denial of Right to Secession

Once a federation is formed, the right of a component states to secede is strictly not
allowed. A federal association is permanent and once a state enters into it, it cannot pull
out. Any attempt to do so by one or a number of states is fiercely resisted and suppressed
by the federal government. A case in point was the attempt made in Nigeria by a section
of the country to secede to form the Biafra state.
Bill of Rights
There must also be a bill of right to ensure adequate protection of individual rights. The
rights of the people should be entrenched in the federal Constitution and can only be
amended through a referendum or upon the approval of the two legislative bodies, plus the
majority approval of the constituent states.
Necessary Conditions for Successful Federation

Federation involves a complex system of administration and for the administration to last
longer, certain conditions are considered to be prerequisite. In their absence, it will be
extremely difficult for the federal bond to hold.
Desire for Union

We indicated in the introduction of this topic that the word federation is derived from the
Latin word foeclus, which means an agreement. In essence, it is an agreement among the
federating states to form such a union. The foremost pre-requisite for federation is that
states that wish to enter into such a union must have the utmost desire to do so. Such desire
may be influenced by threats or fear of possible attacks by neighbouring states (Appadorai,
2004). For example, the federating states of the United States of America came together
in a federation in order to protect their sovereignly from possible attacks from Britain,
Portugal or Spain. In the same vein, Australia went into federation just to ward off an
eminent conquest by Japan.
The establishment of a federal system of government may also arise as a result of the desire
by the people of the various geographical parts to pool resources together for the
development of the federal state as a whole. Thus, the desire to promote trade and
commerce through the removal of all artificial trade barriers can be an important factor that
induces the formation of a federation. Again, the sentiments for federation are sometime
induced by a community of blood, language, culture and the similarities of cultural institutions.
Common political history and heritage can also induce the desire for people of closely
related regions to federate. For example, since the people of Northern, Western and Eastern
Nigeria were all colonized by the same colonial power, Britain, federation which was the
obvious choice of government for the country was easily adopted at independence. The
British colonial masters had imposed the federal system of government on them right from
the period of colonial rule.
Geographical Proximity
One other very important condition essentially for a successful federation is geographical
contiguity of the constituent states. Federal unity can best be attained when the constituent
states are contiguous or closely connected to one another without any physical barrier.
When component states are separated by any physical barriers such as a large land mass
belonging to another sovereign state or the sea, a chain of high mountains, a big river or
lake, such that frequent contacts cannot be easily made, the federation will not hold (Johari,
2011; Appadorai, 2004). It is difficult to attain national unity if the people are cut off from
each other by a huge distance (Agarwal et al, 1994). The federation between Pakistan and
Bangladesh could not hold as it collapsed in no time because the two states are separated
by a large land mass measuring over a thousand kilometres belonging to India.
Adequate Economic and Human Resources

Federation involves complex administrative structures. It requires a large stock of trained
personnel and adequate financial support to run both the federal and the component states.
In fact, federal administration is very expensive and states wishing to go into it must in this
regard, have economic and trained human resources sufficient to support the complexities
of its administrative structures (Johari, 2011). When these resources are lacking, the federal
system will collapse or become a unitary system in disguise. A case in point is the erstwhile
Sudan whose federation was run like a unitary state due to the lack of financial resources
to adequately support the system.
Absence of marked Inequality among the Component States

As much as possible, there should be a considerable degree of equality among the constituent
states in terms of geographical size, population and wealth, there should be no sharp or
pronounced diversity or inequality among the federating units (Johari, 2011). In other words,
the situation should not arise where one or two component states are endowed with so
much economic and human resources on which it could capitalise to manipulate or lord it
over the others. A union of federation among very unequal constituent units may have
undesirable consequences. It may generate inferiority, jealousy and ill-feeling among the
component units and can lead to possible disintegration of the federation.
Common Interests
Also, a community of common culture, language, religion and other interests help greatly in
the formation of a federation. A federation aims at forging a union and creating a united
nation, but does not seek to create uniformity otherwise a unitary government might be
found more convenient and suitable (Agarwal et al, 1994). Federation is essential where
people of the various geographical parts bound by a common culture, history or religion
are not prepared to surrender all their powers to the federal government, but to preserve
their respective distinct identities under a central administration. The structures of federal
administration make it possible for people with diverse ethnic backgrounds, living on a
wide stretch of land to come together under a single government. This is the very reason
why it is widely held that federation promotes unity in diversity. This implies that even
though the people look very different by way of their respective and distinct cultures or
races, they are united under one government.
Large Populations
Relatively large geographic territory accompanied by a relatively huge population is another
essential condition for the formation of a federation. It is only adminislratively convenient
to administer states w ith the above attributes via the federal system. Little wonder, Nigeria
which is reckoned to be the most populous state in Africa runs a federal administration.
Argentina, Brazil, Canada, India and the United States, all of which run a federal
administration have.huge populations aside the large expanses of land mass they each
possess. Caution must however be taken so that none of the federating units becomes
excessively large in terms of geographical size, population or wealth so as to dominate the
others.
Political Education
Successful federation hinges on an enlightened population who fully appreciate the
implications of having a federal administrative system. The population must be alive to the
dual allegiance they owe to both the constituent and the federal governments (Appadorai,
2004). They must as well fully appreciate all the other requirements that go with the federal
system such as the supremacy of the federal Supreme Court and the constitutional division
of powers.
Desire for Local Autonomy

The federal system is also desirable in areas where people of different ethnic and cultural
diversities wish to protect and preserve the enjoyment of their respective local autonomy
but under a central administration. The people must thus have the desire to retain their
autonomy to manage their own affairs at least in some policy areas, while at the same time
they remain part of the union under a single central government. The desire for independence
by a people of one particular component unit should not be so great as to result in the
demand for the establishment of a unitary state.
Heterogeneous Societies
Federation is desirable in heterogeneous societies or societies with mixed cultures and
races where the sectional diversities of culture, race and religion are not so sharp such that it
can easily spark off frequent clashes or conflicts. It is administratively inconvenient to
administer people in such heterogeneous societies with deep cultural differences such as
India and Nigeria via the unitary system. Federation is therefore the most suitable system
of administration for such societies.
Power Distribution System in Federations

We indicated above that the power distribution method in a federation will be discussed in a
much detailed form. There is an elaborate method of allocating power to the two levels of
government in a federation. Political power in a federal system is divided and allocated to
the federal government and the component units. Subjects or issues that are of common
interest and require uniform treatment are generally allocated to the federal government
while matters which are of regional and local interests are retained by the constituent units.
There are other issues that are allocated to both the federal and the component governments.
There are, therefore, three methods of allocating power in a federal system. They are
exclusive or enumerated powers, concurrent and residuary powers.
Exclusive Powers
Exclusive powers are powers which are considered to be of general interest to the federal
state as a whole. Subjects or issues that fall within the exclusive powers include foreign
affairs, defence, issuance and redemption of currency, conduct of population census, raising
and maintenance of armed forces and police service, aviation, mines, seaport, railways,
post and telecommunications as well as the power to declare war and peace. The power
to regulate foreign trade and commerce between states, to govern territories and admit
new states, to pass naturalization laws and regulate immigration as well as the power to
make all laws necessary and proper to carry out the powers of government also come
under exclusive powers.
Current Powers
As the name implies, concurrent powers refer to subjects on which both the federal and
component state governments concurrently exercise powers. Both the federal and the unit
governments have the power to concurrently make policies on subjects that fall under the
concurrent list. In the event of a clash of policy by the two levels of government over an
issue under concurrent powers, the federal policy will supersede or prevail over that of the
component state governments. Subjects that come under the concurrent powers include
education, drugs, labour laws, prison, insurance as well as scientific and industrial
development. The two levels of government also concurrently exercise the power to collect
taxes, borrow money, establish and maintain courts, make and enforce laws and provide
for the health and welfare of the people.
Residuary Powers
The component states keep all the powers that have not been granted either to the federal
government or denied to the component states. Those powers are called the reserved or
residuary powers. Residuary powers thus deal with subjects regarded as left over and lie
outside the powers granted exclusively to the federal government (exclusive powers) or to
both the federal and component state governments (concurrent powers). The residuary
powers include authority over the internal affairs of the component states and general
police or supervisory power over the health and safety issues, moral and welfare of the
people in the respective slates. For example, the state may pass laws to punish certain
crimes and establish public schools. They may also pass laws to limit the age at which
persons may marry, buy alcohol and obtain a driver's licence (Turner et al, 1987).
Strengths and Weaknesses of Federation

The following are the merits associated with the federal system of government. Federalism
offers protection to smaller and weaker states within the system. By uniting with others in
a federation, it becomes difficult to attack such smaller and weaker states and thereby
increasing their military might. This proves right the adage of "united we stand and divided
we fall". Another merit derived from federation is the promotion of practical decentralisation.
The federal system makes it possible for the people in the constituent units to initiate and
implement policies and projects at the local level, thus bringing the government closer to
the people. Aside that, the structures of federalism allow for states with mixed nationalities,
and diverse cultures to be united under a single government. Federation thus encourages
unity in diversity. It is also important to note that the division of governmental powers
between the centre and the constituent units acts as a check against the emergence of a
dictatorship regime. Moreover, in a federation, resources are pooled together within the
state for the betterment of the whole state. This makes it possible for component states
which lack certain resources to benefit from others endowed with such resources. The
system again gives the people in the constituent units the opportunity to initiate and implement
their own policies and projects. This encourages active participation of the people in local
politics and in initiative building. Lastly, the federal system adequately protects the interest
of minority groups in the state. Greater autonomy is given to the constituent units so that
they can adequately cater for the interests of such minority groups in the units.
Turning to the problems, the fear of integration poses a threat to the units in federations.
Constituent units who feel more dissatisfied in the federation may sometimes make attempts
to secede. A case in point is the secessionist attempt of the Biafra of Western Nigeria in the
late 1960s and the early 1970s. Those points aside, die division of governmental powers
between the centre and the units can lead to a weak central government which may be
incapable of controlling the entire state. For example, the introduction of Sharia law in
some parts of Nigeria in 1999 and 2000 buttresses this point. Moreover, federalism is
very expensive and a waste of human resource. This is due to the two levels of political
institutions established both at tire centre and in the units. They all demand huge financial
support and qualified personnel to run. The adoption of the federal system is also said to
slow down the decision-making process. Important national decisions such as an amendment
of the constitution can only be taken after a number of component states have given their
consent. In some cases, the second legislative body has to be consulted for advice before
certain important national decisions can be taken. All these processes waste time before
important decisions are arrived at. Also, the complex system of political institutions in
federation leads to a mere duplication of functions by the institutions concerned. The two
levels of legislative bodies as well as the executive at both the federal and component state
levels duplicate functions and merely waste scarce resources. Finally, each component
state pursues its own policies and programmes in the federal systems. As a result of this,
some states, especially those endowed with rich resources may develop faster while those
destitute in those resources lag behind.
CONFEDERATION
We have already discussed the two forms of government in which political power is
concentrated in a single authority and another in which power is shared between the central
and the unit governments. There is a third form which is not as popular in recent times as
the two already discussed. That is the confederal system of government. Both federation
and confederation derive their meaning from the Latin-word feodus. Confederation is an
association of independent states with a common centre purposely for general administration
of common interest. A Dictionary of Modern Politics defines a confederacy or
confederation as "a political system originating in an agreement made between several
independent entities that wish to retain a high degree of autonomy." Danzinger (1998)
explains the concept as an association in which states delegate some power to a supra
national central government, but retain primary power. It can be said that a confederation
is a loose association of independent states that agree to co-operate on specified matters.
In a confederation, the states retain their sovereignty, which means that each has supreme
power within its borders (Janda et al, 2000). Examples of confederations are very difficult
to come by. A few examples that are on hand include the United Arab Emirates, which is a
confederation of many states and the United Nations which also has a confederal structure
made up of about 190 member states and the African Union (AU). There are also economic
confederations such aS the European Union (EU) and the Economic Community of West
African States (ECOWAS) as well as military confederations such as the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) (Danzinger, 1998).
Features of Confederation
Confederation and federation look very much alike. However, the two diverge in a number
of respects. First, the confederal system, unlike federation gives much autonomy to the
Systems of Government 1 19
constituent units, which are recognised as sovereign states, but not as mere constituent
units as in the case of federation. Second and flowing from the above, the recognition of
the component units as sovereign entities makes them more powerful than the central
government. Third, in a confederation, the right of the constituent units to secede from the
association is permissible and made illegal. Fourth and finally, the component governments
do not largely depend on the central government for financial and other forms of support.
Merits and Demerits of Confederation

A confederation has a number of benefits. In the first place, like a federation, a confederacy
as a system of government promotes unity in diversity. That is, it gives people with diverse
ethnic, religious and cultural backgrounds the opportunity to live together as one nation
while preserving their separate identities at the same time. Besides, the confederal system
avoids political friction and reduces political tension among the various ethnic groups and
between the two levels of government. This results from the considerable autonomy given
to the component states. In addition to the above, a confederacy provides considerable
flexibility in the administration of states. The greater autonomy the component states enjoy
enables them to adopt and adapt any administrative system that suits them. Again, the
system promotes to a larger degree local self-government as the component states are free
to mobilize available resources for development at their own pace. Furthermore, the
confederal system helps to adequately address the diverse needs of people with diverse
ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Lastly, the central government has too little control over
the activities of the governments of the component states. This gives the governments of
the component states the freedom to provide efficient administration.
The above merits notwithstanding, there are a few problems that beset the system. One of
them has to do with the rights of the component states to secede from the association. This
makes the confederal system very fragile or weak and can easily collapse at any time.
Confederations are usually less stable. Another problem inherent in the confederal system
is the consequence of the greater autonomy given to the component state governments.
The arrangement makes the central government too weak to effectively control and
coordinate activities and as well push through its policies. Last but not least, the success of
confederation depends largely on the mutual understanding of the component states. As a
result of their sovereign status, the system can break at any time.
Summary
• In the presidential executive system, the electorate vote directly or indirectly to
elect a single chief executive for the state through a popular election to perform a
dual role the ceremonial head of state and head of government.
• The role of the head of state and head of government are performed by two
separate personalities in the parliamentary system.
• The hybrid model is a mixture of some of the salient features of both the presidential
and parliamentary systems of government.
• In the unitary system, the total governmental power is lumped together and
concentrated in a single authority located at the administrative capital of the state.
• Federation is a system of government in which the total governmental power has

been defined and shared between government for the whole state and governments
for parts of the state.
• Confederation is a loose association of independent states.
Revision Questions
1. Discuss the features of the presidential executive system of government.
2. Outline with practical examples the merits and demerits of the presidential
executive system.
3. Explain the functions of the president in the presidential executive system.
4. What is the cabinet executive system? What are its main features?
5. Describe the striking features of the parliamentary system of government.
6. Discuss the status and functions of the prime minister in the cabinet executive
system of government.
7. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the parliamentary system of
government?
8. Account for the overwhelming adoption of the unitary system.
9. Explain the concept of federation. Outline the outstanding features of federation.
10. Give an account of the factors that necessitate the adoption of the federal system
of government.
11. Discuss the power distribution system in federation.
12. What are the merits and demerits of a federal system?
13. What is confederation? Explain its key features
Chapter Six
DEMOCRACY AND GOOD GOVERNANCE

Key Issues
Democracy Direct Democracy
Representative Democracy
Good Governance Tenets of
Good Governance
The world has since the past few decades been experiencing an exponential growth in
the practice of democratic governance. More and more countries in Africa, Asia, the
Americas and even in Europe where democracy originated, are at the moment practising
one form of democratic governance or the other. Democracy and good governance are
catchy terminologies found on the lips of scholars and politicians alike. A section of the
people around the globe use both terms parrot-fashion. The widespread usage of these
terms coupled with their relevance in present day political discourse has necessitated a
detailed discussion in an introductory book on political science such as this one. We will
proceed to define these concepts and identify their distinctive features in this chapter.
DEMOCRACY
• The concept of democracy

• Types of democracy
• Good governance
• Tenets of good governance
Democracy is a contested term. Various authors have adorned it with assorted meanings.
Etymologically speaking, the word democracy is a compound of two Greek words, demos,
meaning the people and kratia, kratos and cratia meaning rule or the verb kratien,
meaning to rule (Hague & Harrop, 2010; Ball & Dagger, Van Dyke, 1992, Das, 1996;
Danziger, 1998). Literally speaking, the word democracy means the people's rule. In the
simplest and ordinary sense, democracy means rule by the people or the masses. It should
be understood as the government by the majority of the people, that is, government based
121
on the approval or consent of the majority. Aformer president of the United States, Abraham
Lincoln demystified democracy when he defined it simply as "the government of the people,
by the people and for the people". Lincoln's definition is very important as it places emphasis
on the people who constitute the final source of political power in the state. This definition
is based on the literal meaning of democracy as a people's government. In the words of
Joseph Schumpeter (2003):
the democratic method is that institutional arrangement for arriving

at political decision which realizes the common good by [themselves]
decide issues through the election of individuals who are to assemble
in order to carry out its will (p. 50).
Another definition of democracy is offered by Philippe Schmitter and Terry Lynn Karl
(1996). In their work, the two scholars define democracy as ".. .a system of governance
in which rulers are held accountable for their actions in the public realm by citizens,
acting indirectly through the competition and cooperation of their elected
representatives" (p.50).
T^pes of Democracy
Democratic governance is of various types. There are the ancient, classical, direct, pure or
the Athenian democracy; indirect or representative democracy; liberal and non liberal
democracy (also known as the Socialist or Communist democracy). In this work, the
focus of our discussion will be on the classical and representative types.
Direct Democracy
The direct or ancient democracy is the pure form of democracy which was practised in the
ancient Greek city-state of Athens. According to the Oxford Concise Dictionary of
Politics, this form of democratic rule existed from 500 BC to 330 BC. In this system, the
political power of the people lay in the hands of all the free born adult male citizens of the
city-state. The adult male citizens were entitled to attend the Ecclesia or Assembly (a kind
of town-meeting), which was held about ten times within a year (Hey wood, 2004). The
meetings were held at the market place called Agora to discuss and take decisions about
how ihQpolis (city-state) was to be governed. In this form of democracy, all important
government positions were filled by drawing lots (by election). For the purpose of achieving
this, the whole political community of Athens was divided into three sections. Each section
was split into thirty parishes and each parish was ruled by a council called the Demis,
meaning the people. By this system, political power was shared among as many citizens as
possible instead of being concentrated in the hands of a few (Crowder, Cootes & Snellgrove,
1971). Administrative functions were exercised by a council which comprised 500 citizens
Democracy And Good Governance 123
aged over thirty year;, selected through elections for a period of one year. The mode of
selecting members to serve on the council was rotational exemplifying a principle of
"community democracy"; "all to rule over each and each in his turn over all" (Hague &
Harrop, 2010). Under the rotational system, one third of the citizenry was given the
opportunity to serve on the council at some stage, thus giving each person the opportunity
to serve his community at least once in his life time. To prevent the emergence of
authoritarianism, members of the Athenian Assembly were permitted to write the name of
persons whom they thought to have authoritarian tendencies on a piece of broken tablet
called an Ostrakon. f it emerged that 6 000 citizens wrote the same name, that person
was declared persona non grata and was subsequently ostracised (from the Ostrakon
for ten years).
Every adult male citizen held public office once in his life time. This pure form of democracy
cannot be practised in any modern world today due to the high populations of states and
the complexities of state administration. The system has now given way to the present
system of represent*.tive democracy in which the people select certain individuals to
represent them in government. The representatives rule on behalf of the people and with
their consent. This modem form of democracy can, therefore, be referred to as representative
democracy. It can also be referred to as indirect democracy. This is because the masses
take part in the process of governance indirectly through their elected representatives.
Since the modem tyjie of democracy came from the West, it is often times referred to as
Western democracy. It is also called liberal democracy because it guarantees the enjoyment
of individual liberties and also permits rule of law to effectively operate.
The Athenian democracy which is regarded as the pure form of democracy is distinguished
from other variants of democracy which developed out of it by a number of features. First,
there was mass participation in the political affairs of the state. It was only women, slaves
and aliens who were excluded from participating in the political affairs of the slate. Any
male adult member of Athens, aged 20 years and above could attend assembly sessions
and address the people. Assembly sessions were attended by citizens themselves, and not
their representatives as in the case of representative democracy which we shall discuss
soon. Second, decisions that were reached after deliberations in the assembly were based
on the views of the majority of the people, which was determined by the show of hands,
that is by voting. There was political equality. In furtherance with the equality principle in
the Athenian democracy, citizens were paid an average day's wage to motivate both the
poor and the rich to attend assembly sessions, participate in debate and decide on policy
issues by their votes (Ball & Dagger, 1991). Each individual enjoyed equal opportunities in
the society (Hague & Harrop, 2010).
Merits and Demerits of Direct Democracy

Direct democracy was useful for a number of reasons. In the first place, it afforded a good
number of the citizens the opportunity to participate directly in the management of the
affairs of the city-state. As we have earlier stated, apart from women, slaves and foreigners,
every adult resident of the city state was given an equal opportunity to participate in
governance. Each member had the privilege to serve in the council at least once in his
lifetime. Secondly the system promoted consensus building. Major decisions were arrived
at by consensus established through voting (showing of hands), which is an essential
ingredient for nation building. This is in sharp contrast with some earlier forms of governance
such as aristocracy, oligarchy and monarchy in which only the few privileged people had
the opportunity to make decisions for the entire society (Ball & Dagger, 1991; Heywood,
2007). Finally, because decisions emanated from the people themselves as every citizen
had the opportunity to make an input, due recognition was given to such positions attained
through consensus. This promoted legitimacy in the administration of the state. Often times,
people who find themselves outside the political system, develop the tendency to revolt.
The direct involvement of people in decision making processes served as an impetus for
maintaining the status quo.
It is said that in every liver there is bile. The pure form of democracy, in spite of the merits
outlined above also had its own flaws. The system was criticized in a number of ways. It
was believed that between the fifth and the fourth centuries BC the adherents came under a
barrage of criticisms. One of the vociferous critics, Socrates, slammed the Athenian
direct democracy as being a dangerously unstable form of government. Like his teacher
and friend, Plato, he criticized this form of democracy as entrusting political power into the
hands of ignorant and envious people who will not know how to use the power for the
common good. He added that because of their ignorance, the leader of the Athenian society
would easily be swayed through flattery by demagogues (Ball & Dagger, 1991). Joining
the critics, Aristotle, a student of Plato, condemned this form of democracy which was
touted as an ideal system of government, arguing that it concentrated power in the hands of
great masses of poor people who might pursue their selfish interests at the expense of the
larger section of the society. Direct democracy was also criticized for discriminating against
women and slaves. These groups of people were denied the right to participate in the
governance of their own political society.
As populations expanded, and societies became more complex, the classical form of
democracy proved inadequate to deal with the changing trend. The need, therefore, arose
for reforms to modify the political system taking into account the emerging demands. The
agora, where assembly meetings were held, could not have accommodated the dense
nature of populations of modern states. The dictates of modern times made it almost
Democracy And Good Governance \ 25
impossible for the practice of direct democracy hence the introduction of representative
democracy in which the people choose people to represent them in the assembly.
Representative Democracy
Representative Democracy, as we have indicated earlier, emerged as populations of modem
states increased astronomically and governance systems became more complex. With this
variant of democracy, the people elect their representatives into the legislature to among
others make laws to govern the society hence the name representative democracy. Aside
the selection of representatives as opposed to the direct participation of governance in the
direct democracy, this new form of democracy takes almost all die features of the ancient
democratic model hence the name representative democracy. Representative democracy
is also called indirect democracy because it allows the people to participate in governance
indirectly through their elected representatives in government.
Essential Features of Representative Democracy

Representative democracy has a number of features that distinguish it from other modes of
democracy. These include the holding of periodic elections, the existence of a multi-party
system, enjoyment of basic freedoms, independent judiciary, tolerance of divergent views,
existence of rule of law and free media.
Universal participation
It would be recalled that under die Atlienian democratic model, almost all the members of
the polis were allowed to participate in the administration of the state. A segment of the
society was, however, denied this opportunity of participating in the management of the
affairs of the state - slaves, women and foreigners. With the representative democratic
model, all adult citizens irrespective of their sex and status are allowed to take part in the
governance of their state. This participation in governance took the form of voting to select
leaders to hold public office and also contesting for public office (Roskin et al, 1991).
Citizens also have a wide array of opportunities to join a host of private organizations,
associations and voluntary groups, most of which are concerned with issues of public
policy. This freedom to belong to associations is fundamental to representative democracy.
The coming together of people to form associations empowers them to be heard and also
make a claim in how t their society is governed.
Periodic Elections
Democracies rest on elections. Frequently held or periodic election is therefore one important
ingredient of representative democracy. The election enables the electorate to choose and
change or replace their representatives in government. It thus helps the electorate to renew
or withdraw their mandate to the people they have entrusted their power to represent them
in government. The election conducted to select their leaders must be free, fair and
transparent. That is, voters must be free to select their leaders in a secret ballot without any
intimidation, violence, or threats of all forms. The elections itself should also be free from
all forms of irregularities. As you have noted from our earlier discussion, in a representative
democracy, unlike the pure form of democracy, every adult citizen who possesses the
necessary qualification is allowed to participate in the selection of their leaders without any
unwarranted discrimination or limitation based on property, education, religion, creed,
colour, ethnicity, sex, income status or residence. Each adult citizen of sound mind and
having the requisite qualifications has a single vote in the election.
Multi-Party System
The existence of a multi-party system is another essential ingredient of representative
democracy. For a true democratic environment to prevail, there must be more than a single
political party with alternative programmes competing for political power. This gives the
people the opportunity to make free choices from among competing parties and candidates
in order to come out with the one the majority of the people prefer to from the government.
The situation where the people have no choice but only have to endorse sole candidates
put up by a single political party does not help in the attainment of the democratic environment
required.
Independent Electoral Commission

For elections to be free, fair and transparent and for the results to be acceptable to all
parties of interest, the body mandated to conduct and supervise the polls (electoral
commission) must be independent. The commission must thus be free from the influence
and control of both the ruling party and the opposition groups.
Enjoyment of Rights and Freedoms

It is also essential for the individual citizens to enjoy their basic rights and freedoms in a
democratic environment. Democracy promotes and protects the rights and freedoms of
the people to enable them to develop their full potentials. These freedoms include specifically,
the freedoms of association, expression, and movement among several others. These
freedoms enable the citizens to form and join independent associations including political
parties, express themselves freely and to hold rallies and go on processions. In addition to
these, the citizens must enjoy other rights such as economic, social, civil, legal and political
rights.
Tolerance of Divergent Views

The government should be tolerant of dissenting views from individual citizens and
associations including specifically the opposition or minority parties. They all have it as a
right to express their opinion concerning how the state should be governed.
Majority Rule and Minority Rights

In a democracy, the wishes of the majority form the basis of any decision. It is also incumbent
on the majority to protect and respect the rights of the minorities. This derives from the
fact that democratic laws and institutions protect the rights of all citizens including those of
the minorities - whether ethnic, religious or political or simply the losers in the debate over
a controversial legislation majority intends to introduce. It should be noted that the rights of
the minorities do not depend upon the willingness of the majority. The majority should
therefore not use their position to oppress the minority. Rather, they should strive to convince
the minority to accept their position and not use force or threat on them to achieve this
goal.
Popular Consultation
Democratic culture requires interaction between the people and their leaders as it affords
the latter the opportunity to know the needs of the former and take steps to address them.
The needs of the people can be known though media reports, holding of conferences,
conducting opinion polls, press conferences and so on. Knowledge of the needs of the
people goes a long way to build their confidence in the political office holders.
Independent Judiciary
For a true democratic environment to prevail, there must be in existence an impartial and
independent judiciary that can handle all cases of electoral irregularities lodged with it
without any fear or favour. In addition the judiciary must also protect the people's rights
and freedoms. To attain this, judges must enjoy security of tenure and attractive service
conditions. They should also be free from the control of any other organs of government,
institutions or groups of individuals
Independent Media
For democracy to be effective there must exist an independent media whose responsibility
is to educate, entertain and inform the citizenry. Besides, the media must also have the
power to monitor government actions and inactions. An independent media is free from
governmental control and laws that are inimical to its effective operation.
Public Complaint Commission

The existence of public complaint commission such as the Ombudsman or the Commission
on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) is essential in a democracy. This
body receives complaints and investigates cases of abuse of power involving state officials
and institutions.
Effective Police Service

An efficient police service is needed in the administration of a democratic state. For the
police service to play its effective role in maintaining peace and security in the state by
effecting the arrest of people whose actions will infringe on the rights of others to face
prosecution, the personnel should be professionally trained, well motivated and well
equipped with the relevant communication equipment. This will enable the people to enjoy
their rights and liberties in the state.
Critique of Representative Democracy

The representative democracy model has attained a marked popularity world-wide. Almost
all the advanced countries and many developing countries have opted for this model of
democracy because of the numerous benefits derived from it.
Political Stability
Representative democracy ensures relative stability in the administration of the state.
Democracy, as Agarwal et al put it, is a government by persuasion and compromise and as
such, it is immune from the dangers of political upheavals. The people change their government
through the ballot box. There is, therefore, no reason why some people should hatch a
conspiracy against the government in power or resort bullets to destabilize the administration.
The system also allows a peaceful transfer of political power. In most of the other systems,
leaders are sometimes forced out of office.
Protection of Rights and Freedoms

It is instructive to note that representative democracy protects the rights of the citizenry
through constitutional safeguards. It recognizes the worth of every individual citizen of the
state and also assures him or her of the opportunity to contribute his or her quota in the
development of their society. Democracy is sensitive to the suffering and wishes of the
people. So under a democratic regime, no individual citizen can complain that he or she
has no chance to be heard (Agarwal et al, 1994).
Ensures Efficiency
The model of democracy in question is often said to be one of the most efficient forms of
government. Political power is divided and shared among the three organs of government
with each of them specializing in their respective areas of jurisdiction. Obviously,
specialization engenders efficiency in administration. Besides, the system allows the executive
to make use of experts and specialists in policy formulation, though the final approval lies
in the bosom of the people's representatives.
Consensus Building
Democracy also promotes consensus building. Decisions taken in democratic regimes are
often based on majority views. This system gives room for consensus to be built before
arriving at important national decisions.
Equality in Political Participation

Representative democratic system accords all the people equal rights to vote, contest
elections and to hold public office without any discrimination on the basis of wealth,
intelligence, creed, colour, sex or social status. It also ensures equality of opportunities and
economic security to the people. Every individual is assured of the minimum necessity of
life and social securities (Agarwal et al, 1994).
Majority Rule
Finally, the representative democracy model is perhaps the only form of government that
allows the majority as opposed to the minority to rule. In all the other systems of government
or forms of ideology, be it nazism, fascism, socialism, monarchy, oligarchy, autocracy and
aristocracy, it is only a few elites who rule. In representative democracy however, it is the
majority of the people who rule. The government rules with consent of the majority and all
major policies must be approved by the representatives of the people.
Every rose, it is said, has a thorn and in spite of the many advantages derived from the
representative democracy, the regime is not spared criticisms.
One of the criticisms often leveled against the system is that most of the liberal democracies
are capitalistic. They tend to favour only the propertied class or the few rich elite in the
society to the total neglect of the poor masses. It takes the very few rich people or business
magnates to form political parties. They can also buy votes to enable their sponsored
political parties win elections and ultimately exercise political power. Parties run on the
funds of the rich. Big financiers of political parties can manipulate the press and platforms
to win support for policies which favour them and the interest their parties stand for.
Politicians therefore become mere willing tools in the hands of the rich financiers of political
parties (Agarwal et al, 1994). Some critics have also pointed out that representative
democracy has ceased to become a government by the majority. It is now a government
by the elite minority in which power is exercised by a few dominant party leaders. Also, in a
majority of cases, the number of votes secured by the party in power is less than those
won by the parties in opposition put together. This pertains to countries where the principle
of first-past-the-post is used. Popularity, they say, is not the same as efficiency. Democracy is
also condemned as being a form of government which puts political power in the hands of
incompetent and igno 'ant people who, due to the sheer number they command, always
win votes. Decision-making in democratic regimes is always based on the majority which
is construed to be right all the time. But care must be taken that majority decision cannot
be right all the time. They can sometimes be wrong. The fact that the majority decision
should always rule should not be construed to mean that the majority is always right (Agarwal
et al, 1994). The representative principle of democracy is also questioned by some critics. A
person is elected to represent everybody in the constituency but this is practically
impossible. How can the elected representative in the assembly represent the people in all
aspects of social life? He or she at best represents his profession or class of people.
GOOD GOVERNANCE
Like democracy, the concept of good governance has also gained currency in recent times.
All over the world and particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa both public office holders and
the ordinary man in the street talk of good governance in a parrot-fashion. This concept
needs to be explained to both students and practitioners of politics.
The word governance has been defined as the exercise of economic, political and
administrative authority to manage a nation's affairs at all levels. The concept can also be
explained as "a process referring to the manner in which power is exercised in the
management of the affairs of a nation and its relations with other nations (World Bank,
1999). Gyimah-Boadi (2001) also views the concept as "the manner in which power is
exercised in the management of a country's economic and social resources for
development" (p.3). Though the conception of governance entails a wide range of issues,
three major aspects are emphasized. These are the mode by which people in authority are
selected, the manner in which the elected officers exercise power in the management of
public affairs and the capacity of the government machinery to manage resources and
formulate and implement policies (Siddiquee & Zon Mohammed, 2007).
The World Bank defines good governance as an efficient, open, accountable and audited
public service which has the bureaucratic competence to design and implement appropriate
policies and manage whatever public sector there is. It also entails an independent judicial
system to uphold the law and resolve disputes arising in a largely free market economy
(Leftwich, 1992).
Now that we have understood the concept, it is appropriate to proceed to explain its core
factors which are effective states, mobilized civil societies and productive private sectors.
An effective state refers to the creation of an enabling legal and political environment
necessary for economic growth and equitable distribution of resources. There is also the
need for civil society groups to be mobilized to expedite political and social interaction in
order to foster societal cohesion and stability. To attain accelerated national development,
the private sector should be developed to create jobs and provide income for the bulk of
the citizens (Gyimah-Boadi, 2001).
Evolution of Good Governance

In 1989, the World Bank identified bad governance as the bane of Africa's development.
In spite of the huge financial support given to most African countries, no tremendous
improvement in the lives of the people was realized. The Bank therefore identified bad
government as a major challenge to Africa's development effort. It began to find ways of
addressing the challenge and the good governance concept was developed as an antidote.
At this stage it is apposite to delve into the factors that precipitated the introduction of the
good governance concept, particularly in Africa.
The rise in pro-democracy movements in Africa and other parts of the world which demanded
improved governance was one of the factors that served as a catalyst for the introduction
of the concept. In Ghana, for example, Professor Albert Adu Boahen opened a new wave
of criticisms and agitation for democratic reforms at the J.B. Danquah Memorial Lectures
in February 1988. In March the same year, the Ghana Trades Union Congress (TUC) at
its delegates' conference issued a communique calling on the military government to respect
the fundamental rights of Ghanaians and to convene and draft a new constitution to usher
the country into constitutional rule. The National Union of Ghana Students (NUGS) also
added its voice to the call on the government to among other things repeal all repressive
laws and restore constitutional mle.. Similai- bodies made similar demands in otlier parts of
the continent.
The development failures of the African continent in the 1980s coupled with the poor
achievements chalked up under the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) was another
factor that pushed the good governance agenda forward. During the period, most
Sub-Saharan African countries implemented the Brethon Woods's recommended SAP with
the hope to boosting their economy. But very little success was achieved in most cases
thereby bringing to the fore, the various factors that accounted for poor performance of the
economies in spite of huge capital injection from the Bank and other donors.
Another factor was the forces of globalization which emerged after the end of the Cold
War. The end of the East-West ideological warfare and the subsequent collapse of the
Soviet Union brought a sea of change in the international scene. The wave of democracy
blew across the globe leaving behind it a trail of multi-party system and sound economic
management.
The success story of the South East Asian countries and a few others in Africa was also
instrumental in the introduction of the good governance concept. The strategies devised to
accelerate the development in Africa in the first three decades of independence proved
unsustainable bringing in its wake the underlying factors behind the economic quagmire
(Gyimah-Boadi,2001;Leftwich 1993:1-4)..
Key Elements or Features of Good Governance

The World Bank has identified certain key elements as essential for the implementation of
the good governance agenda. Among them are accountability, transparency, combating
corruption, improved public sector management, stakeholder-participation and an effective
legal and regulatory framework.
Accountability
Holders of public office exercise their functions on behalf of the state. It is, therefore,
incumbent upon them to be accountable to the citizenry for the decisions taken regarding
the use of public resources entrusted to them. Accountability may be explained as the
ability to hold public officials answerable to the people for their actions and inactions.
Gyimah-Boadi (2001) explained the concept as:
"holding responsible, elected or appointed officials and organizations

charged with a public mandate to account for specific actions,
activities or decisions to the public from which they derive their
authority" (p.9).
In essence, accountability involves the ability to hold pubic officers responsible for the
allocation, use and control of public resources in line with legally accepted standards. To
ensure good governance, it was essential for rulers to be made to account to the ruled
about how state resources were used for the development of the state. This demands the
making and use of rules that deal with the management of state affairs and the proper
handling of state resources (Word Bank, 1999). The holding of free, fair, transparent,
periodic and competitive elections, the institution of independent media commission,
independent judiciary, independent electoral commission, effective public account committee
of parliament, effective parliamentary oversight, independent audit body, independent public
complaint and investigative body and other independent constitutional commission are
identified as relevant ingredients for the attainment of the accountability principle
(Gyimah-Boadi, 2001).
Transparency
To be transparent means to be open in all one's dealings. Transparency is, therefore,
concerned with openness in governance processes. Public office holders are not only
expected to be accountable to the public but to be transparent as well in all that they do.
As managers of state resources on behalf of the public, they are expected to make available
any information regarding the utilization of state resources for public examination. Again,
transparency allows for public accounts to be made open for public scrutiny. This is in line
with what Aristotle stated in his work Politics:
"...to protect the Treasury from being defrauded, let all money be in
issued openly front of the whole city, and let copies of the accounts
be deposited in the various wards..." (Cited in Gyimah-Boadi, 2001).
Transparency in governance can also be achieved when government strategies and policies
are made easy and accessible to the public. The introduction of the right to information law
is very essential in this direction.
Combating Corruption
The word "corruption" is almost a household term on the lips of everybody on a daily
basis. In most developing countries, particularly those in Africa, almost every public office
holder from the president to the lowest public servant is branded as corrupt. The word
corruption is derived from the Latin root rumpere, meaning to break something badly. If it
is related to the public service, it means using one's office to break a moral or an ethical
code that governs the office and the person who breaks this rule derives from it something
of value, either for himself or herself, his or her family or other associations the officer has
close connections with. The corruption phenomenon ranges from bribery, extortion, fraud,
embezzlement, graft, kickback, favouritism in all its forms to conflict of interest.
Corruption has been identified as one of the principal causes of stagnation and in some
cases backward development in most African countries. Looting the public purse and
stashing the proceeds in foreign bank accounts including the Swiss Bank by public office
holders is commonplace in Africa. President Mobutu Sese Seko bragged in 1984 that he
was the second richest man in the world with more than $ 8 billion in a numbered personal
account at the Swiss Bank. By 1989 he was receiving almost $ 100 million to spend as he
wished; an amount which was more than what the government spent on education, health
and all other social services put together (Ayittey, 1992). Mousa Traore, a former Malian
head of state, looted the country to amass a personal fortune worth $ 2 billion- an amount
equal to the size of the country's foreign debt. Houphouet-Boigny is reported to have
stated that he had assets abroad, but they were not assets belonging to La Cote d' Ivoire.
He asked "what sensible man does not keep his assets in Switzerland, the whole world's
bank?" and further stated that "I will be crazy to sacrifice my children's future in this crazy
country without thinking of their future" (Ayittey, 1992). The list can go on and on. It
appears ministers of state and other public office holders on cue loot state coffers to which
they have fiduciary responsibility at the slightest opportunity. Corruption in all forms
-whether petty or grand has enormous negative consequences in the development of the
state. It stifles initiatives and therefore slows down investment and economic growth, leads
to economic inefficiencies, distorts development, inhibits long-term foreign and domestic
investments, crowds out productive investments, increases the cost of doing government
business and reduces the availability of government funds for development related activities.
All these retard the rate of development of a state (Brako, 2011; Ayee, 2002;
Gyimah-Boadi,2001).
To put the African continent on the development pedestal comparable to those in Europe
and the Americas, it is imperative to launch a crusade against this canker. Governments are
to put in place combative policies and programmes that will suffice to reduce the incidence
of corruption.
In this regard, anti-corruption institutions such as the police, courts and public complaint
commission among others need to be strengthened to win the fight against corruption.
Other measures include naming and shaming of public officials who indulge in corrupt
practices, imposing stiffer anddeterrent punishment to make corruption unattractive to
those who engage in them and strict enforcement of all anti-corruption laws will all help to
abate the menace (World Bank, 1999).
Improved Public Sector Management

An inefficient public sector has also been identified as one other cause of Africa's
development challenge. An antidote to this was the injection of reforms to rejuvenate the
public service and make it more vibrant and effective. This brings into sharp focus the
question of public sector reform. Reforming the public service to make it more efficient
and effective cannot be ruled out if the poor performance in the public bureaucracy is to be
reversed. Administrative reform has been defined by Nti (1996) as
"A systematic process of introducing changes with the objective of

improving management practices, eliminating or at least minimizing
the dysfunctions in the structure and process of an administrative
system to make it more efficient and effective in attaining its objective
and sustaining such gains" (p.3).
Public sector reforms has been the characteristic of the economic policy since the World
Bank introduced the Economic Recovery Progrmme (ERP) and its twin component, the
Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) in the 1980s which aimed at downsizing the civil
service, reducing the size of government, reducing budget deficit, reforming sub vented
agencies and creating conditions favourable for private sector development.
Improved public sector management means an open and efficient public service which is
professional, disciplined and skillful to design and implement appropriate policies and
programmes for the management of the country's public sector (World Bank, 1999; Blunt
1995).
Stakeholder Participation
Stakeholder participation denotes the involvement of the citizens in die making, monitoring,
review and termination of government actions and inactions that concern them. To ensure
good governance, stakeholders (groups including the citizens in general and civil societies)
should be empowered to participate in decision-making processes and demand
accountability from their leaders. Stakeholder participation involves the creation of the
enabling environment that will allow individuals, private sector and civil society to take part
in their own governance. The advantage is that stakeholders are given the opportunity to
control, check and influence public policies and programmes for the benefit of the whole
society (Gyimah-Boadi, 2001).
Legal and Regulatory Framework

Effective operation of good governance hinges on a solid legal and regulatory framework.
In an environment where the legal system is weak and the application of law is uncertain
and enforcement of the rules governing the state is arbitrarily done, it creates the opportunity
for distorting economic transactions, fostering of rent-seeking activities and discouraging
private capital flows. The ultimate effect of this is compromised national development. A
remedy to the above situation is the creation of the necessary legal environment in which
there are explicit laws and regulations which are applied uniformly by an independent
judiciary (Gyimah-Boadi, 2001).
Summary
• Democracy is a system of government in which rulers are held answerable for their
actions and inactions by citizens through their elected representatives. The two
main types of democracy are direct and representative. Direct democracy was
practised in Athens and it involved the participation of adult male citizens directly
in the management of the affairs of the state. In representative democracy, the
people vote to select their representatives into government to manage affairs on
their behalf for a period.
• Good governance is a concept introduced by the Bretton Woods Institutions to

reverse the poor state of governance in Third World countries. It involves an
efficient, open, accountable and audited public service which is capable of
formulating and implementing appropriate policies and delivering quality service to
the public. Some of the key elements of the good governance concept are
accountability, transparency, the fight against corruption, efficient public service,
stake-holder participation and an effective legal and regulatory framework.
Revision Questions
1. Distinguish between direct democracy and representative democracy.
2. Discuss the essential features of representative democracy.
3. What is good governance? Outline the key elements of good governance.
4. Explain the key principles underpinning the good governance concept.
137
Bibliography
Agarwal, N.N. and Bhushan, V. and Bhagwan, V. (1994). Principles of Political Science,
15th ed. (New Delhi: R. Chand & Co.,).
Anifowose, R. and Enemuo, F.C. (1999). Elements of Politics (Lagos:
Malthouse Press Ltd.).
Appadorai, A. (1968). The Substance of Politics (New Delhi: Oxford
University Press) Avasthi, A. and Maheshwaris, S. (1964). Public Administration (New
Delhi: Lakshmi
Narain Agarwal). Ayee, J.R.A. (2002). Corruption and Development in Africa,
Ghana Academy of Arts and
Sciences, 17-19 February. Ayittey, G.N.B. (1992). Africa Betrayed (New
York: St. Martin Press). Baker, E, (1927). National Character and the Factors in its
Formation (London). Ball,A.R. (1993). Modern Politics and Government, 5* ed.
(Basingstoke: Macmillan). Ball, T. and Dagger, R.(1999). Political Ideologies and the
Democratic Ideal (New
York: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers). Baradat, L.P. (1997).
Political Ideologies: Their Origins and Impact 6"1 ed. (New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall). Bealey, F. Chapman, R.A. and Sheehan, M. (1998).
Elements in Political Science
(Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press). Boahen, A. ed. (1985) General
History of Africa VII: Africa under Colonial Domination
1880-1935 (California: UNESCO Heinemann Educational Books). Brako, I.
(2011). "Unmasking the Ugly Faces of Bureaucratic Corruption in Ghana" In
Nketiah, E.S. ed. Distance Forum VoX. 1 (Bloomington: Author House).
Brautigam, D. (1996). "State Capacity and Effective Governance", In Ndulu, B and van
deWalle, N., (eds ) AgendaforAfrica's Economic Renewal'(Oxford: Transaction
Publishers). Cord, R.L; Medeiros, J.A. and Jones, W.S. (1974). Political
Science: An Introduction
(New York: Appleton - Century - Crofts). Crick, B. (2000). In Defence of
Politics 5Ih ed. (Harmondsworth: Penguin). Crowder. M; Cootes, R.J. and S.N.
Snellgrove, L.E (1971). Ancient Times: A Junior
History'far Africa (London: Longman). Dalil, R.A. and Stinebrickner, B.
(2005). Modern Political Analysis 6th ed. (New Delhi:
Prentice-Hall). Danziger, J.N. (1998). Understanding the Political World4lh Ed.
(New York: Addison
Wesley Longman). Danziger, J.N.( 1998). Understanding the Political World
(New York: Longman). Das, H.H. and Choudhury, B.C. (2002). Introduction to Political
Sociology (New Delhi:
Vikas Publishing).
Das, RG. (1986). Modern Political Theory (Kolkata: New Central Book).
Dicey, A.V. (1939). Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution 9th ed.
(Macmillan). Dickerson, M.O. and Flanagan, T. (1990). An Introduction to
Government and Politics:
A Conceptual Approach 3rd ed. (Ontario: Nelson Canada). Donovan, J.C;
Morgan, R.E. and Potholm, C.P. (1981). People, Power and Politics:
An Introduction to Political Science (London: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.).
Garner, F.W. (1930). Political Science and Government (American Book Company)
Gerth, H. and Mills, C.W. (1948). From Max Weber (London: Routledge and Kegan
Paul). Greer, T.H. and Lewis, G. (2002). A Brief History of the Western
World 8,h ed.
(Wadswprth Thomson Learning). Gyimah-Boadi, E. (2001). Governance,
Institution and Values in National Development
(Legon:ISSER). Hague, R. and Harrop, M. (2012). Comparative
Government and Politics: An
Introduction 8th ed. (New York: Palgrave Macmillan). Harley, P. (1980)
"Rodolf Sohm on Charisma" In the Journal of Religion. Vol. 60, No. 2
April pp. 185-197. Harrison, J.B., Sullivan, R.E., and Sherman, D. (1990).
A Short History of Western
Civilization (New York: McGraw-Hill). Hausse, C. (2000). Comparative
Politics; Domestic Responses To Global challenges,
3rd ed. (Wadsworth/Thompson Learning: Califonia). Henderson, C.W.
(1998). International Relations, Conflicts and Co-operation at the
Turn of the 21 Century (Boston: McGraw-Hill). Hey wood, A (1994).
Political Ideas and Conception: An Introduction (London;
MacMillan). Hey wood, A. (2002). Politics, 2nd ed. (New York: Palgrave
Macmillan). Heywood, A. (2004). Political Theory; An Introduction, 3rd ed.
(London: Palgrave
Macmillan). Heywood, A. (2007). Politics, 3^ed. (New York: Palgrave
Macmillan). Hitler, A. (2010). Mein Kampf(New Delhi: Om Book International).
Jackson, R.J. and Jackson, D. (2003). An Introduction to Political Science:
Comparative and World Politics 4th ed. (Toronto: Prentice-Hal). Janda, K,
BerryJ.M and Goldman, J. (2000). The Challenge of Democracy (Boston;
Houghton Mifflin Co.). Johari, J.C. (2011). Comparative Politics, 4th ed.
(NewDheli: Sterling Publishers). Johari, J.C. (2007). Principles of Modern
Political Science (New Dheli: Sterling
Publishers).
Biliography 139
Knuttila, M and Kubik, W. (2000). State Theories: Classical, Global and Feminist
Perspectives 3rd ed. (London: Zed Book Ltd.). Laski, A.J. (1952). A Grammar
of Politics, 5,h ed. (.Allen & Unwin). Lasswell, H. (1936). Politics: Who Gets What,
When, How? (New York: McGraw
Hill). Lawson, K. (2003). The Human Polity: A Comparative Introduction to
Political
Science 5"1 ed. (Boston: Houghton Miffling Co.). Lawson, K. (1985). The
Human Polity: An Introduction to Political Science (Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company). Leacock, S. (1933). Elements of Political
Science (Constable). Leftwich, A. (1993). "Governance, Democracy and Development
in the Third World,"
Third World Quarterly. Vol. 14, No.3, pp. 605-612. Magstadt, T.M. and
Schotten, P.M. (1996). Understanding Politics: Ideas, Institutions
and Issues, 4,hed. (New York: St Martin's Press). Magstadt, T.M. (2006).
Understanding Politics, Ideas, Institutions and Issues Th ed.
(Thomsom Wads worth). Maitland, F.W (1911)., Collected PapersVol. Ill
(Cambridge). Miller, J.D.B. (1962). Tire Nature of Politics (London: Weldenfield and
Nicolson). Mukherjee, S. and Ramaswamy, S. (1999). A History of Political
Thought-Plato to
Marx (New Dehli PHI Learning). Nnoli, O. (1996). Introduction to Politics
(Harlow, Essex: Longman Group Ltd.). Nti, J. (1996) "Civil Service Reform Priorities
and Strategies: Overview of an African
Experience", African Journal of Public Administration. Vol. V-VII, No. 2 July pp.
1-17. O'Neil, P.H., Fields, K and Share, D. (2006). Cases in Comparative
Politics, 2nd ed.
(New York: v| Norton & Co.). Oakeshott, M. (1939), The Social and Political
Doctrines of Contemporary Europe
(Cambridge). Oquaye, M. (1980). Politics in Ghana, 1972-1979 (Accra:
Tornado Publications). Oyediran, O. (1998). Introduction to Political Science
(Ibadan: Oyediran Consults
International). Patterson, RE. (1993). The American Democracy, 2nd ed. (New
York: McGraw-Hill
Inc.). Palmer, N.D. and Perkins, H.C. (2002). International Relations; The
World Community
in Transition 3["d ed. (New Delhi: AITBS Publishers). Palmer, R.R. and Coltqn,
J.(1992). A History of the Modern World (New York: McGraw-Hill). Price, J.H. (1975).
Comparative Government 2nd ed. (London: Hutchhinson and Co.) Ranny, A. (1958).
The\Governing of Men (New York: Holt, Rinehalt &Winston).
r
Roskin, M.G, Cord, R.L. Medeiros, J.A. and Jones, W.S. (1991). Political Science: An
Introduction 4th ed. (New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs). Sabine, G.H. (2009).
A History of Political Theory, 3rd ed. (New.Delhi: Surjeet
Publications). Sargent, L.T. (2006). Contemporary Political Ideologies; A
Comparative Analysis
13th ed. (Wadsworth: Thompson). Schmitter, P.C. and Karl, T.L (1996),
"What Democracy Is...and Is Not," In Diamond, L
and Plattner, M.F. (eds.), The Global Resurgence of Democracy (Baltimore:
The Johns Hopkins University Press). Schumpeter, J. (2003). Capitalism,
Socialism and Democracy (London: Routledge). Shaw, M.N. (1997). International Law
4th ed. (New York: Cambridge University Press). Sherman, D. and Salisbury, J. (2001).
The West in the World: A Mid-Length Narrative
History (Boston: MaGraw-Hill). Shively, W.P. (2008) Power and Choice: An
Introduction to Political Science (Boston:
McGraw-Hill). Skidmore, M. J. (1993). Ideologies: Politics in Action
(Philadelphia: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich). Turner, M.J. Switzer, K. and Redden, C. (1991). American
Government: Principles
and Practices (Westerville, Ohio: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill). Turner, M.J.
Switzer, K. and Redden, C. (1996). American Government: Principles
and Practices (Westerville, Ohio: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill). Turner, M.J.
Switzer, K. and Redden, C. (1987). American Government: Principles
and Practices (Ohio: Manerrill Publishing Company). Van Dyke, V.
(1992). Introduction to Politics 2nd ed. (Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers) Vincent, A.
(1992). Modern Political Ideologies (Oxford: Blackwell). Wheare, K.C. (1956).
Modern Constitutions (London: Oxford University Press). Williams, G (1966) Portrait
of World History (London: Edward Arnold Publishers). Word Bank, (1999) Bank
Group Policy on Good Governance, African Development
Bank, July, pp. 1-5.
www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Peace of Westphalia.aspx
www.constitotion.org/tyr/prin tyr.htm
Index
Index
accountability, 132
Adolf Hitler, 81-83
anarchism, 84-86
anarchocommunism, 86
Aristotle, 2,4,6
Aristotelian school, 8-9
authority, 40-45
features, 41
types, 41-45
charismatic, 42-44; legal-rational system, 44-45; traditional, 41-42
8
bicameral legislature, 111-109
cabinet/parliamentary, 95-104
capitalism, 69-71 censure motion,
98-99 centralization of power, 106
classical conservatism, 69 classical
liberalism, 65-66 collective
responsibility, 98 combating
corruption, 133-134 Commission on
Human Rights and
Administrative Justice (CHRAJ), 127
Communist Manifesto, 75 communism,
78-79
community, as a feature of socialism, 73
comparative politics, 10 confederation,
118-119 consensus building, 129
conservatism, 66-69 corruption, 133-134
concurrent powers, 116
f
D
Das Kapital, 75
democracy, 121-136
and good governance, 121-136
types, 122-130
direct democracy, 122-125; representative democracy, 125
destruction of capitalism, 77 dictatorship of the proletariat, 77 direct
democracy, 122-125
merits and demerits, 124-125
doctrine of class-war, 76-77
E
effective police service, 128
exclusive powers, 116
F
fascism, 79-81
federation/federalism, 110-118
distinguishing features, 111-113
necessary conditions, 113-116
strengths and weaknesses, 117-118
fraternity, 73
G
good governance, 130-136 evolution
of, 131-132 key elements/features,
132-135 government, 11-15,30
classification of, 12-15
aristocracy, 12,14-15; democracy, 12,15; monarchy, 12,13-14;
oligarchy, 15; polity, 12,15; tyranny, 14 defined, 11 functions, 11
systems of, 89-120
cabinet/parliamentary, 95-104
arguments for and against, 102-104
features, 96-102
Index 143
appointment of ministers, 97; cabinet and parliament, 97; censure

motion, 98-99; dual/bicephalous executive, 96-97; indeterminate
term limit, 99-100; ministers as parliamentarians, 97-98;
official opposition in parliament, 101; parliament as political
platform, 99; power to dissolve
parliament, 100; prime minister, status and role, 102; principles of collective
responsibility, 98; responsibility of parliament, 101; strict part discipline, 101;
supremacy of parliament, 100 systems of government, 89-120 confederation,
118-119 features, 119 merits and demerits, 119
G (CONT'D.)
systems of government, 89-120

federation, 110-118
strengths and weaknesses, 117
mixed/hybrid, 105 presidential
executive, 90-95 features, 91-93
direct responsibility to electorate, 92; executive power, 92;
monocephalous, 91; principle of separation of powers, 91;
security of tenure, 92; subordination of ministers, 93; supremacy
of constitution, 93; weak party discipline, 92 powers and
functions, 93-94
ceremonial functions, 93-94 real executive
functions, 94 strengths and weaknesses, 94-95
unitary, 105-109
features, 106
centralization of power, 106
H
Hitler Adolf, 81-83
hybrid/mixed system of government, 105
I
ideology, 55-86
classification of, 58 major
ideologies, 60-86 anarchism,
84-86 capitalism, 69-71
destruction of, 77
communism, 78-79
conservatism, 66-69
classical conservatism, 69 elements
of, 68-69 neo-conservatism, 69
fascism, 79-81
meaning, 80 tenets, 80 major
ideology, 60-86
fascism and Nazism, 79-84
feudalism, 60-63
liberalism, 63-65
features of, 64-65
consent; constitutionalism; equality; freedom;
individualism; justice; reason; toleration, 64-65
classical liberalism,. 65 modern liberalism,
66 neo-liberalism, 66
I (CONT'D.)
major ideology, 60-86
Marxism-Leninism, 74-78
principles of Marxism, 75-78
destruction of capitalism, 77 dialectical materialism,
75-76 doctrine of class-war, 76-77 dictatorship of the
proletariat, 77-78 theory of surplus value Nazism,
81-84
principles underlying, 83-84
socialism, 71-74
features of, 73-74
meaning of ideology, 56 features of
ideology, 57 functions of ideology,
57 left-right continuum, 58-60
Index 145
independent judiciary, 127

independent media, 127 independent
electoral commission, 126 indeterminate
term limit, 99-100 individualism, 64
influence, 40
forms of, 40
international politics, 1.1
justice, 64
K
Karl Heinrich Marx, 74-75
L
Laissez-faire, 70
legitimacy, 45
characteristics of, 45-46
liberalism, 63-66
M
majority rule, 127,129-130
Marxism-Leninism, 74-78
minority rights, 127 modem
liberalism, 66 multi-party
system, 126
N
nation, 27-33
concept, 27-29
distinction between state and nation, 30-32
features, 29-30
common language, 30; government, 30; history, 30;
population, 30; territory, 29-30
JT
nation-state concept, 32-33

national politics, 11
Nazism, 81-84
neo-conservatism, 69
neo-liberalism, 66
o
official opposition in parliament, 101
ombudsman (see Public Complaint Commission), 127
p
periodic elections, 125-126
Plato, 4
political participation, 129
political science
as science, 6-7
nature and scope, 1-16
sub-disciplines, 10-11 political
stability, 128 political theory/political
thought, 10 politics
meaning, 1-6 popular
consultation, 127 power, 38,
characteristics, 38
sources, 39
modes of exercising, 39-40
offer of reward, 40; persuasion, 39; threat of sanction, 39; use of force
power to dissolve parliament, 100 protection of rights and freedoms, 128 public
Administration, 10-11 Public Complaint Commission, 127
R
representative democracy, 125-130
essential features, 125-128
critique of, 128-130
residuary powers, 117
responsibility of parliament, 101
revolutionary socialists, 72
rights and freedoms, 126
Index 147
S
social democrats, 72 social
equality, 73 the social
sciences, 9-10 socialism,
71-74
features of, 73|74 common ownership, 74; community, 73;
fraternity, 73; need, 74; social class, 74; social equality, 73
Socrates, 4 sovereignty, 46-52
features of, 46-48 absoluteness, 46; determinate, 47; exclusiveness, 47;
inalienability, 47; indivisibility, 47;
permanence/perpetuity, 47; ultimate, 47; universality, 47; unlimited, 48
limitations on, 51-52 location of, 48-50 types of, 50-51 stakeholders
participation, 135 the state, 17-36
distinction between State and Nation, 30-32 essential features, 19-22
compulsory membership, 22; international equality, 22 organized
administration/government, 21; permanence, 22; population, 19-20;
sovereignty, 21; system of laws, 21-22; territory, 20-21;
universal/international recognition, 22 origin and meaning, 18 role/functions,
25-27
International relations, 27; maintenance of law and order, 25-26; national
defence and security, 27; promotion of morality, 27; protection of individual
rights and liberties, 26; provision of social economic services, 26; state and
government, 33 distinction, 33-34 state capacity, 34 theories of the origin,
23-25 divine theory, 23 force theory, 24 genetic theory, 25 social contract
theories, 24 strict party discipline, 101 supremacy of parliament, 100
systems of government, 89-120
T
tolerance, 126
transparency, 133-34
V'
unitary government, 105-109,
associated problems, 108-109
features, 106
reasons for adoption, 106-108
universal participation, 125

The ABC of Political Sci. Brako & Asah-Asante

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

The ABC of Political Sci. Brako & Asah-Asante

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The ABC of Political Sci. Brako & Asah-Asante

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The ABC of

All Rights Reserved No part of this

Designed and Printed by

Cover Design by Michael Frimpong

Joseph R.A. Ayee (PhD; FGA; FGIM)

Isaac Brako and Kwame

Chapter One Nature and Scope of Political Science.

Chapter Two The State ...................................

The essential features of the state...

Revision questions ...

Chapter Three The Concepts of Power, Influence, Authority,

Characteristics of power. ...........

Chapter Four Ideology. ............

Elements of conservatism ............ ... ... ... ... 68

Chapter Five Systems of Government ........... ... ... ... ... 89

Status and role of the prime minister..........

The mixed or hybrid system...

Chapter Six Democracy and Good Governance...

Critique of representative democracy. ..... ... ...

Bibliography... ............................................................................ 137

List of Illustrative Materials

NATURE AND2 SCOPE OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

Other Definitions of Politics

power and authority to reconcile interests.

Political science as an academic discipline is relatively new. It was taught as a subject in

Is the study of Politics Scientific?

The Scope of Political Science

Political Theory or Political Philosophy

Table 1: Aristotle's classification of government.

Form of Constitution Normal state seeking Perverted state where the

the common welfare common welfare is ignored

Rule by one Monarchy Tyranny

Rule by a few Aristocracy Oligarchy

Rule by many Polity Democracy

Rule by one person

Arguments in favour of Monarchy

Arguments against Monarchy

Rule by a few people

Arguments in favour of aristocracy

Arguments against aristocracy

Other forms of Government

The Origin of the word State

Meaning of the State

A legally formalized entity having accepted jurisdiction over a territory

The Essential Features of the state

government or organized administration; a

Organized Administration or Government

Universal or International Recognition

Concrete Manifestations of the State

Theories of the origin of the State

Social Contract Theories

The Role of the State

Maintenance of Law and Order

Protection of Individual Rights and Liberties

Provision of Social and Economic Services

take advantage of the situation to set up enterprises and create employment.

National Defence and Security

The Concept of Nation