POLITICAL SCIENCE

LESSON NOTES
CITIZEN AND THE STATE
POL 105

Week 1: Introduction
A political system consists of all the forces, processes, and institutions of a society which
generate effective demand and support inputs and attendant political cooperation or conflict
which are involved in the resolution of conflicts and the subsequent evolution of authoritative
political decisions. In other words, a political system is - “any persistent pattern of human
relationships that involves, to a significant extent, control, influence, power, or authority” (Dahl,
1976).

A state on the hand is larger than a political system. It is an artificial creation that can be related
to concretely through the institutions set up in its name to define it as well as make decisions as
to the organisation and regulation of the public domain. The concept of the state as an abstract
entity or organisational abstraction and presence can be understood in the sense that the physical
features cannot be felt except when it operates through political institutions such as: the
executive, the judiciary, the administration, the armed forces, prisons, governing parties and
governmental institutions (public corporations and means of information) for achieving its
purposes. The government of that system through different roles obviously played by persons
who create, interpret, and enforce rules that are binding on citizens are carried out through the
formal institutional structure and location of authoritative decision-making in the modern state.

The political role of ‘government institutions’ is to receive inputs from their social environment
and produces outputs to respond to the environment” (Putnam, 1993:8-9).It is therefore through
institutional performance that societal demands are transformed into political action or devices
for achieving purposes. It is clear that government evidently is an essential organ through which
the state achieves its moral duty and obligation to administer and render service to the citizens of
the state. Although Midgal, (1994:26) agrees with him that “the state is a special and unique kind
of organization, however, he does not pitch tent with Putnam’s view that the state, through its
governmental institutions, acts as a mediator between social demands and political action.

1
Rather, he argues that the state is at the centre of continuous struggle with other organisations,
over the right and ability to make binding rules in society.

Midgals contention highlights on the one hand, the state as an organisation that has the sole
legitimate right to use power, exercising thus political authority over a given territory and its
inhabitants. The implication of this, in effect, is that the state will be an inert entity without
government at the centre of activity in the use and control of political power. On the other, the
state is conceived as ‘an association of human beings whose members are at least considerable,
occupying a defined territory, and united with the appearance of permanence for political ends,
for the achievement of which certain governmental institutions have been involved (Keeton as
cited in Awolowo, 1968:13).What is implied here is that a state should be sovereign;
autonomous, have a territorial boundary and have a government.

Given this rather ‘standard’ arguments, it becomes clear that ‘the ability of the state, through a
set of its defining institutions, to make acceptable and binding decisions on the organisation of
the public domain is not only related to the capacity of these institutions to translate decisions
into action, but also depends, in a significant sense, on the acceptability of the rules and
principles underpinning the activities and actions of the state’s institutions (Amuwo and Olaitan,
1994). To this end, the state has to transcend being an organisational presence to exist as a “set of
broad organizing principles which defines and constitutes the enduring and continuous pattern of
rule and governance which links and structures the many and diverse institutions of rule and
governance into a coherent whole and totality (Shaheen, 1987) that is internalized and accepted
by the people. The need for the internalization is based on the fact that the “society over which
the state presides and superintends is essentially fragmented into ‘contrasting interests’ that are
perpetually in a contest over the public domain such that the actions of the state in that regard
hold enormous importance and implications for the various groups and interests (Gianfranco,
1978).

At this point, it is pertinent to know how the state will ensure fair play in a plural society
characterised, as it were, by diversities and inequalities. The function of the state in ensuring fair
play is couched in law which inevitably is the basis of the modern state which must be called
upon for the resolution of the inevitable conflict between the social interests of the society and
the individual selfish interests. This is because the rule of law which differentiates the modern

2
state from the feudal or traditional society specifically is a system or at least a collectivity of
norms or rules which have the object of regulating, and therefore also of affecting the actions of
man, including that of the state. The organs regarded everyone as competent by to formulate and
create binding legal norms in a domestic society such as Nigeria is the National Assembly. In
this respect, the stereotyped concept of law as a mere command of the sovereign directed to the
subject or as a mere regulator of conduct, must be significantly modified if its purpose in society
is to be realised. This presupposition means that a state enjoys legitimacy and authority derived
not only from the democratic mandate but built on the traditional liberal tradition of separation of
legislative, executive and judiciary.

In sum, based on the above, given that the state is for man, and not man for the state or better still
the state is still greater than an individual or any of it constituent units i.e parts or groups who
dwell within it, it must be given a more dynamic role in the pressing duty of providing for the
minimum standard of the living for its citizens, and for their happiness through social justice.

1) Effective Governmental Authority

One of the defining characteristics of the state is that it takes place within a context of the
ultimate authority to which all are subordinate. Authority is a legal concept which means that
government has the legal right of making decisions which people are required to obey; and the
right to use coercion to enforce its laws. This feature is very important because governmental
policies are not likely to be effective if the rules are not obeyed. Also, if the stamp of authority
behind law is lacking, in line with government’s authority to enforce, then no effective authority
will be produced. For instance, in some societies people willingly/voluntarily comply with
virtually all laws and force is really exerted while in other societies governments rely heavily on
coercion which is often unsuccessful at times because of the resistance which they will encounter
through riots and demonstrations. In the Nigerian society, there is substantial disobedience
because most people do not comply with most laws most of the time.

2) Sovereignty

This word derived from a Latin word ‘superamus’ which means supremacy. The absolute and
perpetual power of the state in its domestic use means the power and authority of the state over

3
all persons, things within its territory. In other words, sovereignty means that the state has a
general power of lawmaking and of the enforcement of laws.

Sovereignty’ key features are:

a) Absoluteness: Sovereignty is legal in nature in the sense that it is binding on all inhabitants
that fall within the jurisdiction of sovereignty i.e. citizens and associations alike. There is no
limitation to its legal powers. However, it is important to note the fact that when a state is a
member of African Union (AU), United Nations (UN) etc it will have to abide with the
regulations of the organisation, in this sense, the state will be subjected to the laws of the
international organisation. For instance, a state like Nigeria is bound to act in accordance with
the principles of such organisations not minding her sovereignty. An example of how a state is
bound to act in accordance with the principles of International organisations is evident in Nigeria
acting in accordance with the decision of the International Court of Justice to Force Nigeria to
cede Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon. From this example it appears Nigeria’s sovereignty has
been limited to a certain extent. This is not so. Rather, the country is abiding by the regulations
of the international organisation as a member state; hence this subjection does not in any way
limit the country’s sovereignty. In the same way, world opinion for the safe acquittal of Amina
Lawal in Katsina State from the claws of Sharia propagandist did not in any way limit the
country’s sovereignty in handling domestic affairs.

b) Indivisibility: Sovereignty is the supreme, final, absolute, coercive power of the state over the
people living within the same, hence it is indivisible i.e. cannot be shared or divided by a state
with another state.

c) Independent of foreign control: Once a state becomes independent, its sovereignty remains
independent (free of external control). However, in contemporary times there has been economic
interference with regard to structural adjustment-the generic term used to describe a package of
economic and institutional measures which the IMF, World Bank and individual Western Aid
donors have persuaded many developing countries to adopt since the 1980s in return for a new
wave of policyoriented loans. With regard to the feature of sovereignty, a number of issues
have been raised especially in developing nations like Nigeria as to how sovereign can a state
be? This brings in the need to distinguish between political and economic sovereignty.

4
(1) Political Sovereignty: This refers to the power of a state to control any superior body, person
or own political institutions. To this end, for a State to be fully sovereign, it has to be
independent, that is, having the power to make laws through its elected representatives. In other
words, political sovereignty signifies the power of the people- the electorate.

Legal sovereignty on the other hand, is the power of the government of the state to enforce the
law entrenched in the constitution. The state is therefore legally sovereign if it exercises such
power as long as such power is not superior or subject to anybody.

(2) Economic Independence or Sovereignty: This is the power to control the economy of a state.
However, most countries in the third world or developing countries though claim to be
politically independent are in fact, economically dependent. A cogent example is Structural
Adjustment Programme(SAP) adopted during the military regime of Ibrahim Babangida
structural adjustment programe a generic term used to describe a package of economic and
institutional measures is with the IMF, the World Bank and individual western- aid donor
policies to overcome developmental stagnation by promoting open and free competitive
economies in developing countries.

However, this recipe of deregulation, privatisation, diminishing alleged over-sized bureaucracies,

reducing of subsidies etc and encouraging realistic prices so as to stimulate productivity has so
far not guaranteed the desired development. Based on the above, one cannot but agree with the
position that a country that cannot control the economy is not very likely to be politically
autonomous. This is because the pre-requisite of political sovereignty leans on economic
sovereignty given that those who control the economy may probably control the government.

(d) Inter-Connectedness of Activities: By virtue of the world being a global village there is inter-
dependence or inter-connectedness of the activities (at the military, economic and social levels)
of the different states that make up the international system.. At the military level, it is argued
that the state borders are permeable. On the economic level, there is a great deal of
interdependence. So that decision about economic matters sometimes has to be taken with
reference to external body or in reference with external force.

A sovereign state invests the authority of the state in certain persons or groups of persons defined
by law (i.e. entrenched in the constitution). These groups of persons differ from state to state. In

5
the United States of America sovereignty is distinguished between the president, the congress
and the Supreme Court, in Britain, it is between the Queen in parliament i.e. the Queen, the
Lords and commons, in Nigeria, it is with the president, national Assembly (senate and House of
Representatives) and Supreme Court.

(4) Permanence: It is important to note this feature because government comes, government goes
but the sovereignty of the state remains for ever. In other words as long as the state exists,
sovereignty continues without interruption.

(5) Monopoly over the Legitimate Use of Force: In relation to the government possessing a
monopoly over a legitimate use of force the third point is related to the second. In effect, a
government is legitimate if the people to whom its orders or directs believe that the structure,
procedures, acts, decisions, policies, officials, or leaders of government possess the quality of
‘rightness”, propriety, or moral goodness- the right, in short, to make binding rules.

It shows that not every power being exercised is legitimate, to this end; such legitimacy can be
attested to by decrees, enactments. Thus, leaders in a political system try to endow their actions
with legitimacy be it feudalism, monarchy, oligarchy, hereditary aristocracy, plutocracy,
representative government- democracy so as to acquire legitimacy. In essence, when a leader is
clothed with legitimacy, it usually is referred to as authority with a special kind of legitimate
influence.

However, in the contemporary world, the reigning political ideology (a set of more or less
persistent, integrated doctrines that purport to explain and justify their leadership in the system)
is “democracy” which invariably is more in need of legitimacy than most other systems.
Importantly, legal legitimacy rests on a belief that power is wielded in a way that is legal; hence
the constitutional rules, the laws, and the powers of official are accepted as binding because they
are legal or legitimate.

This feature does not mean that there are never challenges to this authority which occurs only
when the authority of the state is no longer recognised by some sector within it given that groups
within a national society will sometimes resort to force in order to further their aims. However,
the authority of the state is generally recognised and as consequence of this authority it is

6
legitimate for the state to employ force in order to defend itself against internal and external
challenges.

(6) Existence of Society-Wide Consensus: The fourth point explains why the first three exist.
The state is founded on some sort of society-wide consensus. This consensus may be based, for
instance, on a common nationality (even where there are a wide variety of ethnic and racial
groups). In other words, the relationship between the influencer and influenced can be sustained
through agreement i.e. the agreement of one to be subjected to that of another. Such agreement
would also determine the restriction of power relations between the two groups. But whatever
the basis of a consensus, there are some values throughout the system that make the functioning
of a centralised political authority possible. At times too, the diversity in social, economic,
religious and ethnic terms makes subordination to a common political authority possible.

(7) Population: The fifth point of difference has been implicit in much of what has been
highlighted above. Thus, in a state, the actors are people. However, there can be no minimum or
the optimum population necessary to constitute a state. The presupposition therefore is that an
intrinsic relationship should exist between the state and the inhabitants of a given state who
sustain it.

WEEK 2: ORIGIN OF THE STATE

Having looked at the nature of the state, this unit examines whether men have lived under some
form of political system previously and if they have, what factors necessitated the original
establishment of the state. Thus, the unit will examine the foundations of the state. 2.0
OBJECTIVES

It is expected that by the end of this unit, you should be able to:

• state the origin of a state • state the various theories of the origin of the state. • link it to the
foundation of any modern political system.

3.1 How Did the State Originate

The Theory of Divine Origin

7
This theory is also known as the theory of the divine right of kings. Its three main propositions
are the following:

1. that the State was established by an ordinance of God 2. its rulers/leaders are divinely
appointed hence are not accountable to any authority but God. The justification for this
proposition is in line with the specific injunction in the Bible ( Rom13:1-2) that every soul or
body is subject unto the higher powers ordained of God who is most supreme. And that whoever
resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God and shall receive unto themselves damnation.

Following from the above propositions, the essential feature scholars have argued that it is not
only that God created the state in the sense that all human institutions may be believed to have
had their origin in divine creation but that the will of God is supposed to be made known by
revelation immediately to certain persons who are His earthly viceregents and by them
communicated to the people. It is glaring therefore that in this theory obedience to the state
becomes a religion as well as a civil duty and disobedience is obviously a sacrilege. This position
is evidenced in the claims of certain rulers, like James I of England, who governed absolutely
without being accountable to their people. In fact, he was so absolutist that he even told his
Parliament that: ‘A king can never be monstrously vicious and that even if a king is wicked, it
means God has sent him as a punishment for people’ sins and it is unlawful to shake off the
burden which God has laid upon them. Patience, earnest prayer and amendment of their lives are
the only lawful means of God to relieve them of that heavy curse.’

On the contrary, it is interesting, however, to note that the view that the bad as well as the good
ruler were the representatives of God and as such entitled to unconditional obedience. The
shortfall of this theory is its tendency to justify support, cooperation and obedience for a just
king who invariably was instituted by the gods and rebellion against a tyrannical king who is
supposedly a part of the demons. More so, although it is important to note that though this theory
serves as an explanation of the origin of the state, it is now generally discredited, because it
necessarily involves propositions that are to be accepted as matters of faith rather than of reason.
Little wonder, that J. N. Figgis specifically explains that the theory finds little acceptance
because there is a general belief either that reason should reign supreme; or that, if faith, as
distinguished from reasoned conviction, be conceded to have a proper place in the life of men, its
precepts should relate exclusively to matters spiritual. But, in spite of the obvious defect of the

8
theory, one of its merits is that it that it may create in the mass of the people, a sense of the value
of order and obedience to law, so necessary for the stability of the state – and in the rulers a
moral accountability to God for the manner in which they exercise their power.

3:2 THE THEORY OF FORCE

This theory proposes that the state is the result of the subjugation of the weaker by the stronger.
The reason for this perhaps may not be far from the fact that historically ‘there is not the slightest
difficulty in proving that all political communities of the modern type owe their existence to
successful warfare’.

In effect, as a justification of this, in the eighteenth century, Hume expressed that: ‘It is probable,
that the first ascendant of one man over multitudes began during a state of war, where the
superiority of courage and of genius discovers most visibly, where unanimity and concert are
most sensibly felt. The long continuance of that state, an incident common among savage tribes,
inured the people to submission” (Hume as cited in Appadorai,1968).

The basic argument by Hume is that consequent upon the increase of population and the
consequent pressure on the means of subsistence invariably there would be also an improvement
in the art of warfare. It is therefore in this light that he conceived that a state is founded when a
leader, with his band of warriors, gets permanent control of a definite territory of a considerable
size.

This may occur in one of two ways:

1. When the leader, after firmly establishing his or her position as ruler of his/her own tribe,
extends his/her authority over neighbouring tribes until he or she comes to rule over a large
territory. This is what seems to have happened in Scandinavia, where, in the ninth century, ‘the
innumerable tribes became gradually consolidated, as the result of hard fighting, into the three
historic kingdoms of Norway, Denmark and Sweden’. . 2. A state is founded by successful
migrations and conquests. This was the history of the Normans, ‘who, in the ninth century,
became the ruling power in Russia. In Nigeria, we have the cases of the conquests of the
Sakkwato Conquests of Hausa Speaking lands in the North.

9
Expectedly, the new type of community founded by consolidation or by migration and conquest
in order words differed from the tribes because of their territorial character. The understanding
here therefore is that all those who live within the territory of the ruler (and not only those who
were related to him by blood) were bound to obey his/her commands.

This theory like others has also been criticized not only on the claim that force is a factor in the
formation of a state but rather as an element like various causes such as kinship, religion, force
and political consciousness.

3.3 The Patriarchal Theory

Literature has it that the greatest supporter of this group is Sir Henry Maine (1822 – 88) who in
his books Ancient Law (1861) and Early History of Institutions (1875) stated that he derived his
evidence from three sources which are:

1. Accounts by contemporary observers of civilisations who invariably are less advanced. 2. The
records which particular races (e.g. the Greeks) have kept of their own history. 3. The records
from the ancient law (e.g. Roman and Hindu).

Based on these evidences the theory argues that the unit of primitive society was the family, in
which descent was traced through males and in which the eldest male parent was absolutely
supreme. The theory furthermore, however, argues that despite this absolute supremacy, the
power of the eldest male parent’s power is not extended to life and death. In effect, the eldest
male parent was as unqualified over his children and their houses as over his slaves. The theory
further argues that in the case of break up in the single family obviously coordinated by the head
of the first family (the chief or patriarch), into more families, the aggregation of the
commonwealth of tribes makes the state.

It is also essential to know that this theory conceives the state as an extension of the family in
such a way that the head of the state could be viewed as the father and the people, his/her
children. Evidences in favour of this theory are Patriarchs of the Old Testament, the
‘Brotherhoods’ of Athens, the patria potestas in Rome and the family system in India.

It must be emphasized therefore that the patriarchal society which, according to this theory, was
the foundation of the modern state, was characterised by three features, viz. male kinship,

10
permanent marriage and paternal authority. It is indeed integral to this theory that members of
the patriarchal family should be able to trace their descent through the male. The essence of this
is none other than the fact that ‘men are counted of kin because they are descended from the
same male ancestor’ but sometimes this relationship has been adjudged fictitious rather than real
because in the absence of heirs the deficiency was made good by adoption.

2. The system of permanent marriage though exists as a social institution, however, it has been
argued that it must not be assumed that marriage as we understand it-the permanent union of one
man with one woman-was a feature of all patriarchal society. On the contrary, although
polygamy, i.e. the marriage of one man to several women, was quite common it was no
hindrance to the recognition of kinship through the male.

3. Paternal authority means that the male ancestors had well-nigh despotic authority over the
group. Thus in early Rome the patria potestas (literally the authority of the father as well as in
Nigeria, the respected role of the father in all communities) ‘extended to all the descendants of a
living ancestor, no matter how old they were’ and comprised ‘even the power of life and death to
say nothing of control and chastisement’.

Like other theories the defect of the theory is that we cannot say that the patriarchal society has
been the foundation of later institutions everywhere, or that it has been necessarily the oldest
form of social organisation. This argument stems from other evidence which suggests that in
some societies the patriarchal family was a later development from the matriarchal system, in
which descent could be traced only through the female on account of the existence of polyandry.

Its merit is that as an explanation of the origin of the state, it emphasises one essential element in
the making of the state, viz. kinship.

3.4 The Matriarchal Theory

Among the chief exponents of this theory are McLennan (Primitive Society, 1865), Morgan
(Studies in Ancient Society, 1877) and Jenks (A History of Politics, 1990). A distinguishing
feature of this theory from the patriarchal theory is the fact that the matriarchal theory holds that
the primitive group had no common male head, and that kinship among them could be traced
only through the woman. It is important to highlight Jenks illustrative proposition from

11
primitive society in Australia which posits that:
‘The real social unit of the Australians is not the “tribe”, but the totem group…. The totem group
is, primarily, a body of persons distinguished by the sign of some natural object, such as an
animal or tree, which may not intermarry with one another….The Australian may not marry
within his totem. “Snake may not marry snake. Emu may no marry emu.” That is the first rule of
savage social organisation. Of its origin we have no knowledge; but there can be little doubt that
its object was to prevent the marriage of near relations…. The other side of the rule is equally
startling. The savage may not marry within his totem, but he must marry into another totem
specially fixed for him. More than this, he not only marries into the specified totem, but he
marries the whole of the women of that totem in his own generation.’

Under this system, it is obvious that as far as there is any recognition of blood-relationship at all,
it is through women, and not through men. ‘Maternity is a fact, paternity an opinion.’
Essentially, Jenks holds that society organised on such a basis gradually evolved into the family
marked by paternal descent in this manner: men began to take to pastoral occupations; they
domesticated animals; they recognised the value of women’s labour in tending sheep and cattle,
and so gradually realised the value of permanently retaining women at home for the purpose; and
thus arose the institution of permanent marriage. It is important to note that the tribe, instead of
the family as the primary group; in time breaks into clans and into households, and ultimately
into individual members.

The matriarchal theory is subject to the same criticism as the patriarchal on the grounds that it is
incorrect to regard matriarchal society as the oldest form of social organisation everywhere.
Rather, the truth is that there seems to be ‘a parallel development of which the patriarchal line is
thicker and longer

3.5 The Historical/Evolutionary Theory

This theory is generally accepted because it did not consider the state neither as a divine
institution nor as a deliberate human contrivance. Rather, it conceived the state coming into
existence as the result of natural evolution. Based on this conviction, it is evident according to
scholars that the theories previously discussed must for reasons already stated, be rejected as
unsatisfactory.

12
The proposition therefore of the state as a product of history was aptly captured succinctly by
J.W. Burgess who explained that the evolutionary theory is premised on a gradual and
continuous development of human society out of a grossly imperfect beginning through crude
but improving forms of manifestation towards a perfect and universal organisation of mankind.’

The beginnings of government cannot be traced to a particular time or cause because of the result
of various factors through ages such as the influences as kinship, religion, war and political
consciousness.

Now let us explain the key influences one after the other.

1. Kingship: In early society, the first and strongest bond and government was kingship. This
bond expectedly, clearly defined family discipline which would scarcely be possible among
races in which blood-relationship was subject to profound confusion and in which family
organisation, therefore, had no clear basis of authority on which to rest. In every case, it would
seem the origin of what we should deem worthy of the name of government must have awaited
the development of some such definite family as that in which the father was known and known
as ruler. However, whether or not the patriarchal family was the first form of the family, it must
have been adequate as the first form of government.

2. Common worship: This undoubtedly is another element in the welding together of families
and tribes. This worship evolved from primitive animism to ancestor-worship. When
ancestorworship became the prevailing form of religion, religion was inseparably linked with
kinship for, at the family or communal altar; the worshipper did homage to the great dead of
his/her family or group and craved protection and guidance. In some tribes, also we find that the
medicine-man or magician, who naturally held a predominant position, acquired or was elevated
to the position of kingship. The primitive man had implicit faith in the existence of spirits, the
spirits of the dead and the spirits of nature. The medicine-man or woman, professing ability to
control them by means of his/her sorcery, naturally came to be regarded with mysterious awe and
acquired unique influence.

At this point, the student would have seen so far the point we have made about war and
migration as important influences in the origin of the state. The point at issue is that the
demands of constant warfare often led to the rise of permanent headship. In effect, when a tribe

13
was threatened by danger or involved in war, it was driven by necessity to appoint a leader. This
continuity of war conduced to the permanence of leadership. Accordingly, war and conquest
helped to give the mark of territoriality to the state. In the patriarchal society or tribe, the nexus
had been that of blood; but when leader established his/her authority over a territory by conquest,
over a people with whom he/her had no bloodrelationship, all those who lived in that territory
become his/her subjects thus making blood no longer the essential bond of unity.

Finally, political consciousness on the other hand, originally government was spontaneous,
natural, and twin-born with man and the family. Indeed, Aristotle could be said to be stating a
fact when he said ‘man is by nature a political animal’. This act becomes more cogent based on
the fact that the need for order and security is an ever-present factor; man knows instinctively
that he/she can develop the best of which he/she is capable only by some form of political
organisation. Obviously, though at the beginning, it might well be that the political
consciousness was really political unconsciousness; however, ‘just as the forces of nature
operated long before the discovery of the law of gravitation, it is only apt to agree that political
organisation really rested on the community of mind, unconscious, dimly conscious, or fully
conscious of certain moral ends present throughout the whole course of development’.

WEEK 3: THEORIES OF THE STATE

Having looked at the history of the state it would be appropriate to examine the consolidation of
the modern state through the various theories of the modern state such as the theory of the State
of Nature and Social Contract, The Organic Theory, Liberal-Democratic Theory and the Marxist
Theory. The essence here is not just to indulge in blanket statements about the theory and nature
of the state but to see which of them provides more insight into the analysis of Citizen and State
relations in perspective within the Nigerian context

What is a Theory? A theory is a category with which we analyse, organise, and synthesise
phenomena into interconnected and internally coherent wholes. In effect, theory implies the
business of establishing patterns of determination in discrete and diverse phenomena. Let us now
relate this explanation of theory to citizen and state relation. It refers to the conceptual tools with
which we identify patterns of discrimination in social phenomena regarding from the citizens and

14
their place in a state. By so doing, we are enabled to understand or find out what’s, how’s, and
why’s of the causes and consequences of irregularities discernible in the citizen’s rights and
obligations in the socio-political context of a state that require transformation for the better. In
political discussions which are of relevance to us in this course two forms of the theory of social
contract which became significant during and after the Middle Ages are: 1. The Governmental
Contract: This means a tacit agreement between the government and the people. This idea was
largely employed by the defenders of popular liberties in the Middle Ages to resist the claims of
rulers to an absolute dominion over their subjects. In other words, the idea borders on deposing a
ruler when s/he had violated the agreement or pact to promote a happy life according to which he
or s/he was chosen. 2. The Social Contract: This borders on the institution of a political society
by means of a compact composition and agreement among the people by ordaining some kind of
government which they would all yield to because of the experience of not being able to resolve
grievances in the state of nature where all were subject only to the law of nature. And, most
importantly, if men are born free’ just as Milton argued in his Tenure of Kings and Magistrates
(1649) to avert complete destruction men( and expectedly women) ‘agreed by common league to
bind each other from mutual injury, and jointly to defend themselves against any that gave
disturbances or opposition to such agreement.’

The Social Contract Theory of the Origin of Political Authority

The origin of this theory is premised on ‘an agreement entered into by men (and expectedly
women) who originally had no governmental organisation which resulted into a state. However,
to understand the essence of a contractual agreement (the idea of a social contract) which can be
found in the political treatises both of the East and the West, it is pertinent to understand that
previously, the history of the world was divisible into two periods:

1. The Pre-Institution of the State: In this era, there was nothing like government. Hence, there
was no law which could be enforced by a coercive authority. In effect, it would be apt to say men
and women lived in a state of nature, and inevitably were subject only to regulations prescribed
by nature because there are no human authorities to formulate these rules let alone enforce them.
However, after a time lapse, a decision was reached for the establishment of government based

15
on their consent to part with their liberty having agreed to obey the laws of government. The
consent to part with their liberty is subject to a consensus having lived in a state of nature
without a coercive agency. In sum, the essential idea to note is that the state is a human creation
as a result of a contractual agreement between men and women.

Now let us consider the theory as developed by its most famous exponents, Hobbes, Locke and
Rousseau, during the later half of the 17c and in the 18c.

Hobbes

It is significant to know that Hobbes (1588-1679) was an Englishman who lived in the days of
the Civil War (1642-51). This is important because it gives an insight in explaining the nature of
his political thought which seems inclined towards absolutism. This inclination was natural at a
time when the most important need of his country was a strong government to maintain law and
order. This background shaped the government of his political inquiry (The Leviathan, 1651) by
his analysis of human nature in the conception of man as being essentially selfish who is moved
to action not by intellect or reason, but by appetites, desires and passions. The summation is that
the state of nature is none other than a society where men lived without any common power set
over them. This ‘condition’ in the state of nature’ is called Warre; and such a warre (war) as is of
every man, against every man’- not war in the organised sense but a perpetual struggle of all
against all, competition, diffidence and love of glory being the three main causes. It is pertinent
to note that law and justice are absent, hence, the life of man could be summed up as ‘solitary,
poor, nasty, brutish and short’.

Hobbes also recognised that even in the primitive natural state, there are in some sense laws of
nature whose essence is self-preservation i.e. ‘the liberty each man hath to preserve his own life’.
In detail, these laws are: to seek peace and to ensure that it is followed; to relinquish the right to
all things which being retained hinders the peace of mankind; to ‘perform their covenants made’.
There fore, the only way to peace is for men to give up so much of their natural rights as are
inconsistent with living in peace. To therefore achieve this, a supreme coercive power is
instituted, however, the contracting parties are not the community and the government, but
subject with every man saying to every other that ‘I authorise and give up my right of governing
myself to this man or this assembly of men (government) on this condition that thou give up thy

16
right to him and authorise all his actions in like manner’. In line with the fulfilling of this right, a
state is thus created. However, certain consequences follow from the creation of state in this
manner, some of which are that:

1. The government must be sovereign, and the sovereign’s power absolute, for, a. The
sovereign’s power is not held ‘on condition’ since the sovereign is the result of the pact, not a
party to it. b. The pact is not revocable at the pleasure of the subjects c. Men surrender all their
rights to the sovereign d. As the sovereign embodies in himself the wills of all, his actions are
virtually their actions, on the principle that ‘whosoever acts through his agent, acts through
himself. e. The anti-social instincts of men are too insistent to be checked except by absolute
authority.

From the above analysis, it is clear that sovereignty is inalienable, for it is essential to civil
government that there should be no power in the state strong enough to the sovereign. For this
same reason, sovereignty is indivisible and the sovereign is unpunishable. The sovereign is judge
of what is necessary for the peace and defence of his subjects and judge of what doctrines are fit
to be taught. In the same way, he has the right of making rules whereby each subject may know
to what personal property he is entitled as well as the right of judicature, of making war and
peace, of choosing counselors, of rewarding, honouring and punishing.

Hobbes is, however, aware that the sovereign thus defined need not necessarily be one man but
that sovereignty may be located in an assembly yet he preferred monarchy because to him it had
greater consistency and freedom from fluctuation in policy. Secondly, there are relatively fewer
favourites in a monarchy and above all, there is the maximum identity of public and private
interest in that form of government.

On the other hand, Hobbes conceives law in general not as a counsel but a command. The
contention is that ‘Civil law is to every subject those rules which the Commonwealth hath
commanded him by word, writing or other sufficient sign of the will to make use of for the
distinction of right and wrong.’ In the same vein, the liberty of the subject consists in:

1. Those rights which the sovereign has permitted. 2. Those rights which by law of nature, of
self-preservation, cannot be surrendered. The subject cannot therefore be compelled to kill
himself/herself or to abstain from food or medicine; he is also not bound to accuse himself. 3. In

17
general, the obligation of the subjects to the sovereign lasts no longer than his power to protect
them. 4. As for other liberties, they depend on the silence of the law with the subject being free
to do what the sovereign has not prohibited.

Hobbes thus bases an absolute state on ‘free’ contract and content; the psychological basis of his
theory is fear.

It is pertinent to note that despite the aforementioned, Hobbes theory of social contract ideas
have been criticised severally on the following counts:

1. That it is unhistorical; given that primitive society rested on status, not on contract. 2. That
there is a disconnect between his view of human nature as essentially selfish in the state of
nature and is transformed from being a savage to a saint in the state of contract 3. That it is not
commonsensical to contend that men surrender almost all their natural rights. 4. The failure to
realise that the principle involved in absolute sovereignty is wrong. This is because the
possibility of conceiving the sovereign as all-powerful and standing above law while the citizen
must be prepared to submit to his arbitrariness may prove to be worse prior to the contract. 5.
That Hobbes’ purely legal view of rights as claims recognised by the state is insufficient for
political philosophy because for a legal theory of rights will tell us what in fact the character of a
state is. This is because it does not tell whether the rights recognised by a state are the rights
which need recognition, or why other rights do not deserve legal recognition.

3.3 Locke

The purpose of Locke (1632 – 1704) in his Two Treaties of Government (1690) was to justify
the English Revolution of 1688 after James II had been deposed from the throne and William or
Orange invited to occupy it. Locke’s argument can be summarised as follows:

1. That in the state of nature men were free and equal because each lives according to his own
liking even though this freedom, however, is not licensed. 2. There was a natural law or the law
of reason which commands that no one shall impair the life, the health, the freedom or the
possessions of another. In order words, the law of nature of Locke stresses the freedom and
preservation because there is no common superior to enforce the law of reason hence each

18
individual is obliged to work out his own interpretation. The point to note is that while the state
of nature is not a state of chaos as Hobbes may want us to believe, however, the insecurity of
enjoyment of rights among men and women was very evident. Essentially, his contention is that
the state or political society is instituted so as to remedy the inconveniences of the state of nature
which can be summed as follows:

1. The quest for an established known law that will be received and allowed by common consent
to be the standard of judging right and wrong as well as the adoption of a common measure to
decide all controversies. 2. The desire of a known judge that will not be biased with authority to
determine all differences according to the established law. 3. The want of power to back and
support the sentence when right and to give it due execution.

All these features bring to the fore that the state for Locke, is created through the medium of a
contract in which each individual agrees with every other to give up to the community the natural
right of enforcing the law of reason, in order that life, liberty and property may be preserved. It
is therefore significant to note that for Locke, unlike Hobbes, power resides with the community
and not with the government. It must also be stressed that the contract is not general but limited
and specific so much so that the natural right of enforcing the law of reason (natural rights of
life, liberty and property) reserved to the individual limit the just power of the community is
given up.

To this end, government is seen to be in the nature of a trust and in this way only such powers as
were transferred at the time of the change from a state of nature is embraced. It becomes
essential therefore that the legislative power constituted by the consent of the people should not
be arbitrary but become the supreme power in the commonwealth. In order words, it must be
exercised, as it is given, for the good of the subjects.

-To this effect, the Legislature must dispense justice through laws and authorised judges. This
ensures that no man can be deprived of his/her property without his/her consent nor can taxes be
levied without the consent of the people or their representatives. Also, the Legislature cannot
transfer its powers to any other person or body and it must be a delegated power from the people
who can remove or alter the Legislature, when they find that it acts contrary to the trust reposed
in it.

19
Following the aforementioned, it appears that there is no sovereign in Locke’s state in line with
the Hobbesian analogy. The community is supreme even though its supreme power is latent,
however, this power does not come into play so long as the government is acting according to the
trust reposed in it; but when it acts contrary to that trust, the power of the community manifests
itself in its right to replace that government by another.

It is apparent from the above, that integral to Locke’s system is the fact that the government may
be dissolved while society remains intact. In other words, Locke’s theory borders on
constitutional or limited government which by implication means ‘a government resting on the
consent of the governed’. In practice, it means that for a government to hold on to power it must
be conditioned by the people hence the government expectedly should pay heed to their wishes.
This conclusion by Locke was determined by distinguishing between the agreement to form a
civil society and the agreement within that society to set up some particular government. In
effect, if the acts of that government are contrary to the interests of the community as a whole
Locke argues that there is a possibility of changing the government without destroying the
continuity of civil society itself.

In sum, though Locke’s method may be criticised as being unhistorical; his position that the
cardinal idea that government is a trust with consent as the basis of government cannot be
overlooked. Also, there is value in his concept of natural rights now generally discredited
because of his conception of it as the rights of the individual anterior to organised society. A
concept which is invaluable especially because of its incorporation of T.H. Green’s
interpretation that the nature of man demands certain rights or some c-onditions of life which at a
particular state of civilization are necessary for the fulfillment of his personality.

The social contract theory of Rousseau (1712 – 78) developed in his Contract Social (1762) is
important on two grounds:

First, it inspired the French Revolution of 1789 which was a revolt against the despotic French
monarchy. Second, it is the springboard of the theory of popular sovereignty.

20
According to Rousseau, man is essentially good and sympathetic and these qualities definitely
ensured a period of idyllic happiness, men being free and equal in a state of nature. However,
since human relationships cannot be conflicts, and cannot be overruled in any society evidently
with introduction of private property and growth in population quarrels arose thereby and
compelling men and women to give up their natural freedom in a contract so as to create a civil
society. This contract supposedly is a form of association which protects the person and property
of each associate according to the virtue of which every one while remaining free as before’.

The implication of the above propositions is that;

1. Every one surrenders completely all rights to the community which becomes sovereign unlike
the Government as in Hobbes. 2. The sovereignty of the community is as absolute just as the
Government in Hobbes is implying that from the outset there was no need to limit its sovereignty
in the interest of the subjects. The reason for this is none other than that the sovereign body is
always all that it ought to be having been formed by only the individuals who constitute it. The
implied meaning is that it can have no contrary interest against the individuals who formed it
based on the supposition that all private interests more or less will not be in existence. Most
importantly, bearing in mind that the will of the individual may conflict with the general will of
the community which constitutes the sovereign because the social pact necessarily involves a
tacit agreement that anyone refusing to conform to the general will shall be forced to do so by the
whole body politic, i.e., ‘shall be forced to be free’. This is because the universal conformity to
the general will guarantees each individual freedom from dependence on any other person or
persons.

3. It is also interesting to note that after the contract, the individual remains as free as he/she was
before for no specific reason other than the fact that the act of each given him/herself up to all, it
actually amounts to given up to no one because the same right that is given up by him/herself is
evidently acquired over every associate, with greater power to preserve what is left.

4. While Law is an expression of the general will and can be made only in an assembly of the
whole people sovereignty can never be alienated or isolated, represented or divided. In effect, the
sovereign, who is a collective being, can be represented only by himself.

21
5. The Government is never the same as the sovereign because of their distinguished functions of
the executive and the legislative functions as well as the fact that the exercise of government is
the exercise according to the law of the executive power. Moreover, the act by which a
Government is established is twofold: The passing of a law by the sovereign to the effect that
there shall be a Government and the appointment of governors who will act in execution of this
law.

However, despite all this arguments Rousseau still protests that the Government, contrary to
Locke’s opinion, is not established by, and therefore is not a party to the contract. Rather, the
premise of his argument therefore is that ‘There is only one contract in the State which obviously
excludes every other.’

Based on the above, it appears that some elements of Rousseau’s social contract is a fusion of
Hobbes and Locke. The influence of Hobbes in his theory is evident in the conception of the
State as the result of a contract entered into by men who originally lived in a state of nature
where there was only one contract in which individuals surrendered all their rights though the
Government was not a party. However, an interesting aspect of this contract is that after making
the contract the individuals may have only such rights as are allowed to them by law; the
implication of this is an absolute sovereignty. The absolute sovereignty of the Government
according to Hobbes did not sit well with Rousseau hence he posited that the Government was
dependent upon the people in other words, agreeing with the essentials of the conclusion of
Locke.

It is worthy to note the conclusion of two elements in his theory where he differed from Hobbes.
The elements are: (1) That the theory makes the individual surrender his rights not to the ruler
but to the community; (2) A clear cut difference exists between the State and the Government.

It is also important to take into consideration that although both elements are more or less like
Locke’s views Rousseau differs from Locke in more ways than one as the arguments above
proves.

In sum, the importance of Rousseau in political thought is evidenced in the following positions:

22
1. That the complete surrender of rights on the part of the natural man makes sovereignty
absolute while for Locke there is no absolute sovereignty because the surrender is partial. 2. The
popular sovereignty in Rousseau is in continual exercise while for Locke the supremacy of the
people is not in the fore front and is only manifested when the Government acts contrary to its
trust. 3. There is only one contract, the social pact thereby expunging the idea of a governmental
compact from the contract theory 4. The absolute nature of the State. 5. His theory served as the
basis for democracy and the justification of revolutions against arbitrary rule. This doctrine is
premised on two or three simple principles:

1. That men are by nature free and equal,

2. That the rights of government must be based on some compact freely entered into by these
equal and independent individuals,

3. That the nature of the compact is such that the individual becomes part of the sovereign
people, which has the inalienable right of determining its own constitution and legislation as
entrenched in the Declaration of the Rights of Man (1789), the charter of the French Revolution

6. His theory demonstrated entirely that will, not force, is the basis of the State. The implication
of this is that government depends on the consent of the governed. 7. His idea that the sovereign
community was logically the only lawmaker subsequently had the indirect effect of stimulating
direct legislation by the people through the referendum and the initiative.

Another important issue to note is that despite the importance of Rousseau in political thought, a
particular inadequacy cannot be overlooked in political analysis. The obvious inadequacy is none
other that his analysis did not envisage the fact that the unrestricted power of the general will
might result in absolutism typical of the older kingdoms and oligarchies. In order words, to argue
that the general will is always the disinterested will of the community for the common good, and
therefore always right appears not to be plausible because there is no guarantee that the will of
the community will always turn out to be for the common good. This is further compounded by
the realisation by Rousseau that there is a thin line between the general will so defined and the
will of all (which is the sum total of particularist and sectional interests) More so, to Rousseau
the sovereign are the people themselves gathered in solemn general assembly, without private
interest, as a whole incapable of injustice to any members.

23
3.5 Merits of the Social Contract Theory

The theory has some merits such as:

1. It serves as a reminder to Government of the human purposes which the State can serve so as
to justify its existence. As Kant, the German philosopher, said: This is because ‘The legislator is
under the obligation to order his/her laws as if they were the outcome of a social contract.’ 2. In
line with Locke and Rousseau’s idea that civil society rests not on the consent of the ruler but of
the ruled the theory instituted what subsequently became an important factor in the development
of modern democracy.

Defects of the Social Contract Theory

Despite its merits the theory has some defects:

1) It is untenable: From the historical point of view various scholars argue that the contract
theory of the origin of political authority is untenable not because there were no historical
records when the compacts must have been made but because historical evidence through which
inference about the primitive conditions may be imagined were impossible to lay hands on.

2) The theory pre-supposes individuals as agents of contracts. However, this runs contrary to the
Maine research revelations which showed that the progress of societies has been from status to
contract. According to Maine, this conclusion was reached because contract essentially is
understood as not the beginning but the end of society. Also, the idea of contract postulates that
individuals who enter into the contract are free to do things in their own way; but Maine posits
that the evidence of early law and custom shows that primitive men had no such freedom
because primitive society rested not upon contract but upon status. This position was justified
by the conviction that in a society men were born into the station and the part they were to play
throughout life was not dependent upon a matter of choice or of voluntary arrangement in what
relations men were to stand towards one another as individuals. In specific terms, the command
of the law of status is that ‘He who is born a slave, let him remain a slave; the artisan, an artisan;

24
the priest, a priest’ while merit, aptitude, and individual freedom were allowed to operate only
within the sphere of each man’s birthright.

Based on these conditions, the very idea of individuals contracting themselves into civil society
would seem improbable. More over, even if an original contract exists it cannot necessarily bind
the descendants of those who originally entered into the contract. Rather, the guiding factor
according to Bentham is not compulsion but the simple realisation that rebellion does more harm
than good.

3) The theory appears to favour anarchy, hence it is dangerous in practice. The premise of this
conviction is based on the regard that the State and its institutions were instituted as a result of
the individual will. To this end, it can be argued that there can be sufficient authority if the
individual will is contradicted. This point was better stressed in Burke’s famous description of
the State as an institution that ought not to be considered as nothing better than a partnership
agreement. This is because it is a partnership in all science, a partnership in all art, a partnership
in every virtue and in all perfection. As the ends of such a partnership cannot be obtained in
many generations, it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between
those who are dead, and those who are to be born.’

4) That the assumptions by almost all exponents of the theory argue that men in a state of nature
are equal is incorrect. This position is hinged on the German jurist von Haller (1768 – 1854)
conception that inequality, rather than equality, is natural.

5) The theory is also adjudged illogical: This is because it presupposes that the political
consciousness which exists in a people who are merely living in a state of nature could only be
possible in individuals who are already within a State.

3.6 Organic Theory of the State

This theory though old fashioned is accredited to Hegel.

Its basic features are: that the state is a rational order which exists, essentially, to achieve
“identity in difference”. It is superior to the civil society (the second level in the structure of the

25
modern state-the first level is the family, while the state is the third, and highest level.). This
consists in the fact that the civil society which is simply ‘a form of social organisation in which
persons function as mere individuals or social atoms who happen to come together to satisfy
their natural or acquired needs through some mode of exchange”(Doniela,1986) is divisive while
the state is a source of harmony. In effect, with the state as a rational order, it should be able to
‘differentiate between the forces that are socially cohesive and forces that are socially
disruptive”. Thus, for Hegel, while conflicts and their resolutions may be inevitable features of
the modern world, the state exists to minimise these conflicts (and their attendant fragmentation
of society) and maximise cohesion. This theory is of the view that the state, therefore, is a
“reconciling realm” where the individual freedom is harmonised with the interest of the
universal. For Hegel, then, the state is a necessary good because it makes possible the
reconciliation of individual interest with the universal interest.

3.7 Liberal-Democratic Theorists

These theorists venerate individual interest and personal freedom to such an extent that they see
the role of the state purely in terms of the protection of individual rights and liberties. For them,
political society(the state) is a ‘human contrivance for the protection of the individuals property
in his person and goods and (therefore) for the maintenance of orderly relations of exchange
between individuals who are regarded as proprietors themselves”(Macpherson,1962).The state,
according to the liberal-democratic view, is a neutral, though coercive, force whose function is ,
as John Locke would put it, the preservation of the people’s lives, liberty and property,
irrespective of the social class to which they may belong. It is important to highlight the
similarities and differences in Organic and the Liberal-Democratic theories.

Similarities

The Hegelian Organic Theory of the State and the Liberal-Democratic Theorists agree on the
following:

26
1. Both deny the class, composition nature and historical character of the state. 2. Both assume
that the state is a neutral political power. 3. Both agree that the state is an inevitable socio-
political institution.

Difference The only difference in their positions is this: while the liberal theorists agree with
Hegel that the state is necessary in human society, for them, it is a “necessary nuisance” whose
power over the individual should be as minimal as possible.

3.8 The Marxist Theory of the State

This theory does not agree with the above positions. To Karl Marx, the state is, essentially, a
coercive apparatus which is usually in the service of the ruling class in a class-divided society,
and it is a “product and manifestation” of irreconcilable class antagonisms in society. In the
Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels wrote that “the executive of the modern
state is built on a committee for managing the common affair of the whole bourgeosie”. This
contention aptly captures the class basis of the state and as an instrument of dominating other
classes even though within classical Marxism, there is the conception of the state as independent,
though rooted in the economic basis of society.

In the Eighteenth Brummaire of Louis Bonaparte, K. Marx aptly explains this independent nature
of the state using the revolutionary events in France evidenced in the industrial action of the
bourgeoisie revolution which led to the overthrow of financial oligarchy. With the crushing of
the democratic forces by the industrial bourgeoisie and the events leading to the rise of Louis
Bonaparte (Bonaparte represents a class, and the most numerous class of French society at that)
as Marx notes, under the second Bonaparte, ‘the state seemed to have made itself completely
independent”. In other words, there emerged the independent character of the state. However,
although the state was independent of the factions of bourgeoisie class, “yet” the independent
nature of the state at the political level is deeply rooted in the balance of class forces and the
struggles emanating from the principal contradictions within the state.

Based on this, the essential features of a state according to the Marxists are:

27
a. The state is a power, separated from, in fact standing above, and society. This special power
according to Engel’s is necessary because a self-acting armed organisation of the population has
become impossible since the split into classes. Consequently, it exists in every class society and
“consists not only of armed men but also of material adjuncts, prisons and institutions of
coercion of all kinds. b. Funds Acquisition: To maintain itself, the state requires funds hence it
resorts to levying of taxes. In effect, as the state apparatus grows as a result of the intensification
of the class contradictions in society, and between societies, the maintenance of the state
‘swallows up more and more of the resources of the society’. c. The state divides its subject on
the basis of territory unlike the clan or tribal organisations which divide their people according to
blood relationship. This territorial feature means that the state has boundaries that are inviolable
i.e. it cannot be violated. The territorial division of the population will encourage economic ties
as well as the political conditions of their regulation.

The above Marxist features of the state further undermine the Marxist methodological
principle/framework of the materialist interpretation of history. This history stresses the
reciprocal link between the substructures of society i.e. the modes of production (given that the
mode of production determines the superstructure of society) and its corresponding production
relations-and the superstructure of society (network of social, political, legal, moral, cultural and
intellectual life).

Basic Elements of Marxist Theory

1. The state as a political power is not inevitable since eventually it (the state) would cease to
exist. This important position is rooted in the fact that the state did not exist in the earlier periods
of development of the society when the mode of production was very rudimentary and
undifferentiated, no division in the social conditions, except between the two sexes, no division
of society into categories of rulers and ruled, therefore there were no antagonistic classes.
Instead, “social relations were regulated by the force of habit, custom and tradition embodying
common life and work.

2. Institution of the social division of labour and the subsequent division of society into two
classes: masters and slaves, exploiters and exploited .This came to be because of the
development of the means of production e.g. in agriculture, domestic craft etc, so that human

28
labour can produce more than necessary for its maintenance. This development resulted in an
increased amount of work by every household community or family which subsequently resulted
in the need for more power, which was obtained through war, the captives of which were made
slaves.

3. The need for the establishment of a public power to control the antagonistic relations/struggle
between “classes with conflicting economic interests’ such as the class of exploiters and the class
of exploited. However, the state in playing this role expectedly is not neutral as it becomes the
instrument of the oppression of one class in this case the non-owners of the means of production
by another class, i.e. the class of owners of the means of production (economically dominant
class). This brings to 3. The need for the establishment of a public power to control the
antagonistic relations/struggle between “classes with conflicting economic interests’ such as the
class of exploiters and the class of exploited. However, the state in playing this role expectedly is
not neutral as it becomes the instrument of the oppression of one class in this case the non-
owners of the means of production by another class, i.e the class of owners of the means of
production (economically dominant class). This brings to bear the fact that the state contrary to
Hegelian position does not reconcile the antagonistic classes in society. Instead, it maintains
existing socio-political relations in any class-divided society, so as to preserve the hegemony of
one class over another.

4. The character of the state and the type of “order” it maintains in any given society will be
determined by the nature of its socioeconomic formation. This is because of the mode of
production prevalent in a society and its attendant social relations.

5. The state seeks to regulate relations between members of the ruling class so that they can
maintain their cohesion as well as protecting the interests of the ruling class beyond its borders,
by protecting its territory against external incursion and, at times, extending the frontiers of this
territory at the expense of weak countries. It also regulates, through legal means, the whole
system of social relations- ethnic, family etc; finally, it also attempts of deal with some economic
and cultural problems as they arise.

29
6. The Free State or the welfare states are illusory as it is only logical that the organisation of
ruling class for the maintenance of its own interest cannot be free. For in protecting the interests
of the economically and politically dominant class in society, it ends up suppressing the interest
of the oppressed class.

WEEK 4: Citizenship, Types of Citizenship and Patriotism

A citizen is a member who participates in a political community. Citizenship is obtained

by meeting legal requirements in national, state or local government. The nation grants its
citizens certain rights and privileges and citizens are expected to obey the laws of their
land and protect it from its enemies (Turner, 2017). Nationality varies from nation to
nation. In some countries, being a citizen can mean that a citizen has the right to vote, the
right to own government offices, and the right to collect unemployment insurance
payments, to name a few.

Living in a country does not mean that a person is a citizen of that country. Foreign
nationals living abroad are known as foreigners. Their rights and responsibilities are
determined by political agreements and the laws of the country in which they live.

Citizenship is regarded as a social contract valid for all in a political system based on a
set of rights and obligations that a citizen is entitled to under a particular state. In fact,
citizenship can be considered the most important form of nationalism, a broad term that
refers to the diversity of relations between a person and a state. However, this
relationship does not confer political rights but on other rights, especially foreign
protection. In fact, the citizen must understand the interests of the political community
under which he or she lives even if it harms his or her family, community or community.

The idea of citizenship however has created a problem for unity especially in a country
like Nigeria. This is the premise that the primary objective of a unity government is to
expand and expand the political, autonomous and institutional spheres to benefit political

30
units in a situation where the political community recognizes that racial, religious and
cultural diversity exists and that their rulers will benefit from levels of governance
(Ibrahim, 2003). In this case, each participant enjoys constitutionally protected
membership in two states, one region and one institution (Vernon, 1988). The implication
is that the citizens of a united states will enjoy protection at the two levels of government.
This aspect of federation is so under pressure from political elites that we have worked to
undermine the values of honesty or to work to rebuild trust. On the other hand,
citizenship as defined by international law defines all persons as a state which has the
right to protect them.

Therefore, in today's modern sense of citizenship, a significant difference has been to the
question of whether citizenship rights should be understood as an individual symbol, or
group and social rights. This transformation of citizen content over time is not limited to
social change but rather because national values have never stood or differed, or are
limited to use only by dissidents. This is about intermediate issues such as the
introduction of nationalism that includes the struggle for women's rights; to promote
gender equality, which means the restructuring of the public sector to strengthen the
presence and participation of women on the fringes of ancestral or racist ideologies, the
transformation of family law; and redefining the legal requirements of nationality.

TYPES OF CITIZENSHIP

Citizenship or membership is granted by one authorized authority, a country.

Membership in government / society and its social organizations occurs in different ways
and affects a person in different ways.

However, the conditions for obtaining citizenship in any country in order to be granted
the rights of natural born citizens are registration and naturalization.

31
Specifically, in the Nigerian Constitution of 1979 and 1999 (referred to in Chapter 11)
citizenship can be obtained through three basic processes:

(1) By birth: This means: (b) Everyone who was born in Nigeria after the day of
independence, whether by his or her parents or any other parent who is a Nigerian citizen.
(c) Every person born outside Nigeria is one of his or her parents who is a Nigerian
citizen.

(2) Registration: This second section includes those which must be registered by the
president with the appropriate public bodies.

(3) Naturalization: This category includes those who act naturally. Here, membership of
the state is determined by the official categories of citizens in the provinces as citizens
and non-citizens. For non-citizens ie immigrants the state establishes certain national
policies or membership policies that govern the recognition of citizenship in a country
with full power to include or exclude persons as members of the state. This divides
citizens who are regarded by the current government as subjects of the state, and those
who are so minor that even though the citizens of a given country are citizens, only
citizens, i.e. citizens with a national ability to participate politically in expressing
legitimate needs, make laws and enforce them on all members of society.

PATRIOTISM

Generally, patriotism means loving one's own country and being willing to defend it. But
the most convincing opinion within Nigeria about nationalism is that of the Report of the
Constitutional Drafting Committee (CDC) of Nigeria, which met between 1975 and
1976, and said that the state would promote a sense of membership and participation in
various parts of the country. partial honesty. ”(CDC, 1979). The report also stated that as
a general rule, every Nigerian owes or is expected to pay loyalty to his or her community
and / or small community but to the extent that being honest in one's community should
not be allowed to prevent national loyalty, that is, loyalty in Nigeria. Loyalty as a quality

32
of honesty or loyalty or feeling empowered to those who support his country based on
nationalistic claims, yet it is a challenge with clear nationalism is a struggle among
people who want to hold state power in the name of certain national communities. This
distinction of loyalty is based on two distinct and perhaps contradictory causes, people
always forming a conflicting “loyalty”, the boundary of integration.

Parsons and Shils define integration as a process in which the relationship of the system
with the environment is connected in such a way that its unique internal structures and
boundaries are maintained when it varies in the external environment. In terms of
construction, the community is said to be integrated until the parts work together and
support each other. If a unit can be shut down without hearing it all, then the system is
basically, ‘not connected’. But if the system crashes or is severely damaged when other
components are connected, then there is a merger. Those who ignore this important factor
in nation building reap political instability. This is because according to Ake "the
problem of political consolidation is a summary of two related issues:" How to get
respectable titles and commitments to state claims and how you can increase the common
consensus that governs political behavior among members of the political system "
(Swanson, G. (1953).

Likewise, Isiagwu (Atanda, 1985) sees political integration as a series of challenges to

political development and was described as:

1. The challenge to the authority or structure of the state: This focuses on the problem of
the political institution 'coming in' or controlling 'to make its presence felt and increase its
authority. 2. The challenge of unity (nation building): This describes the difficulty of
building unity between the most diverse groups in the empire and in many countries such
as Nigeria which includes uniting various groups with the aim of building a nation out of
the empire. 3. The challenge of participation: This challenge emphasizes how much
people influence decisions that affect their lives. 4. Distribution challenge: This

33
emphasizes the potential of the system to distribute fearsome but equally distributed
resources among the various groups in the province.

The bane of the controversy over integration is particularly that of the border of Ake and
Elaigwu on the issues that political integration is important in the process of nation
building. In fact, the acquisition of true Nigerian citizenship depends on integration
between different races in order to resolve questions on the frontier of outcomes and
cultural impact on humanity, social institutions, and the combined historical experience
among other issues. Therefore the inclusion of citizenship that maintains greater loyalty
to the majority of Nigerians in the Nigerian national country and not in small groups
depends on the development of Nigerian knowledge designed for the existence of high
quality integration where people want to be touched by others in the same way they are
affected.

In other words, dealing with resource allocation and how easily people accept the
allocation system provided in the political system is a measure of integration. Finding this
integration in the country is by no means easy because democracy must be determined.
Therefore, there can be no question of any claims to social cohesion where it is possible
for a particular class / ethnic group to exploit another or others and thus create a division
of the system. Monitoring is important in the sense that it not only undermines loyalty
because it promotes dangerous divisions of political leadership, but, above all, and most
interestingly, inevitably leads to national divisions, confusion, and loss of confidence in
the face of Nigerian nation-hood and nationalism. The reason for this shocking disruption
lies in the failure of Nigerians to articulate what they want from them or expect from
leaders as a nation. For patriotism to take root, Nigerians must decide in their minds as
individuals and groups, what the political character of the Nigerian state should be to find
a true nationalist political culture where public interest exceeds all sectarian, sectarian or
private interests.

Symbols and Status of Nationality / Integrity

34
Patriotic fervor is evidenced by adherence to traditions and customs with a certain
symbolic value that greatly strengthens national unity and pride. For example, customs
and traditions such as the rotation of the judiciary, the flag culture is also a symbolic
value that must be preserved and sanctified as a daily symbol of social unity.

Patriotism is also symbolized by celebrating special events / holidays that reflect national
unity that transcends all groups / sectors. All modern nations have special holidays, such
as Independence Day in Nigeria-October 1 and another newborn - Democracy Day - May
29 to commemorate a return to democracy after a prolonged military invasion of
government.

Expectedly, the experiences shared in these symbols form a common store of memories
that find the meaning of poetry in figurative paintings and holidays emphasizing a
different offering. However, to view culture and tradition as God-given or natural, as
Burke did as many of his contemporaries could no longer do because of the fact that even
though multicolored culture is man-made, that all such traditions are deceived given that
propaganda enters into our existence on all sides. Also, what is clearly seen is the
portrayal of the dreaded river as the cultural and economic divisions that divide modern
countries.

The constitution and its provisions become the hallmarks of a multi-faceted and patriotic
party. This is because the constitution is not just a “set of laws and laws governing
society and government”, and it is not just a social contract or even a great deal of fear
but a “common expression of the nation's will, which is a reflection of its history, fears,
concerns, aspirations, ideas and national health” (IDEA, 2000 ). The symbolic function of
the constitution - the "national democracy" as a political party finds words in the
introduction that give the impression of the need for national development. However,
there is a big difference between the use of words in the introduction and the meaning
given to them as seen in the Nigerian case. To date the content of the 1999 Constitution is
controversial over its provision of the century, its legitimacy being undermined by the

35
process it produced, and the ‘non-negotiation’ that preceded its official declaration by the
Abacha / Abdulsalami dictatorship. In line with these problems, a constitution that should
be a symbol of national unity seems meaningless to the people of Nigeria. This explains
why there is a need for a change in the popular constitutional government within the
national framework. This proposes to ensure the effective participation of all in the
drafting of the constitution which will address the fears and concerns of the few and the
concerns of the majority. If this is followed, the constitution, will serve as a mechanism
for government action that can not only be effectively prevented but will also serve as a
very effective symbol of the united forces operating in the community.

Week 5: Rights and Obligations of Citizens

It is anticipated that the integration of countries within the geographical boundaries of

territories and the installation of participatory democratic institutions will provide equal
access to many services. The scope of state resources is:

(a) Public Utilities: These are things like legal protection and access to the courts of law

(b) Social Services: Here, the state is expected to provide social, educational and health
services

(c) Political resources: This includes voting and political representation to ensure the
equality of all citizens.

(d) Economic Resources: This includes land and water use as well as the right to
permanent residence.

Specifically, in a concrete political system like Nigeria, the Convention on the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 chapter
iv describes the guarantee of human rights especially political freedom and civil liberties.

36
RESPONSIBILITIES OF CITIZENSHIP

This means the power to take responsibility (such as involvement in the holding of
positions) in the police (State). This function effectively separates the citizen from the
non-citizens. Other duties and responsibilities expected from citizenship are:

(a) Respect: Citizenship is a form of public-private partnership in which the individual

owes the trust, commitment to the state and is entitled to state protection. It is fair to say,
however, that although these protections are extended to foreigners, the accompanying
burden is sometimes denied or sometimes extended slightly to foreigners and other non-
citizens residing in any country.

(b) Tax Obligation: Citizens (and aliens) of the country are under obligation / obligation
to pay taxes, royalties because income will be grown on the provision of social
infrastructure and basic services.

(c) Military Service: One of the responsibilities of citizens in the state (for example
Israel) is to provide for and serve the integrity of the state through institutions and
organizations such as the police and the military / armed forces. However, in Nigeria it is
not obligatory to work for the military or the police. It is important to note that
immigrants also join the military and the police in other countries.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Given that there are different types of rights in the international human rights bill that
vary in nature and function there will be controversy over claims.

In order to find a solution six areas of rights will be identified.

Human Rights: This includes protection from intrusion, harassment, kidnapping and
unjust detention, etc.

37
Civil rights or freedoms: such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of
association and order.

Political rights: These include the right to participate, the right to vote and the right to
vote. Social and economic rights: The right to at least basic necessities such as food,
shelter and assistance.

Cultural or national rights: include the right to express one's culture and language, the
right to self-determination, the protection of indigenous peoples and their environment
and the protection of minorities.

Solidarity rights: Development rights, social and physical rights, and peace rights. These
rights are older than other sections and also proclaim social, economic and cultural rights,
the so-called “second generation” of human rights often referred to as a socialist
contribution to human rights abroad. This is because trade unions and certain religious
organizations have played a significant role in its promotion. The difference between the
first and the last is evident in the two human rights conventions adopted by the UN in
1966: the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the
International Covenant on Human and Political Rights.

These rights apply to the first two categories described above: human and civil rights.
Proponents of human rights abuses - non-inferenceare libertarians (Libertarianism-
extreme deviations from liberal culture) scholars such as Hayek (1948; 1967) and Nozick
(1974) argued that bad rights should be prioritized - unlike democratic culture, which
emphasized the right to political participation. Here, personal, social, and political rights
are grouped together because there is no lack of rights and that is why there is no need to
relinquish the right of others to others.

Proper rights are also more or less the same as free will which means freedom of action.
In essence, these are the rights to participate in political decision-making and social and
economic rights. In contrast, good rights are defined as rights that require significant
disruption. The implication is that if the rights of other people are to be realized, others
38
must renounce their rights. It is important to note that the link between costly rights and
cheap rights is contraindicated given that bad rights, for example, could mean the social
costs of the police, the judiciary and electoral institutions. This position is important in
the sense that it conveys the idea that the granting of "bad" social and political rights is
not commensurate with the realization of "good" or "great" social and economic rights.
At the same time, the realization of individual rights to food, medical care, shelter, and
education depends on the vicious rights infringed upon.

It is a priori possible to conclude that conflicts will arise, that it is inevitable: it is clear
that conflicts exist between bad and straight rights. For specific rights, for example,
participation in a political process may result in decisions that violate the basic rights to
protection from interference. In other words, the conflict of rights necessitated the
discussion of which rights are most important and which should be prioritized in the
event of a dispute.

RESPONSIBILITES OF THE GOVERNMENT TO ITS CITIZENS

In a study in which the government stood up against regulated political philosophers /

citizens they concluded that government is an acronym for democracy, an organization in
which everyone submits to run their affairs on behalf of all. To this day, citizens are
responsible to the government and the government is responsible to the citizens. For this
very reason, good governance is defined as: “(a system of values), policies and
institutions in which the public manages economic, political and social affairs through
inter-state, inter-agency and private sector. It is the way society organizes itself to make
and implement decisions. It contains the methods and procedures for citizens and groups
to define their interests, mediate their differences and exercise their legal rights and
obligations. It is laws, institutions and practices that set boundaries and provide
incentives for individuals, organizations and firms. This definition not only provides

39
complete aspects of social and political governance but also a holistic view of specific
indicators of governance, their use and power and their limitations (Dahl, 1971).

In line with the above, the purpose of government is emphasized in the social and
political spheres of government. Political status or responsibility "is characterized by the
continued response of public policy to the free and democratic will of its citizens in
which all persons are to be treated as equally (political) persons" (Jorgen Elklit, 1994).

1. Political Equality

The state of political equality among citizens (although not achieved internationally to a
satisfactory standard) suggests that the Nigerian government in managing state resources
will ensure that citizens are equal in access to state benefits / services. In other words,
based on the fact that the elites have more power and influence in government than the
poor citizens "control of the interests of the people and political equality" (Beetham,
1994) means that leaders are elected regularly and all citizens have the right information
about public service.

Related to political equality are the economic or state responsibilities of the state, namely:
good economic governance, the provision of an appropriate institutional and legal
framework for the market economy, and the strengthening of human and physical
infrastructure.

The case is rigid in the sense that “no country can make economic progress without stable
economic conditions. Financial, monetary and exchange rate policies should be used to
achieve high savings and investment. Similarly, because the private sector is critical to
stimulating growth and job creation, the public sector needs to promote an environment
that allows private businesses to reduce poverty (a recent National Bureau of Statistics
study estimated that about 70 million Nigerians are poor or two and a half million
citizens live. poverty due to existing corruption) through the provision of social services
for human resource development, the provision of basic infrastructure in rural and urban
areas, and the protection of the physical environment.
40
In other words, the above functions of government are emphasized in response (to the
needs of the people) which limits the provision of basic public services such as basic
health, drinking water, education especially primary education, provision of social
infrastructure such as housing, schools, road construction, ports, telecommunications,
electricity and rail. Government is also expected to ensure the well-being of its citizens
through job creation, security provision, and the fight against corruption.

In order to provide quality tax services to taxpayers there must be accountability to the
government regarding the use of tax revenue. Citizens expect to enjoy many benefits or
services and benefits as a result of their income from taxes, levies, and so on. This
explains why broad areas including public transparency, access to information and
accountability of the public and private sectors through mechanisms such as free
publication and freedom of speech and efficiency in relation to revenue and expenditure
policies, public administration of public sector revenue and expenditure policies must be
included firmly in the institutions (Anicia, 2003).

However, in spite of the emphasis on social and political systems, the current goals of
development prioritize certain human rights and human rights, the eradication of poverty
and progress towards gender equality.

Expectedly, given the existence of conflicting interests, for government to respond to all
the interests of every group in the society, a responsive state requires the responsiveness
of elected officials to the needs and concerns of society. In effect, there must be access to
legislative committees and local constituencies which must have channels of
communications to different ministries. There should also be regular means by which
elected representatives will consult their constituencies so as to bring government to the
grassroots. In effect, if there is participation in policy making, strong freedom and
competition, then government would be said to be more responsive.

Most importantly, governance or good governance is essentially demand-driven: other

things being equal, the governed will get the quality of governance that they demand.

41
Governance will be democratic, responsive to the needs and interests of the governed,
honest, transparent and accountable if, and only if, citizens from all significant social
groups demand that it be so.

2. Provision of Health Services

The analysis of governance indicators would cover the inputs and outcomes/impacts of
the proportion of government expenditure spent on health and education as a percentage
of GDP, and gross national income in combination with progress in health and education
indicators on Human Development Indicators (HDI). Employment is also inclusive
because most of the poor are not in waged employment. Or better still the ratio of the
total impact of all these on women such as equal opportunity or affirmative action in
education and employment etc.

In the hierarchy of results, inputs are those things that contribute to the achievement of an
end but do not, of themselves, achieve it. For example, is the assessment of the inputs
towards the achievement of basic education to ascertain if the necessary outcomes were
sufficient or not. Output or process or impact indicators capture or measure the extent to
which the end is actually achieved. For instance, does the ratio of outcome indicators
reveal the (in) effectiveness of governance processes such as equal opportunity or
affirmative guidelines in education, employment, health services etc.

Provision of Health Services has been defined as a state of complete physical and mental
well being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. In effect, the government
has the social objective to provide adequate medical and health facilities for all persons as
specifically stated in section 17(3d) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria. However, access to good health remains a mirage for many Nigerians for
reasons.

First, the state of medical and health facilities is far from sufficient for the deterioration
or mismanagement of the health sector (prior to the rehabilitation of certain educational
hospitals by Obasanjo administrators). The result was a severe shortage of health workers
42
/ professionals in developed countries that provided better economic opportunities.
Second, where services are available too far away or health services are less expensive. A
situation that has led to the health misconduct of the average Nigerian person taking
exercise and the support of people with unofficial knowledge or has led to the travel of
the majority who live rich in conventional medical examinations.

Lack of access to basic and sophisticated equipment as well as the poor condition of the
above health facilities is described in Nigeria's health care system which is among the
worst in the world despite being empowered. For example, in the 2008 UNICEF World
Children's Report, Nigeria is sadly ranked among the 12 countries with the lowest
maternal mortality rate of 800-1500 per 100,000 live births. In fact, to date the impact of
access to clean water and sanitation will continue in many Nigerian cities, let alone rural /
rural areas. This has a huge impact on the health of children who are already affected by
malnutrition and are at risk of disease and hunger. With these staggering figures, one
wonders if the government realizes that only those who are alive can enjoy the services
provided by the government. It is expected that, achieving the objectives of the
constitution will be an attempt to address the shortcomings.

Firstly, it was the passing of the work of the full legal framework that eventually led to
the Senate's National Health Bill which would ensure the granting of public health
authority to be presented to the president for approval. As such, there is the National
Health Insurance Scheme, a commendable effort, however, that faces many challenges
especially finances. For example, Nigeria's highest health budget is about seven percent
at the state level and 3 percent at the national level. This is despite the fact that Nigeria
has signed an international declaration that countries should allocate 15% of their total
health budget. This is in contrast to Malaysia, for example, which allocates eight percent
of its total budget to their health insurance system and has managed to cover the lives of
40 million people within three years. It is evident from this analysis that the positive
premium imposed on the health and well-being of the Nigerian people is low (UNDP,
2004).

43
 3. Provision of Education

Educational interventions are clearly the key to eradicating poverty in the long run.
However, it is unfortunate that while governments and stakeholders around the world are
strategizing to achieve the Millennium Development Goals through education, enrollment
in primary and secondary schools in the country is not something to write home about.
This is evidenced by a recent report presented to the United Nations Committee on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women by the provincial
government which stated that “contrary to previous years, enrollment in primary
schooling between 2004 and 2006 for women showed a decrease from 80 to 60.4%. 19.6)
the total number of girls under the age of registration ”. The situation, the report goes on
to say, was similar to that of boys dropping from 80 to 64% (a decrease of 16 percent) at
the same time. The same thing happened at the high school level in 2004 as enrollment
dropped from 83.4 to 46 percent for female students. Primary school enrollment figures
according to the Nigerian Labor Congress show that the country's primary school
enrollment was less than 50 percent when the North recorded below the national average.

According to UNICEF, as of May 2008, nearly ten million school-age children (primary
and secondary) were illiterate. Of these, 4.7 million are in primary school age, while 5.3
million are school-age and 62 percent of illiterate children are girls. In the Northern
Provinces, 34 percent of girls attend primary school. These unfortunate figures not only
reflect the government's lack of readiness to meet its obligations in the provision of basic
education but also to join the rest of the world in ensuring that by 2015, "children
everywhere, boys and girls alike, be able to complete full primary education". This level
of performance is a disgrace to the nation that introduced the Universal Basic Education
(UBE) program nearly a decade ago, with the expectation of providing free and
compulsory education to every child aged 6-15. The obvious reasons for not delivering
services so far in the UBE program cannot be separated from the results that prevent
corrupt officials as evidenced not only by the Education Senate Committee to secure
government funding between 2005 and 2006 provided only 11% of the N30 billion

44
allocated to the program of UBE reached by 36 regions and the Federal Capital Territory
but also in the 2007 ICPC discovery of a massive fraud of N3.32 billion (The Punch,
Friday, September 19, 2008).

4. Provision of Infrastructures

Numerous studies have shown that the level of infrastructure adequacy determines the
success or failure of a country in diversifying production, expanding trade, dealing with
population growth and poverty reduction. Ironically, Nigeria's astonishing rapid
economic growth is facing one of Africa's fastest growing economies with real annual
GDP growth of 6.8 percent over the past 5 years and a 9 percent growth rate in 2008,
never to be compared with progress. similar progress in infrastructure development
across the country. Asymmetries in the areas of economic development and infrastructure
are particularly acute in many aspects of Nigeria's infrastructure, including, roads, ports,
telecommunications, railways and the negative impact of power supply. For example, the
installed capacity of about 7,000 megawatts e.g. To reverse this trend, Director of Africa
Credit Research, Renaissance Capital, Mr John Bates says “Nigeria must spend 20
percent of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) much larger than China's infrastructure, by
12 cents infrastructure to achieve its 20-year target (GDP) by 2020.

However, as infrastructure is so important that it cannot be left to the government or the

public sector alone there is a need for government to provide tax breaks to private sector
investors who have been trying to improve infrastructure. To promote co-operative
growth, there is a need for government to provide transparency, accountability and equity
so that the private sector can participate in infrastructure development. This is because in
all cases of infrastructure purchases, the amount of money and costs and benefits to the
community should be the most important. In fact, addressing the gap in infrastructure,
whether in terms of supply chain to facilitate agricultural development or to increase
capacity to positively impact people's lives or to improve foreign infrastructure such as

45
ports, to operate more efficiently and effectively is important given that it will improve
business environment. business costs.

Indeed, with the right kind of infrastructure, growth will accelerate. In other words,
infrastructure is key to other issues such as greater economic stability through changes in
inflation, real exchange rates, sound monetary and fiscal policies and budget inequality
thus laying the foundation for economic growth.

Similarly, if a dangerous or negative revelation about the youth by the Minister of Youth
and Social Development, Akinlabi Olasunkanmi, states that according to the 2006 census,
64 million (that 1.6 million representing 16 per cent of the 16 million employed are
unemployed) "80 million young people in the country" is anything to go by, and
establishing an infrastructure base will create opportunities including job creation and
income generation (Awogbenle, 2010).

The infrastructure also helps in making plans for the future. This is especially so as it is
clear that the Statistics Office in Nigeria does not have the knowledge of infrastructure
that needs to be expanded as the people in the nation's capital are growing apart from the
general public. This is not the case in developed lands. For example, the US government
has recently looked at population growth over the next few years and looking at whatever
happened it is budgeting more than a billion dollars for the expansion of infrastructure
that will be needed.

5. Provision of Security

One of the responsibilities that the government imposes on citizens on the other hand, is
to protect the weak and powerful through the provision of security. This can be achieved
through institutions and organizations such as the police and the military / armed forces,
as well as uniformed actors who play an important role of oversight in relation to
political, legal and financial purposes. It is expected that the government's position in
fulfilling this responsibility and responsibility to its citizens must be based on fairness
and equity in the administration of justice. The implications of this rule of law as a mark
46
of any leadership are to ensure that there are no duplicate standards in the administration
of justice for citizens (Nwonkwo, 2011).

For many Nigerians, brutality at the hands of soldiers, police, and other security forces
has become commonplace. This is because the Nigerian Police Force often intimidates
citizens while in developed countries, it is unlikely that people in uniform will intimidate
citizens; rather their power is shown to the criminals. In fact, the human race in those
communities looks to their security personnel for protection and protection. But the
opposite is happening in Nigeria, as citizens tremble when they see security personnel
who are supposed to protect them. This is confusing because the uniform should not only
be a symbol of pride but will serve as a reminder of the vow you are carrying and the
accompanying responsibility. Finally, security personnel should be provided with an
appropriate line on how much they will invest in the uniforms they are wearing so that a
green demonstration of nude power reminds us of the colonial idea of protecting those in
power from the people.

Follow the above point, in most cases, there seems to be a breakdown between the
government and the citizens and even those in the Diaspora or abroad who have to endure
almost daily, cases of assault, illegal detention, illegal prosecution and detention. There
are various examples such as these that have recently taken place in Liberia bringing back
the war where reports from peacekeepers and ordinary Nigerians about the hostility of the
citizens of the host country. The claim as usual is that there is no way the government can
help a citizen because there are no ways to identify them because most of them left the
coast of Nigeria due to poverty or unemployment.

In fact, in Nigeria, there is a need to focus on what should be considered the most
important reforms in the security sector, namely public safety and 'safety / to whom?'
freedom from want and freedom from fear. In general, the most common security threats
in Africa are closely related to the fear of urban crime, deadly conflicts, and the lack of
basic necessities of life. Therefore, transformation of the security sector can only have a

47
sustainable impact if done in a way that enhances people's freedom from fear and
freedom from poverty. In fact, the collection of personal security leads to public safety
and, when communities are safe, political leadership lives in peace with its people.
Nigerians (rural and urban) are very concerned about their safety from crime and conflict
especially considering that criminals and insurgents have opened up the jurisdiction of
the law enforcement agencies to the extent that it has led to armed forces being used to
support police and end deadly civil strife.

Civil Organisations

An important aspect in these societies are the existence of important independent institutions
known as civil organisations which contribute to the effectiveness and stability of the democratic
government because of their ‘internal’ effects on the individual members and their external
influence on the wider society(Putnam,1993:89). Given that ‘civil society’ has a variety of
meanings for this course, however, let us adopt Mouzelis(1996:52), rather restrictive definition
because he argues that to stretch the civil society notion to cover also non-state groups and
institutions that exist in all state societies(e.g. traditional chiefdoms ) weakens the concept’s
analytical utility. Civil society, to him, refers to all social groups and institutions which, in all
conditions of modernity lie between primordial kinship groups and institutions on the one hand,
and state groups and institutions on the other. By conditions of modernity, he means social
settings where not only the public and private spheres are clearly differentiated, but in which
exist also a large-scale mobilisation of the population and its independent inclusion into the
national, economic, political, and cultural arenas.

In line with this definition, a strong civil society strengthens state and society through:

(a) Ensuring that the rule of law conditions effectively protect citizens from state arbitrariness;
(b) The existence of strongly organised non-state interest groups is capable of checking eventual
abuses of power by those who control the means of administration and coercion. (c) That there is
an existence of a balanced pluralism among civilsociety interests so that none can establish

48
absolute dominance. This point presupposes that where people are brought in an authoritarian
fashion it can be said to be a weak civil society.

Based on these features, it would not be out of place to query if political parties should be
considered as part of a state or civil society? There are theorists in favour of either as well as
those who distinguish between the state, civil society and political society and locate the parties
in the political –society category. For our purpose in this course, political parties (that the main
objective is to capture power) can be considered as the major organisational means for
articulating civil-society interests with the state particularly in a democratic dispensation. This is
because previously the distribution of political, civil and socio-economic rights was uneven and
restricted. In fact, where it was available, the lower classes, although brought into the national
centre, were left out as far as basic rights were concerned i.e. the rights guaranteeing them a
reasonable share in the distribution of political power, wealth and social prestige.

Thus, given that basic rights was achieved either from above (by elites competing among
themselves for the political support of the underprivileged), or from below (via the economic and
political organisation of urban and rural workers) the popular struggle for the acquisition of
rights began on the political level. For instance, what previously was centred on efforts to obtain
the right to vote or to form associations has now transcended in recent times in the form of
popular movements demanding the improvements in the quality of life in all aspects
(environmental movement, gender etc). All these bring to bear the fact that democratisation is
not only about the political but also the economic and cultural spheres.

In specific terms civil society organisations play a legitimate role in ensuring that established
principles guide both the specific actions of the state and the overall goals of national
development. They are important actors in helping to create and strengthen the culture of rights
within a communities and country.

Week 6: Natural duties, Natural Rights and Natural Obligation

LEGITIMACY AND POLITICAL OBLIGATION

PRINCIPLES OF POLITICAL OBLIGATION CONTENTS

49
Based on the fact that the State is not only dominant among social institutions because of the
authority over its members but also the right to be obeyed, this unit examines ‘what constitutes
political obligation’. Consequently, it will focus on the following questions: why a citizen should
be obligated to the state? What are the proper limits of the authority of the state and when may a
citizen refuse to be obligated to it? How does the state achieve this obedience for instance, in a
democratic setting? Is it through the use of the brute or coercive force of the military? Especially
in the sense in which authority of the State to issue commands and, at the same time, to correlate
the right to obedience has led to conflict between the claims of authority and of those individuals
who say they do not feel any obligations to the State.

3.1 Understanding Political Obligation?

In broad terms, obligation means to bind morally by some favour rendered or to legally constrain
by contract or by duty. In practical terms, political obligation is the legal imposition of obligation
on the citizen to obey the laws of the government which usually leaves the individual no option
but rather containing a penalty in-case of failure (through the law).The implication of this is that
states do not found rights entrenched in state laws and degrees, to be obeyed on force but to
function as enabling laws or rules which impose an obligation to obey. For instance, the
individual cannot decide whether or not to pay tax or not because it is non-negotiable expectation
by the State from the citizen to do so. More over, the membership of a state is not like that of the
social institution where one is not obligated or bound by its rules. However, the legal imposition
of obligation on the citizens to obey State laws, however, is congruent upon the government
acting justly or ensuring through its laws that just relations prevail among its citizen body.

Thus, the premise of a citizen’s obligation to the state is premised on convention and contract as
explicitly stated in Rawls (1971) A Theory of Justice. The bane of this theory is based on an
assumption about an imaginary group of future members of a proposed society who came
together and proposed a social contract in which the participants or individuals (the rational
contractors) choose or selected principles of justice that will govern them.

Accordingly, the rational contractors or the persons in the Original position of the proposed
society or the constitutional convention agreed to be under a ‘veil of ignorance’. This ‘veil of
ignorance’ ensures that the individuals to the pact have minimal information about knowing their

50
roles, status, profession (be it labourers, civil servant, a lawyer, medical doctor etc) prior the
division of labour in the society. The essence is to ensure that experience enters into choice.

Scholars have argued that even in the most purely technical aspect of it, it is difficult to agree
that in this fictive construct, the individual decision-maker, the party,’ makes choices in what is
even constructively a ‘sequence’. But for Rawls it is plausible especially considering that the
supposed members of the convention, having selected their principles, would legislate on it
before it becomes a ‘constitution’ prior application to individual cases in society (p.136).It could
be said therefore that the rational contractors are likely to agree to a specific set of principles of
justice which the bargain embodies such as: (a) the equal liberty principle and, (b) the principle
of efficiency(i.e. it promotes efficiency) believing that it will be applied impartially to every
participant or anyone affected by it in order to sustain the basic structure of a well ordered
society or better still determine how basic goods of the society are to be distributed. The aim is
justice and fairness in distribution.

However, since to have laid down the fundamental charter of such a society does not constitute
the how and why or even if it is necessary that the aforementioned principles apply to individuals
it becomes paramount to know the set of principles that the rational contractors are likely to
agree to regulate the behaviour of members. The implication of this, in practical terms, is when
institutional rules are to be obeyed. This implies that the rational contractors would enjoin those
who have voluntarily accepted the benefits of a just co-operative scheme to bear the burdens
associated with the stability of the scheme. Most importantly, given the possibility that a social
arrangement may be just but with a dearth in the provision of public goods, the contractors are
likely to consider another principle that may enjoin all to support the scheme/institution whether
the individual has gained under the scheme/institution or not.

These set of principles Rawls adduced are a) a principle of fairness and (b) a principle of natural
duties.

3.2 Principles of Fairness as Congruent to a Citizen’s Obligation to the State

51
The notion of fairness defines a citizen’s obligation to an institution or state. This principle is
fundamental to Rawl’s conception of justice because once a member has accepted the benefits of
a mutually beneficial and just scheme that is based on social co-operation, that guarantees
benefits only when everyone or nearly everyone co-operates, then one is bound by duty of fair
play to do ones part. This is as against taking advantage of the free benefits by non-co-operation.

Broadly ‘fairness’ borders on some consideration, which is only relevant once a given
distribution has been met. This definition presupposes satisfaction with some distributive end-
result. However, this conception of ‘fairness’ as ‘being satisfied with a distributive end-result’
does not in any way specify what the consideration is given that ‘fairness’ embodies issues like:
how fair was the bargain/contract entered into? And whether the relevant distributive criterion,
was based on, ability or need? Based on this, it would seem that what a ‘fair’ bargain is in any
given distributive situation will be a function of the effect on participants or beneficiaries. The
application of the principles of fairness in the distribution of the basic goods in the society is
expected to be in such a manner that ensures justice (social justice) for all its members thereby
eliminating arbitrary distinction between competing claims.

To therefore guarantee the fairness of distributive outcomes quite independently of the consent
of the participants or beneficiaries some specified conditions must be present before a person can
be said to be obligated to abide by the rules of the institution/state. The conditions are:

(a) That all the future members of the proposed society typically must voluntarily accept (and
must intend to continue to accept) the principles of “obligation” to be chosen.

(b) That the already existing society must already have had its principle(s) of justice which
should include the guarantee of the ‘rule of law’ embedded in satisfying the principles of justice.

In view of the above conditions, it is obvious that the ‘Rawlsian’ society is not merely
individualistic, and in that sense conflict-free, which makes it difficult in fact to imagine when
and how to ascertain the ‘voluntary acceptance’ of an aggregation of more or less equal
individuals ‘of what constitutes the principle of fairness’? In view of this difficult situation, it
becomes apparent that the rational contractors or the persons in the Original position would not
want to be obligated to defend an institution that might be unjustly based on extremely
burdensome institutional rules. A typical unjust state is a bankrupt state where government

52
engages in white elephant projects or maintains outright irresponsible public services evidenced
in the state not living up to the expectation in the provision of public goods such as national
defence, good roads, health programmes, law and order. However, faced with the difficulty of
ascertaining the ‘voluntary acceptance’ of an aggregation of individual’s two considerations
become apt to ensure caution. The first is that the contractors should not lose sight of the fact that
the principle of equal liberty served as a guide in choosing principles for individuals in the
original position. To this end, it would appear apt to accord the individuals the liberty of not
obeying institutions whose benefits they have not voluntarily enjoyed. Second, as a condition of
institutional obedience, a police state may be instituted so as to regulate citizens’ behaviour
through force/coercion (may be through the law). This is aimed at guarding against the
unpleasant (but quite possible) consequences of revolutionary tendencies of some individuals.

Following from the above, it is pertinent to examine when an individual could be said to have the
‘voluntary acceptance’ of benefits received from enjoying the public goods (national defence,
good roads etc) of the State involved in the principle of fairness? Voluntary acceptance of
benefits could be said to occur according to Richard, (1971) “where there is some mature option
of choice… with the intention and expectation of encouraging others to rely on you to do your
part in bearing the burdens, so that they will be encouraged to do their part…… The implication
of this, (in principle) is that no young child or even adult who is not financially independent, and
thus capable of choosing his/her own life, is bound to his native country. This is because he /she
have no mature option of choice between accepting and not accepting the benefits of the legal
system. To this end, such an individual is at liberty to choose whatever country he pleases”.

However, this “mature option of choice” has been debunked practically on the grounds that it
does not appear plausible given the expense of travel and the often stiff immigration
requirements of most countries (Adeigbo, 1991). Despite this contrasting view, Richard
maintains the optimistic stance arguing that as long as there is increasing rapidity of travel and
communications between nations, growing availability of travel to more income classes, and the
reduction of immigrant restrictions between nations… the possibility of real choice widens, and
with it the applicability of the principles of fairness”.

But irrespective of Richard’s optimism, it appears that “voluntary acceptance” of public

benefits/goods though stimulating still remains essentially unrealistic. The apparent realistic and

53
genuine argument will be to argue that in as much as an institution or a state is logically
committed to providing collective goods or public goods (national defence, good roads, health
programmes, law and order etc) for its members/citizens, then the question of whether or not an
individual member claims these benefits ‘voluntarily’ should not rear its head. Moreover, it is
also obvious that the notions of ‘accepting benefit’ and ‘voluntariness’ are not divorced from
each other in the context of institutional obedience based on the understanding that obligations
(e.g promissory and contractual obligation) have to be voluntarily assumed in order to be
binding. Infact, Rawls concludes that the average citizen has no political obligation per se since
it is typically difficult to say, from the view point of average citizen, what the requisite binding
obligatory act is. To this end, he maintained that each citizen has a natural duty (a duty derived
from the principle of positive natural duties) to promote and support just institutions and
arrangements. This is irrespective of the prior understanding of political obligation as a result of
a mutually beneficial scheme of social co-operation or even as a duty deriving from “fair play”
In sum, most importantly, it is expected that the defining features of indivisibility (equal
availability of public goods to all citizens) and non-excludability (collective goods should not be
denied to any citizen) are strictly adhered to.

PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL DUTY

As a follow-up to the previous unit which addressed the State as a dominant social institution
which seeks to be obeyed, this unit will explain what the principles of natural duties imply so as
to know why a citizen should be obligated to the state?

3.1 Principle or (precepts) of Natural Duty of Justice

This principle conceives a citizen’s support and compliance with just institutions as a natural
duty. This principle rests on the fundamental distinction which Rawls (1971) makes between two
distinctive principles: the principle of natural duties (which includes the natural duty of justice)
and the principle (or precept) of natural justice.

This principle is based on the two principles of justice. In effect, where the basic structure of
society is just, or reasonably just from the angle of a partial compliance (non-ideal) theory, then

54
every individual in a state is bound to comply with the institutional rules. This principle is
established on the features that define the rule of law or the precepts of justice associated with
the general administration of law.

The practice of the principles (especially the equal liberty principle) at any given moment it may
be adopted at the constitution-making and legislative stages, for instance, in Nigeria- the
National Assembly and House of Representatives, and when it is assented into law, it becomes
the paradigm or reference point. Paradigms not only provide a framework for problem solving,
they involve a series of other commitments. Put differently, for rule of law, once the paradigm is
established, it constitutes some sort of restrictions on individual rights in the sense that the rights
will be defined within the ambit of the rule of law for the regular and impartial administration of
public rules. The essence of this ‘justice of regularity’ is to constrain all those involved in the
administration of law to act in a manner which will enhance the exercise of individual liberties.
The general principle which serves as a rule or guide for the notion of natural justice is that
judges interpret and apply the rule correctly, or that those who enact the laws and give orders in
similar cases ensure that sanctions for law- violation should be proportionate to the crime. In
effect, the rule of law depends not only on the provision of adequate safeguards against abuse of
power by the Executive, but also on the existence of effective government capable of
maintaining law and order as well as ensuring adequate social and economic conditions of life
for the society.

The obvious advantages of this principle over the second arm of the principle of fairness which is
more or less like it, is that it does not presuppose any act of consent or any voluntary act in order
to obligate. In sum, the natural duty of justice, Rawls contends, is ‘the primary basis of our
political ties to a constitutional regime or rather that it is the principle which binds citizens
generally to their political institutions’.

3.2 Principle of Natural Duties

This principle (like other principles for individuals) is an important component of the notion of
right given that it helps to define various interpersonal relationships and to explain how these
relationships arise. It derives its content in part from the aforementioned principle (principles of

55
justice) irrespective of Rawls insistence that the principles of justice are principles for the design
of institutions and practices, and not principles for individuals.

What is particularly useful for our purpose in view of the contention of justice as fairness (earlier
conceived in relation to political obligation as a duty deriving from “fair play”), is that the
fundamental natural duty, is the duty of justice. The rule of this duty expects citizens to support
and comply with just institutions already in existence. And, where no institution is in existence,
to establish such institutions if it can be achieved without much inconvenience. Essentially the
natural duty of justice, Rawls contends, is the primary basis of our political ties to a
constitutional regime or rather that it is the principle which binds citizens generally to their
political institutions. From this analysis, one fact is immediately obvious and that is, that the
principle of the natural duty is premised on the two principles of justice. So, it could be argued
that where the basic structures of society have been validated with just rules, or even as just as
can reasonably be, then all citizens are bound to comply with the institutional rules.

I think a parallel can be drawn between the first principle and the latter. However, to say a
parallel line can be drawn is not to suggest any homologous (agreeing: of the same essential
nature, corresponding in relative position, general structure, and descent) relationship between
the two though no logical difference exists between what the two principles and that of
individuals demand.

So far, the obvious advantages of this principle are evidenced in first, the agreement with the use
of ‘duty’ in connection with status or role (e.g. the relationship between the employer and the
employee). This advantage brings to the fore the coercive feature of the concept of duty in
relation to certain social ties or interpersonal relationships (like the duty of non-interference with
property of another) which may involve their performance being enforced. Second, this principle
does not presuppose any act of consent or any voluntary act in order to obligate. Third, it also,
applies to everyone irrespective of their institutional relationships. However, the adoption of
these principles is dependent on how rigorous or convincing the natural duty of justice will be to
other natural duties. But given that Rawls did not provide any priority scale for natural duties to
be applied except that negative natural duties precede the positive duties in concrete terms
therefore, the natural duties of malfeasance (especially of an official illegal deed or evil-doing
which one ought not to do) and non-malevolence may supersede the duty to establish and

56
advance the state/institutions. Thus, although the natural duty of justice likes other duties,
appears convincing, however, the task it assigns in relation to the law in any given situation is a
prima facie one i.e a task that does not involve too great a cost either to oneself or to someone
else.

3.3 Advantages of the Principle of Natural Duties over the Principle of Fairness

So far, some advantages are obvious.

1. This principle (which appears like the principle of fairness which defines obligations), does
not presuppose any act of consent or any voluntary act in order to obligate.

2. It also, applies to everyone irrespective of their institutional relationships.

3. This principle agrees with the use of ‘duty’ in connection with status or role (e.g. the
relationship between the employer and the employee).

Week 8: CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE

It was Peter Singer (1973) who argued that “for whatever reasons there are for obeying the law
in any society, there may be stronger reasons against doing so in particular cases”. The obvious
implication of this is that an individual or citizens political obligations are not only not absolute
but closely tied with the related notions of dissent and of protest. To this end, citizens or
inhabitants of a State can embark on a massive act of civil disobedience aimed at resistance
against government policies/ acts. These protests sometimes are directed, not against a law as
such but against a policy or a decision of government probably because such decision undercuts
basic political rights or violates a shared conception of distributive justice or both. In the light of
the above, many scholars, especially Mohandas Ghandi (1961) have maintained that civil
disobedience is an inherent right of a citizen” without which the citizen is less than a man (or
woman)”. He argues further that, “unless a citizen can insist that s/he has a moral right as a moral

57
being to disagree with his/her government anytime it acts unjustly then his or her moral status is
degraded”. It is for this reason that it becomes essential to distinguish between civil disobedience
and direct action. Direct action according to Bedau (1961), is a type of political protest in which
the dissenter uses his own body as a lever to pry loose the policy of government. The example of
a direct action is evidenced in the self-incineration of the Buddhist monk or his hunger strike in
protest against some government practice or policy. Civil disobedience is used in most cases in
relation to anything from constitutional test cases and such forms of protest as non-cooperation,
hunger strike, industrial strikes and self-immolation to aiding the escape of a criminal. Direct
action can be likened to direct violence, which, directed against authority, is described as
rebellion, revolt, or even revolution. And, these (rebellion, revolution-Marxist or French
revolution or better still the revolution of the nihilists of contemporary society etc) are modalities
of protest against structural violence (which is a property of social institutions and which denies
the individual the possibility of selfrealisation) or direct violence where the latter is acts carried
out by instrumentalities of the government. This is why direct violence like direct action,
whether structurally warranted, or alternatively directed against repressive structures, is in the
final analysis, self-defeating. Infact, the belief among scholars that change can occur only
through violence has been criticised on the grounds that “violence is only one modality of action
and there is no reason it should be conferred a peculiar logical status” (Raymond Aron cf
Dudley,1975:8). In effect, violence, thus, is not self-justificatory hence its use has to be justified
and this can only be done when all other avenues of effecting change have been exhausted. It is
clear from this analysis that both are distinct forms of protest because direct action involves the
violation of law while civil disobedience does not.

3.2 Civil Disobedience Not an Act Of Law Violation The above argument presents a plausible
contention that civil disobedience does constitute law-violation. This is essentially based on the
argument of some scholars that there may be situations that bear no connection between the law
which is de facto disobeyed and the decision or policy which is the reason for the protest. In this
case, the disobedience becomes largely symbolic i.e. a law is disobeyed in order to protest the
decision or policy under reference. To this end, they contend that to say that civil disobedience
constitutes an act of law violation is unfounded based on the following fundamental arguments.

58
a) That there is no crime known as ‘civil disobedience’. This is because for there to be a crime,
there needs to be an area of human conduct prohibited or under pain of sanction by rule of law.
However, the act of civil disobedience does not fall under this ambit based on the requirements.
Moreover, under the section of criminal code, there is no provision of civil disobedience as an
offence. Agreeably, though the civil disobedient might be arrested in the course of a protest
march and subsequently charged to court but obviously it is never for committing civil
disobedience but with trivial cases as illegal occupation, traffic obstruction, holding a public
parade without permit or with violating some incidental law(Adeigbo,1991).

Second, although there may be some atom of truth that an individual’s act of protest may violate
some valid law such as trespass of law however, Ronald Dworkian still contended that an
individual’s act of protest should not be adjudged illegal given that it does not have the usual
selfish, dishonest and clandestine intent normally associated with criminal violation of the law.
This in view of the fact that the act of protest is not like the listed group of law violations
considered as criminal as evidenced in cases associated with arsonists, rapists, kidnappers,
cheats and murders who obviously disobey the law. Based on this civil disobedience does not
constitute law-violation because the object of protest in most cases is not against a law but a
policy or decision. In effect, there is no gain saying that civil disobedience simply as an end itself
does violate the law.

In effect, for a group of people to possess legitimate political authority, the presupposition is that
they have right or are permitted, provisionally at least to define what constitutes legality or
illegality within the scope of their authority. But the converse is not true, in the sense that it is
not every law violation that constitutes an act of civil disobedience. For instance, people who
violate traffic laws or trespass are not necessarily civil disobedient. Moreover, there are cases of
illegal action as evidenced in invalid testamentary acts or invalid marriages which are not in any
way acts of political protest much less civil disobedience.

Consequent upon the above position, it is clear to an extent that if a protester must disobey or
violate a law in civil manner, then, the law that he or she disobeys must have sanction of
punishment attached to it. So, to ensure that civil disobedience constitutes an act of law violation,
government, technically might not rest on its oars hence there is the probability of a law
prohibiting civil disobedience being enacted in line with penal laws. However, given the liberal-

59
democratic character of most modern states (Nigeria inclusive) and the constitutional guarantees
of the civil liberties of free speech, free assembly, and freedom of dissent, any law purporting to
prohibit civil disobedience would be unconstitutional.

3.3 Features of Civil Disobedience 1. It is a protest tool. In line with most of the literatures on
civil disobedience which agree with the protest-element (Carl, 1964; Bertrand cf Bedau (1961))
contend that the over-riding aim of those who engage in civil obedience acts is geared towards
making an effective protest through recurrent reporting of the reasons for their action so as to
either open grave issues to the public debate, to register deep concern and vehement objectives”.
This kind of publicity becomes possible through the popular form of protest which takes the
form of appeal, address and propaganda “about a change in the law or policies of the government
contrary to good public policy” (Rawls,1971). Although this feature is agreeable to many
theorists, however, the caveat borders on whether the ‘protest-feature’ is an end in itself or rather
as part of an effort to achieve social change/ social objective. To nip the controversies in the bud,
Howard (1968) specifically believes that civil disobedience should be “geared towards a vital
social purpose that may be achieved either by violating an obnoxious law, protesting an unjust
condition or symbolically enacting a desirable law or condition”. Moreover, given that human
purposes and activities do not automatically harmonise with one another, then one cannot,
deflect the possibility of lack of congruence not only in patterns of reasonable or unreasonable
disobedient behaviour but equally regarding aims. 2. It is public: This feature is essential because
(a) it brings to the fore the fact that the civil disobedient is not a covert plotter contemplating
toppling a constituted authority. (b)It is not in any way like other acts of civil disobedience e.g
the common cases of crime mostly conducted under concealment. (c)It brings to public
awareness the nature and direction of the protest. (d) Fundamentally, it demonstrates the
communal or civic character of any protest. Consequent upon this, it would therefore amount to
giving the dog a bad name to hang it if peradventure government agents apprehend a group of
citizens or their representatives under the ploy that they were involved in civil disobedient acts.
This would be an aberration bearing in mind that their acts cannot be concealed from the
appropriate authorities since from the outset they were notified in advance of the time and of the
place/venue which is always open to public glare.

60
3. It is non- violent. This non –violent character according to theorists like Thoreau, Gandhi,
Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy among others, just as the name presupposes the word
‘civil’ encompasses features like political, public and noncriminal. The non-violent feature is
paramount for the protesters in their quest to appeal to national conscience especially based on
Luther’s admonition that violence “destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible
because it does not leave society members dialoguing with one another” the non-violent, polite
attitude comes into play so as to re-assure a distraught public that they need not live in fear for
safety and security of their property. By and large, it is clear that the civil disobedient does not
contemplate a violent overthrow of the government given the non-violent feature. In effect, the
civilly disobedient should not violate the same law that is being protested. This is given the fact
that the object of protest may not be a law or anything having the form of law, it would be
ridiculous to suggest that the civil disobedient should commit treason or murder while protesting
against (treason law) or challenge overly harsh death penalty laws. Rather the civilly disobedient
achieves the main objective by the violation of accidental laws (such as trespass laws or traffic
regulations) which involves the violations of a valid law. 4. It is conscientious act and yet
politically motivated. Theorists such as Bedau, Carl Cohen and Rawls among others stress that
the conscientious nature of a decision to embark on civil disobedience are in two senses: First,
that an act of civil disobedience is conscientious in the sense that it is performed from the
principled and deeply held convictions of the protester. This is in relation to the fact that the civil
disobedient (in violating the law) believes that what is done is right even if it is conceived as
illegal. Second, civil disobedience is also conscientious in relation to the fact that the civil
disobedient needs to be someone who is already aware of the political legitimacy of the
government in lieu of the quest to press for claims within the constitution. And given that all
things are not always equal: even when parliamentary issues and debates may appear to be free
enough; however, the majority always seems to vote along the party lines. This default not only
obstructs but appears inadequate despite political and legal procedures being constitutionally
guaranteed. It is however, important to note that the conscientious assertion does not seek to
justify disobedience to law on the fact that a given law is incompatible with one conscience. This
is apt given Hook’s warning that conscience is a dangerous guide to principled political peace
workers because of the possibility of taking totalitarians in tow. However, it has also been argued
that the ‘’conscientiousness’’ of the civil disobedient does not according to Bedau(1961), refer to

61
weighing the consequences for everyone of obeying an objectionable law against the
consequences of disobedience. 5. It has also been described as a politically motivated act. The
political act could be construed in a way that those who employ civil disobedient strategies will
be seen as persons who are concerned with the institutional frame-work of rule in the state or
persons who seek a re-statement of decisions. The ‘political act’ argument is, of course,
unobjectionable but trivial as there is no clear distinction between civil disobedience and other
forms of political protest. However, Rawls’ argument for describing civil disobedience is
instructive. He contends that “civil disobedience is a political act not only in the sense that it is
addressed to the majority that holds political power but also because it is an act guided and
justified by political principles of justice which regulate the constitution and social institution
generally. In justifying civil disobedience one does not appeal to principle of personal morality
or to religious doctrines, though these may coincide with and support one’s claims; and it goes
without saying that civil disobedience cannot be grounded solely on group of self-interest.
Instead one invokes the commonly shared conception of justice that underline the political
order… By engaging in civil disobedience a minority forces the majority to consider whether it
wishes to have its actions construed in this way, or whether in view of the common sense of
justice, it wishes to acknowledge the legitimate claims of the minority”. In sum, civil
disobedience as a politically motivated act is all about the continuation of government outside of
normal politics in as much as acts of civil disobediences are engaged in for political purpose,
sanctioned by political considerations and guided by political principles. Following from the
above arguments, civil disobedience may be defined as a non-violent protest which consists in
the deliberate and public violation of, at least, a presumptively valid law or some policy of
decision of the government generally thought to have the force of law; conscientiously
committed ( obviously as the last resort ) as well as a politically motivated act.

3.4 Civil Disobedience as Constituting an Act of Law Violation

Irrespective of the above analysis, a civil disobedient act is still conceived as disobedience to
the law or constituting an act of law violation based on the regard of civil disobedience “as
violent, lawless, unrestrained and coercive-that is a departure from normal (Morris, 1964).
Accordingly, a civil disobedient is regarded as a criminal that deserves to be punished. This

62
position is premised on the notion that disobedience presupposes the concept of a law or, at least,
some form of public conduct generally thought and believed to have the force of law, which has
been violated thus making the action illegal. And, in as much as the law which has been violated
also has a penal dimension, the illegality is presumptively punishable, although the court, in the
exercise of its discretion, may decide not to prosecute.

In fact, to theorists like Marshall Cohen, Carl Cohen, David Spitz, John Rawls and C.W.
Summer among others have objected arguing that an act of civil disobedience does involve a
violation of law or some decision of government which has the force of law.

First, their main objection is premised on the argument that, rather than actively resorting to
protest which ‘supposedly’ constitutes breaking the law, the individual/citizen could easily have
‘ignored’ the proposed policy that appears unfavorable.

Second, that civil disobedience in a way constitutes ‘disobedience’ because it actually involves a
violation of law/policy /decision of the government having the force of law. Based on this,
conceiving civil disobedience as involving a kind of violation, refusal or non-compliance should
not constitute a difficulty. The argument that civil disobedience involves the violation of a law or
norm of public conduct in relation to a penal code came to be based on the argument whether or
not constitutional test cases. Some of the proponents of the exclusion of testcases from the
analysis are Wasserstrom (1966) and Carl Cohen (1964) who contend that if an act of law
violation is performed under a claim of ultimately legal or constitutional rights, or vindicated by
the courts on grounds of invalidity such act is simply not an act of civil disobedience. The
implied meaning is that civil disobedience cannot be legally justified just as the moral obligation
to obey the law can be justified on legal principles.

However, Justice Abe Fortas argues that constitutional tests cases constitute acts of civil
disobedience because laws with doubtful constitutional validity constitute the core of civil
disobedient actions. Moreover, civil disobedience or the deliberate violation of law is never
justified, in a nation where the law being violated is not the focus of the protest. To do otherwise
is to act unconstitutionally and immorally, since civil disobedience would become a technique of
welfare and not a form of civil protest. If laws must be violated then both must be invalid or
unconstitutional. It is therefore apparent that the social and moral reality of civil obedience is

63
tantamount to defence of rule of law. Forte’s, stand point have also been punctured on the
grounds that its criterion does nothing to remedy /address unjust social conditions that have not
been formally expressed in the law. This is despite the fact that the criteria agree to the unjust
laws still. The conditions of the civil disobedient protests are often in this category. This is as
evidenced in the fact that there is no specific poverty laws that the poor can violate in protesting
poor living standards and conditions or bigotry or discriminations. These are few examples of the
ills of a nation which rarely or more or less, have been given legal expression.

Adeigbo (1991), on the other hand, does not agree that constitutional test cases constitute civil
disobedience acts. This is because admitting them implies the contradictory preposition that the
law promotes and protects its own testing – given the nexus between law and obedience.

Thus, in logical terms, the law cannot advocate for the breach of law. Accordingly, in as much as
it is conceived that disobeying uncontrolled and unjust laws guarantees protection of the
disobedient from the consequences of his or her action, then forgoing such protection is not out
of context. First, this is in relation to the realisation that the admission of illegality and the
willingness to accept issues involved effectively brings to bear the aim of protest to the public
awareness.

Also, the illegality aspect of it serves to distinguish law violation from the hard-core criminal
type. In effect, agreeing that civil disobedience transcend just presenting a test case is in line with
Rawls’ position that those who use civil obedience to protest unjust legislation policy would be
prepared to continue their protest even if the courts rule against them.

Third, it is illegal in as much as it is acting contrary to a decision made by the State which
incidentally possesses the legitimate political authority of a validly derived law. In effect, for a
group of people to possess legitimate political authority, the presupposition is that they have
right or are permitted, provisionally at least, to define what constitutes legality or illegality
within the scope of their authority. In the light of this, it would be apt to say that civil disobedient
acts constitute illegality when a he or she or a group protests government policy by violating a
valid law that forbids parading without a permit or occupation of government buildings. Thus, it
then makes sense to restrict the notion of illegal acts of civil disobedience to the violation of laws

64
of certain type, namely, penal laws. The above points suffice to show why civil disobedience
involves the violations of valid laws.

Week 8: Defining Legal Institutions.

According to North (1990, p.3) institutions are the “rules of the game in a society or, more
formally, are the humanly devised constraints that shape human interaction... they structure
incentives in human exchange, whether political, social or economic.”

Legal institutions – as subset of the overall institutional framework – can be defined as rules that
govern commercial relationships between different agents of the society, i.e. firms, households,
and government. In the broadest sense, legal institutions thus support market-based transactions
by defining property rights and allowing for their transfer and protection. They allow for the
writing and enforcing of contracts between agents that do not know each other, in a cost-
effective manner, thus helping to avoid hold-up problems.

Legal institutions also provide public goods and govern externalities and third-party effects
through providing coordination mechanisms and resolving collective action problems (Rubin,
2005). On the most general level, “legal institutions” refer to the institutional framework that
underpins contractual relationships in a society and encompasses not only laws and their
enforcement, but also norms and values. On a more specific level, we can refer to specific
institutions that can be found across the world, such as court systems or property registries. On
an even more specific level, “legal institutions” refer to specific legal procedures, such as
enforcing contracts or registering property, which can be undertaken in a different manner and
by different institutional structures across countries. One specific set of institutions governs the
relationship between agents within corporations. Corporate governance is an important area of
legal institutions (Morck, Wolfenzon and Yeung, 2005) that defines the relationship between
investors and managers and among investors with different stakes in the corporations. This
relationship can be defined by public rules and laws, but also rules within the corporation as well
as norms and traditions developed over time.

65
One important dimension is the distribution of cash-flow rights on a corporation’s profits, the
control rights over management and how the two relate to each other. Over time, societies have
defined these relationships in different ways and allowed for different corporate forms, such as
partnerships, limited liability companies and publicly traded companies that allow separation of
management and ownership. As we will discuss below, corporate governance institutions also
help define the boundary between intra- and inter-firm transactions. Given the intertemporal
character of financial transactions and the high degree of asymmetric information and the
resulting agency problems, legal institutions play an especially important role in the financial
sector. Information intermediaries, such as social networks, trade organizations, credit bureaus or
credit rating agencies are multilateral institutions that focus on information exchange, either in a
decentralized or more centralized manner, and that provide a disciplining tool by helping agents
build (or destroy) reputation capital. Enforcement institutions, on the other hand, focus on direct,
monetary or non-monetary, punishment as consequence of violating rules and can be regulatory
agencies, courts and ancillary judicial services, thus mostly public institutions.

Another important distinction, which we will use throughout this chapter is that between
institutions governing commercial relationships between two private parties and institutions
governing relationships between private parties and the government. These are also referred to as
contract enforcement institutions and coercion-constraining institutions (Greif, 2005),
respectively. Coercion-constraining institutions prevent governments from expropriating private
citizens and defaulting on their commitments. Contract enforcement institutions, on the other
hand, help resolve disputes between private parties. While these two sets of institutions are
certainly not independent from each other, there is not a perfect correlation, as we will discuss
below.

Among contract enforcement institutions, one can distinguish between private- and public-order
legal institutions as well as between organic and designed institutions (Greif, 2005). While
organic institutions arise endogenously out of the repeated exchange of agents, designed
institutions are the result of coordinated actions of many individuals or government. The former
can also be characterized as informal, while the latter as formal institutions. While the
development of human societies from bands and tribes to chiefdoms and states has resulted in the
development of public legal institutions supporting commercial transactions between agents that

66
do not know each other, multilateral private institutions have also developed, both
complementary and as substitute to public legal institutions. Beyond bilateral organic private-
order institutions, which are based on reputation and relationships, multilateral reputation
institutions can support market transactions in a wider range of circumstances and in somewhat
broader markets, including across geographic distances and borders.

Multilateral arrangements rely on punishment by an individual member against another member

who cheated a third party, also member of the network, without being directly negatively
affected by the cheater (Greif, 2005). The organic character of these institutions implies that in
many cases common social, ethnic or cultural norms provide the conditions for such networks to
arise and enable punishment. Greif (1993) provides a detailed discussion of the Jewish Maghribi
traders who traded all over Muslim dominated Mediterranean in the 11th century and who used
each other as agent for the sale of their goods. Based on Law Merchant, a multilateral
punishment system, and the expectation that only members of the network could be hired as
agents the Maghibri trader network survived for many decades. While organic multilateral
private institutions can help overcome the problem of asymmetric information, they also have
shortcomings. First, they are not inclusive as they are limited to members of certain groups with
common backgrounds or common interests and thus exclude others.

Today’s ethnic networks in Africa are a good example; while helping their members, they
exclude the majority of agents in the economy and therefore undermine demand for public
institutions. Second, organic multilateral private institutions are built for a specific, static
environment, but cannot easily adapt to new and changing socio-economic circumstances. They
“are more likely to arise where markets are thin and participants locked into relationships”
(Greif, 2005, p. 732). Dixit (2003) shows theoretically how growth in the exchange is almost
instantaneous.

Another important private multilateral legal institution is arbitration, often an alternative to the
public legal system that solves conflicts between contract parties that have pre-committed to
using the arbitration system. The advantages for the users are greater specialization and thus
competence of the arbitrators, the use of customary law and flexibility in terms of which legal
system to choose. Arbitration without the backup by a public court system, however, is often not
feasible, unless reputation forces the losing party to comply with the ruling (Rubin, 2005).

67
Compared to private institutions, public order institutions use the power of a third party, the
state, to enforce rules and laws. They are open as they concern all agents in a political entity or
beyond it in case of international legal institutions. As in the case of private contract enforcement
institutions, however, incentives for this third party, the courts, police etc., are important. Judges
and enforcement officials can be bribed and they can abuse their power. Limiting the extent to
which this happens is the function of coercion-constraining institutions.

Coercion-constraining institutions govern the relationships between private citizens and the
government and are therefore an important basis for public contract enforcement institutions as
well as a backdrop for private legal institutions. Effective coercion-constraining institutions
protect private citizen against unjustified expropriation from the government. They provide
incentives for rulers and enforcement institutions to protect rather than abuse private property
rights. There are coercion-constraining institutions based on an administrative structure, or on the
absence of the state in the commercial area, such as in China during most of the Empire (Greif,
2005). The form of coercion-constraining institutions can determine the efficiency of public legal
institutions.

Coercion-constraining institutions built on the absence of the state are not conducive to the
building of efficient public contract enforcement institutions (Greif, 2005). Legal institutions are
typically very persistent. Public legal institutions are especially difficult to change as this
involves large fixed costs. Legal institutions are also self-enforcing, if they reflect the socio-
economic power distribution in a society and help to preserve.

68