CHAPTER ONE.

1.1

BACKGRAND ANALYSIS.

In the first week of April, 2013, the warning signs were already there.
Few years ago, there was a symposium organised by The Future Awards in Ikogosi, Ekiti State.
At the session attended by the governor, Kayode Fayemi, one Ekiti indigene after another got up
told the governor to pay attention to stomach infrastructure. That event is significant in
hindsight, because if there was one danger sign ahead of a re-election push, that was it.
Now, people all over the country are trying to pick through the wreckage of a campaign that
seems to have been dead on arrival. Instead of congratulations, there are post-mortems. The postmortems are necessary because Fayemi was widely perceived as a governor who was
performing. Some have even described him as the best pound-for-pound (apologies to boxing
fans) governor in Nigeria. Why then did he lose?
The events on June 21st that year have confirmed that, were Gary Chapman to write the Nigerian
political equivalent of The Five Love Languages, Stomach infrastructure would be the top
love language.
It is not like Nigerians do not appreciate good roads, hospitals, and other amenities. It is that
there is something that matters to them a bit more than that. There was a lot of debate on social
media about sharing rice to potential voters in the days before the election, but to restrict the idea
of stomach infrastructure to food, whether cooked or raw, is nave.
Stomach infrastructure is simply the system by which political patronage is dispensed to various
groups in a particular society. This patronage can take many forms. For instance, putting in a
good word for the relative of a high ranking party chieftain, approving a contract or an
appointment for a close political ally or their relative, and so on.
Stomach infrastructure means honouring an invitation to an important social club in Ekiti, and
declaring for its members. It can also mean turning a blind eye to a racket, or several rackets,
for that matter. Other times, it is simply dispensing hard currency.

Grassroots politics, as far as Nigeria is concerned, is more or less a fancy term for building and
maintaining stomach infrastructure. Having a strong political structure is more or less the
means by which this political patronage is consistently dispensed, the means by which it reaches
the masses.
It is this (infra)structure that sustains you when you try to do unpopular things like take on the
teachers and civil servants, as well as reform the civil service in general. It is this structure that
enables you to call in favours on election day. It is this structure that enables you to ward off
challengers like Ayo Fayose, backed as he was by a rejuvenated PDP.
Ibrahim Babangida, to name just one example, understood this idea of stomach infrastructure
very, very well. MKO Abiola understood it too. Both men were famed for their generosity and
people skills, traits which kept them relevant in Nigerias power play for decades.
The best guess about what happened, is that the culture shock of moving from the governance
style of Niyi Adebayo, Ayo Fayose and Segun Oni, to the style of Kayode Fayemi, was so great
that it produced a backlash. Overnight, the people of Ekiti went from experiencing one extreme
to another, and they just could not take it. Then, along came a familiar face at just the right time,
with just the right people skills, who had just the right party behind him.
The reason why Ekiti cannot be used as a barometer for the rest of the country, is that what
happened there was a perfect storm. It does not take just one factor to bring about the defeat of
an incumbent, especially by such a margin.
Fayemi took on the teachers over competency tests, and implemented the results, leading to the
demotion of some who had served for decades. The rest of them never took the tests and
punished him at the ballot box. This fight may have been better left for a second term. There was
also a lot of friction over the payment of the new Teachers Salary Scale, which he said the
government could not afford. Again, scaling back on ambitious goals to focus on bread and
butter issues could have saved the situation.
The biggest fall-out of this election is that it might cause many who want to seek political office
to pause and wonder what the point is, if someone who is performing can be so summarily
rejected. The best thing to do is learn. The majority of Nigerias electorate are preoccupied with

basic issues of survival, and this affects everything else. No amount of political correctness can
change this.
Democracy remains a popularity contest, and for as long as everyone above 18 can vote, then the
wishes of the majority must be taken into account to a significant extent. If the people in a
particular place want to be governed in a certain way, then that must be accommodated, even if it
means deviating a bit from a pure focus on the traditional indices of governance.
Politics Comments By Oghene Omonisa Craftsmen at Aba, Abia State as well as traders at
Onitsha, Anambra State should get prepared to receive new apprentices from Ekiti State. This is
being promoted as a bid by the Ekiti State government to ensure that Ekiti youths are trained to
be self-reliant and look beyond government patronage, and to also prove that, aside education,
developing unskilled Ekiti youths does not warrant only sending them overseas for training.
From Left; Hon Fajemilehin Ayodele, Gboyin, Hon Adeniran Alagbada, Ise/Orun, Hon Dr STB
Omotoso, Oye 1, Hon Akinleye Ekundayo, Ijero, Hon Akinyele Olatunji, Oye 2, Hon Olusegun
Adewumi, Ekiti West, Hon Pastor Kola Olwawole, Moba 1, Leader of Delegate, Hon Chief
Gboyega Aribisogan, Ikole1, Hon Sina Animasaun, Ekiti West 2, Hon Princess Tiltilayo
Owolabi, Ikole2, All are Honurable Member Elect from Ekiti , during the Courtesy visit to
Vanguard Newspaper, by Honurable Member Elect from Ekiti State, Kehinde Gbadamosi From
Left; Hon Fajemilehin Ayodele, Gboyin, Hon Adeniran Alagbada, Ise/Orun, Hon Dr STB
Omotoso, Oye 1, Hon Akinleye Ekundayo, Ijero, Hon Akinyele Olatunji, Oye 2, Hon Olusegun
Adewumi, Ekiti West, Hon Pastor Kola Olwawole, Moba 1, Leader of Delegate, Hon Chief
Gboyega Aribisogan, Ikole1, Hon Sina Animasaun, Ekiti West 2, Hon Princess Tiltilayo
Owolabi, Ikole2, All are Honurable Member Elect from Ekiti , The idea was floated by Hon.
(Dr.) STB Omotoso, Ekiti State House of Assembly Member-elect (Oye 1 Constituency, PDP)
during a courtesy visit by Ekiti State Assembly Members-elect to the corporate head office of
Vanguard Media Ltd, Kirikiri, Apapa, Lagos, Hon. Omotosho, while condemning critics of Gov.
Ayo Fayose of Ekiti State for their criticisms of what has come to be termed stomach
infrastructure, said such criticisms give the concept a narrow definition as it goes beyond giving
gifts of bags of rice and other foodstuff to voters to influence their choice. Stomach
infrastructure is narrowly defined by critics of Governor Fayose, Hon. Omotosho said. It is not
all about just feeding people or giving gifts to people. If one should expatiate on the concept, it

entails providing the people not only with the basic necessities of life after election, but also
empowering them by making them self-reliant, with the best education and training and then
giving them employment, which the Fayose government is presently engaged in.
Speaking further, the lawmaker-elect said the Ekiti State government did not need to waste
scarce resources sending Ekiti unskilled youths to Europe or America for training. Instead, they
could be sent to Aba to learn how to make shoes and bags, and to Onitsha to master trade; while
those who are qualified and competent will be given local contracts. This is the concept behind
the so-called stomach infrastructure and not just distributing gift items. Stomach infrastructure
goes on after election. It is about helping the poor. It is about engaging them in what can feed
them earn a living. Thats what Fayose wants to continue doing. He needs stability to achieve for
no progress can be made during crisis. We have had enough crisis and we want peaqce in our
state. Aba, well known for its handicrafts, is reputed for its handmade shoes and handbags. It is
also a major manufacturing and trading centre in South-Eastern Nigeria, with its Ariaria
International Market as the largest market in West Africa, seconded by the Onitsha Main Market.
And Onitsha is known for its trading, where the average traders are known to bring in at least six
consignments of 40 tonnes (40-feet containers) of goods annually. Some of the major importers
do more than 20 consignments of 40 tonnes of goods per year. Interestingly, the multi-billion
dollar economies of both commercial towns are dominated by craftsmen and merchants many of
whom do not have university education, but rely on apprenticeship to cut their teeth in the trades
before going on their own.
It will be recalled that stomach infrastructure crept into Nigerias political lexicon following
the 2014 Ekiti State governorship election when voters were given gifts of bags of rice and other
foodstuff by office contenders to influence their choice. Both Fayose and Fayemi, the then
governor gave out gifts. But Fayoses became so prominent that it was believed to have led to his
victory. Fayose sending Ekiti youths to Aba and Onitsha in furtherance of his stomach
infrastructure will be a move which is believed will enjoy the backing of the incoming Ekiti State
House of Assembly, as all 26 members-elect were elected on PDP ticket, like the governor. The
youths, according to the said plan, are expected to return to Ekiti State after completing their
apprenticeship, to re-enact the Aba and Onitsha phenomenon in their home state. Speaking in
similar vein, Hon. Fajemilehin (Gboyin West Constituency, PDP) and Hon. (Princess) Titilayo

Owolabi (Ikole 2. Constituency, PDP) argued that giving gift items to voters has historically been
a part of Nigerias electioneering process and was not begun by Fayose nor was it peculiar to
him. Hon. Fajemilehin noted that during campaign in recent governorship elections in the SouthWest, the All Progressives Congress (APC) distributed to voters, free bags of rice and bread
carrying the names and photographs of its candidates, citing cases of Rauf Aregbesola in Osun
State, Abiola Ajimobi, Oyo State, and Akinwumi Ambode, Lagos State; but alleged that nobody
noticed all these and that they were never condemned like they still do to Fayose. Hon.
Fajemilehin also noted that stomach infrastructure has seen Fayose awarding contracts to local
contractors for them to make profits and cater for their family, unlike before, when furniture and
some items were brought from overseas. The Honourable Member-elect also attributed to
stomach infrastructure the governors paying of WAEC fees and several other fees on behalf of
students, as well as buying tractors and setting up markets. Also speaking, Hon. (Chief) Gboyega
Aribisogan (Ikole 1. Constituency, PDP) revealed that most public perceptions of Gov ernor
Fayose were a media creation orchestrated by his political opponents, which necessitated their
visit, as the people of Ekiti State, who elected them would not expect them to stand by and watch
their state destroyed by external forces with their selfish interests. Every speaker spoke
positively of Governor Fayose, promising that the incoming House would support and work with
him. They described him as a phenomenon, a man passionate about the people and a man of
peace, and that that was why he was overwhelmingly elected by the people of the state.
Oremekunu (friend of the poor) was frequently used to describe Governor Fayose. All the
lawmakers emphasized on peace, saying that the state needed peace to develop and that Fayose
had repeatedly tried to make peace with all in the state. They assured that while the incoming
legislature and the executive arm would enjoy a robust relationship, they would not be proteges
of Governor Fayose. The visiting team was led by Hon. (Pastor) Kola Oluwaloye (Moba 1.).
Other members included Mr. Tola Esan, Clerk of the present House, Hon. (Chief) Gboyega
Aribisogan (Ikole 1), Hon. Sina Animaseun (Ekiti West 2.), Hon. (Princess) Owolabi Titilayo
(Ikole 2.), Mr. Tolu Afolabi (Director of Information), Hon. Fajemilehin Ayodele (Gboyin), Hon.
Adeniran Alagbada (Ise/Orun) and Hon. (Dr.) S.T.B. Omotoso (Oye 1.). Others were Hon.
Akinleye Ekundayo (Ijero), Hon. Akinyele Olatunji (Oye 2.), Hon. Pelemo Dare (Ekiti East 2.),
Hon. Henry Aladeyelu

Perhaps, owing to the increasing level of poverty in the country, Nigerias electioneering has
taken a new dimension with politicians only ready to ameliorate the peoples hardship on ad-hoc
basis, prompting researchers and political scholars to examine how politics of stomach
infrastructure affected the outcomes of the recent governorship polls in Ekiti and Osun states.
Nigerians sophistication, especially when it comes to politics is legendary. Year in, year out, the
countrys political scene is filled with different slogans and clichs to describe one particular
political ideology or philosophy or another, depending on who is propounding the terminologies.
Nigerians would not forget in a hurry the win-at-all-cost syndrome, aptly titled door- die politics
by former President Olusegun Obasanjo; Rivers State people would also not forget in a hurry the
theory of kleg as propounded by same Obasanjo in the case of the candidature of Rotimi
Amaechi as the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governorship candidate in 2007. The latest of
such clichs reigning supreme in the political terrain is what has come to be known as stomach
infrastructure.
Even President Goodluck Jonathan acknowledged the theory of stomach infrastructure when he
said that there was the need to take care of the peoples needs.
Ekiti: The increasingly alarming rate of poverty added with failure of political leaders to keep to
their physical infrastructure development promises have made citizens to seek for what would at
least benefit them now, which many now refer to as stomach infrastructure, translated to mean
provision of food and funds for the hungry and the needy to secure their support, especially
during an election.
It is like many Nigerians now see election time as the only period they have to get a share of the
national cake as well as make candidates squeeze out goodies and rewards if they must win.
This stems from the fact that often times, after candidates win elections, they are no longer
accessible to the electorate whose mandates they hold in trust.
Against the principles of electioneering under a democratic dispensation which include rallies,
symposiums, town hall meetings and more; electioneering process in Nigeria has taken a new
form of mobilisation and campaign.

Today, instead of rallies where candidates present their manifestos and aspirations to the
electorate, hammering mostly on economic and social amenities like road construction,
electricity, pipe-borne water, schools and many more, candidates now employ stomach
infrastructure to win the hearts of the electorate and buy their votes.
The fallout of the June 21 Ekiti State gubernatorial election is a pointer to this, whereby the
candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Mr. Ayodele Fayose, adopted this campaign
strategy to emerge winner over Dr. Kayode Fayemi of the All Progressives Congress (APC) who
was also accused of the same strategy.
In his reaction to the defeat of his party, APC, in Ekiti State, Lagos State governor, Mr.
Babatunde Fashola, who renamed this campaign strategy as stomach infrastructure in his essay
entitled, Ekiti Poll: My Takeaway, argued that contrary to the provisions of infrastructure such
as new roads, schools, hospitals, tourism development among others, Ekiti residents bowed for
cash and inducement, adding that people of Ekiti left the whole nation wondering since the Ekiti
are highly respected people who have contributed ideas and values to national development.
Part of the reasons observers believed that made Fayemi to lose gallantly to Fayose was that his
policies and programmes were anti-masses. His government, to students, monarchs, chiefs, and
market women, was not given a pass mark as students were unhappy with his administrations
increase in tuition fees; policy of no fees, no exams; and the closure of the state university.
Ekiti monarchs were also alleged to assume that Fayose would make an approachable governor
whose office may even be run from various palaces in the state.
They thought of Fayose as their prodigal son who can dole out cash, contracts and employment
slots to them at any point in time. Political watchers asserted that not only did Fayose put up
stomach infrastructure campaign against physical infrastructure, it was believed that his
familiarisation with the grassroots endeared the citizens towards him.
For instance, in one of his campaigns, Fayose rode on Okada (commercial motorcycle) from one
campaign stop to another, and even waited by the road side to buy cooked corn from a poor seller
indicating that his government will do for the voters what they like and not what he (Fayose)
liked.

In his victory speech, Fayose described his relationship with the people as a life contract, adding
that he came out among his people and he would not turn his back against them. My charge to
every politician is to target the poor people. They will not come and ask you for contracts, all
they want is to have their lives improved, to which they believe I have an answer.
I do things a governor is expected to do. For me, I am a grassroots man and because of the way I
operate with them, they call me Senior Advocate of the Masses. So, I want to continue that trend;
I want to identify with them continuously. I will not leave them. In contrast, Fayemi, while
conceding defeat said, Indeed a new sociology of the Ekiti people may have evolved.
However, the task of understanding how the outcome of this election has defined us as a people
will be that of scholars. For us as an administration and a cadre of political leaders in Ekiti State,
we have fought a good fight, we have kept faith.
According to, a social critic, Godwin Adindu, the judgment of the people of Ekiti is that Fayemi
built physical infrastructure at the detriment of stomach infrastructure, as he was confident that
he had performed and delivered on his promise of providing democracy dividends while the
people disagreed because they cannot enjoy the mighty infrastructure when their stomachs were
squirming with hunger pangs. Adindu said, Stomach infrastructure is about our survival, first
and foremost.
It is about following the natural sequence of things in governance. It is about understanding the
bottom-top, gradual approaches in developmental strides. It is about carrying everybody along,
everyone in his own pace.
Osun: As it was in Ekiti, so it was in the August 9 Osun State gubernatorial election, where rice
and other food stuffs were distributed as tools for wooing and winning the votes of the electorate
by the various political parties.
Political parties with financial muscle were more involved; it was like a pay as you go campaign
session with the PDP and APC having the edge and outdoing themselves; even though they both
denied sharing food stuffs to buy votes.

Since his assumption of office, Governor Rauf Aregbesola has to a great extent been committed
to the infrastructural development of the state, constructing and rehabilitating roads, building
schools and markets, providing pipe-borne water and even building bridges within the states
available federal allocations and resources.
He was the first to introduce the school feeding programme in Nigeria to increase the number of
children in school, as well as food production. This involves feeding 300, 000 pupils every
school day at the cost of N3.6 billion per annum.
He also introduced the welfare of the elderly programme. However, his bid for a second term
against major opponent of PDP, Omisore, there seemed to be diversion of interest and purpose as
most candidates for the election took to the stomach infrastructure agenda; forcing the APC to
shift ground because if you cannot beat them, you join them.
The two major parties in the poll intensively embarked on food stuffs sharing like bags of rice,
noodles, milk and even kerosene in order to win the hearts of the electorate. Although this trend
is not new in Nigerias electoral system, however, the new dimension it is taking is alarming and
calls for concern.
Before now, this practice of foods sharing was done underground and mostly in the interior parts
of a state. However; it has eaten so deep into the fabrics of Nigerias electoral system that there
seems to be no fear or shame in distributing food stuffs during elections and it has also become a
normal practice in major cities and towns.
Instead of cups of rice as was the practice back then, it has now become customised different
bags of rice with the face and name of the contestant distributing it printed on it. Sometimes, it is
done on behalf of the candidates by their supporters and followers.
National Mirror learnt in Osun that truck loads of rice was allegedly offloaded at the PDP
secretariat in Osogbo daily during the campaigns and were distributed to crowd of awaiting
hungry supporters. The APC, however, warned people against collecting the rice, describing it
as expired and poisonous.

The APC, in a statement issued by its state Director of Publicity, Research and Strategy, Mr.
Kunle Oyatomi, alleged that the PDP collaborated with the Nigeria Customs Service to open a
warehouse in Ikeja, Lagos, from where the expired rice were loaded and transported to Osun.
The APC spokesperson further alleged that the PDP re-bagged the expired rice to deceive the
recipients. Reacting to the APCs claims, PDP state chairman, Gani Olaoluwa, also accused the
ruling party of distributing expired sachet milk and noodles.
He stated that his party was not distributing items to the people to buy their votes, but to identify
with them during the Ramadan period. He said, We distributed rice to the people of the state
during the Ramadan season three years ago; we did the same two years ago and last year. Did
they raise any allegation? They are the ones that are sharing items because of the election.
We just want to advise our people to reject expired sachet milk and noodles from the APC.
Chairman, Organisation and Mobilisation Committee of the PDP in the South- West, Mr. Buruji
Kashamu, also distributed kerosene to residents of Osun in the run up to the August 9 election.
Speaking through his Managing Director; Samson Onasile, Kashamu explained that the kerosene
was not aimed at inducing voters but to assist them. The governorship candidates of the Labour
Party (LP), Fatai Akinbade, and the Social Democratic Party (SDP), Mr. Segun Akinwusi,
heavily criticised the emergency distribution of food stuffs to voters.
They called on the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), to sanction both the
APC and the PDP for violating the electoral law by inducing voters with items. But voters in
Osogbo, in a chat with National Mirror, described the alarm by the LP and SDP as noise made
out of lack.
They argued that nothing was wrong with contestants giving gifts to the electorate, especially
when it was coming from those in power who have failed to meet the basic needs of the people.
Some of the voters only saw the gifts as their own share of the national cake, saying that
whoever won the election would forget all his campaign promises. 2015: There is no doubt that
this new phenomenon will play a crucial role in the 2015 elections.
Several political leaders will be shell-shocked when the reality hits them that their definition of
development is different from that of the electorate, because in a country where the majority

wallow in poverty and squalor, the first concern should be survival and not physical
development.
This is what many political leaders need to understand. It happened in Ekiti, it happened in Osun,
though it really didnt play any major role in the outcome of the Osun poll, but there is no
gainsaying that it will have greater impact in the 2015 general election.
This is not to deny the importance of indulging in physical and lasting development, but only to
pinpoint the fact that the basics must always be the first, because it is only when the basics are
taken care of that other things follow. This tells why a leader must be visionary otherwise he is
not fit to lead. It is a leaders obligation to see ahead of his people.
He must be able to see the bigger picture and a great future for his people and must do as much
as possible to take them to the envisioned future which the followers may not necessarily see.
Nevertheless, a leader must also be a manager; must be able to manage people and their
expectations while also managing his own aspirations. He must be able to strike a balance
between his goals and the peoples expectations in order to carry them along.
A professor of political science and Dean, Faculty of Social Sciences and Entrepreneurial Studies
at the Leeds University, Ibadan, Ayo Olukotun, in his reaction to this new phenomenon in our
politics said, It is the long term versus the shortterm. Do you give a guy some dole as they call it
in the UK to redress his immediate problems or do you attempt to do some enduring things that
will in time generate spin-offs that will improve his lot?
Insisting that government must do a bit of both, he added, You must alleviate peoples distress
in the short-term and you must also have some projects that will improve or upgrade their
welfare in the medium- term and in the long-term. Like a commentator once stated, a
government that succeeds must succeed in three basic ways: reducing poverty, reducing
inequality and reducing unemployment.
These three things are linked directly to what people now refer to as stomach infrastructure.
What this new phenomenon has thrown up is what in conventional policy practice, is termed
social protection, which is a legitimate way of intervening in situations of chronic poverty.

And like some analysts have said, until Nigerian political leaders pay serious attention to social
protection policy, they will only wake up but rather too late, to realise that their opponents, who
have informally provided those services to the electorate through stomach infrastructure, have
won their hearts.
In his words on social protection policy, Dr. Remi Aiyede, a senior political science lecturer at
the University of Ibadan said, It is a legitimate policy that is executed all over the world, from
the familiar programme in Brazil to the one in Ghana.
I think the leadership is supposed to appreciate the dire conditions in which the ordinary people
live. You have to engage them in their poverty. If you think that they will act like sages when
they are under pressure, then you are mistaken. They will continue to vote against you.
And in any case, that is the role of the elite: to be able to see the peoples situation, develop
policies that are a kind of identification with them, in the empowerment process of coming out of
poverty.

1.2 STATEMENT OF RESEARCH PROBLEMS:

The researcher observes a remarkable trend of decline in the willingness and readiness of the
electorates to vote for any candidate during elections without receiving material reward.
Accordingly, it is expected that the effect of this trend will be visibly felt in the way people are
elected into different governing positions. the researcher is therefore prompted to investigate the
current factors of this trend and their attendant effects in the political system of Nigeria both at
the federal and state levels.

1.3 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY:

Some of the objectives behind the conduct of this research work include:
1. To know the reasons why the electorates choose a particular candidate during an election.
2. To know why the citizens will not vote for candidates who fail to reward them materially.
3. To whether or not the electorates really vote for candidates that reward them materially all the
time.
4. To know why candidates depend on rewarding the electorates materially for them to be voted
into political offices rather than their good name and popularity.

1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY:

The usefulness of this study is that it is multi functional study. It is hope that the study will be a
very useful resource material for professional lecturers as it discusses the politics of stomach
infrastructure and consolidation of democracy in Nigeria.
It is also expected that this study will serve as basis for further researches aiming at providing a
significant developmental idea for the growth oan ideal political setting where those in
governace will remember and be ready to fulfil the promises made to the electorates. Thereby
giving the electorates an A-1 asurance to vote them into office without any material reward. The
study shall enhance the everybodys commitment to the development of an ideal political system
in Nigeria which would be worthy of emulation by other countries of the world.
Finally, as we noted earlier, this research draws from previous works to a large extent. In the
same manner, this research also provides other openings to areas of further discussions on this
subject matter.

1.5 SCOPE OF THE STUDY:

This study will focus on the politics of stomach infrastructure and consolidation of democracy in
Nigeria. Here, the analysis of the study will be streamlined to the above mentioned subjectmater,
and will be carried out in Nigeria being the nation under review.

1.6 LIMITATION OF THE STUDY

It is worthy of note to mention here that this research work like any other faces a kind of
limitation. However, the limitation here is getting the politicians to admit involving in the
politics of stomach infrastructure since no one will admit eating with a missing knife. Another
angle to this is that, the electorates who are the reciepiants of this obnoxious gesture will not find
it easy to admit that the act influences their choice during elections.
However, to this end,

it is necessary to assert that these limitations will not in any way pose a

question mark on reliability and validity of the research work.

1.7 STATEMENT OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS.

The following are some of the many questions that are begging for answers.
1. What influence does stomach infrastructure have on the choice of the electorates?.
2. What is politics?
3. Is the politics of stomach infrastructure limited to a particular state?

1.8 STATEMENT OF RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS.

i. There is no significant relationship between stomach infrastructure and the choice of the
electorates during elections.

ii. There is significant relationship between stomach infrastructure and the choice of the
electorates during elections.
iii. There is no significant relationship between politics of stomach infrastructure and
consolidation of democracy in Nigeria.
iv. The is significant relationship between politics of stomach infrastructure and consolidation of
democracy in Nigeria.

1.9 DEFINITION OF TERMS.

1. Stomach infrastructure stomach infrastructure is simply the system by which political
patronage is dispensed to various groups in a particular society
2. Democracy: this is the process whereby all qualified adult are allowed to choose directly or
indirectly those to represent them in government.
3. Politics: is the process of making uniform decisions applying to members of the group.
4. Csolidation: it is the process of bringing many parts together into a single mass.
5. Electorate: it refers to all the officially qualified voters within a country, an area or for a
particular election.
6. Election: it is the process by which people are voted for something especially public office.
7. Political system: According to renowned political scientists, Gabriel Almond and James
Coleman (1960), Political system is that system of interactions to be found in all independent
societies which performs the functions of integration and adaptation by means of legitimate
physical compulsion.

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW.
2.1 MEANING AND CHARACTERISTICS OF POLITICS.
Man is by nature a political animal.
ARISTOTLE. Politics is exciting because people disagree. They disagree about how they should
live. Who should get what? How should power and other resources be distributed? Should
society be based on cooperation or conflict? And so on. They also disagree about how such
matters should be resolved. How should collective decisions be made? Who should have a say?
How much influence should each person have? And so forth. For Aristotle, this made politics the
master science: that is, nothing less than the activity through which human beings attempt to
improve their lives and create the Good Society. Politics is, above all, a social activity. It is
always a dialogue, and never a monologue. Solitary individuals such as Robinson Crusoe may be
able to develop a simple economy, produce art, and so on, but they cannot engage in politics.
Politics emerges only with the arrival of a Man (or Woman) Friday. Nevertheless, the
disagreement that lies at the heart of politics also extends to the nature of the subject and how it
should be studied. People disagree about what it is that makes social interaction political,
whether it is where it takes place (within government, the state or the public sphere generally), or
the kind of activity it involves (peacefully resolving conflict or exercising control over less
powerful groups). Disagreement about the nature of politics as an academic discipline means that
it embraces a range of theoretical approaches and a variety of schools of analysis. Finally,
globalizing tendencies have encouraged some to speculate that the disciplinary divide between
politics and international relations has now become redundant.
Politics, in its broadest sense, is the activity through which people make, preserve and amend the
general rules under which they live. Although politics is also an academic subject (sometimes
indicated by the use of Politics with a capital P), it is then clearly the study of this activity.
Politics is thus inextricably linked to the phenomena of conflict and cooperation. On the one
hand, the existence of rival opinions, different wants, competing needs and opposing interests
guarantees disagreement about the rules under which people live. On the other hand, people
recognize that, in order to influence these rules or ensure that they are upheld, they must work

with others hence Hannah Arendts (see p. 7) definition of political power as acting in
concert. This is why the heart of politics is often portrayed as a process of conflict resolution, in
which rival views or competing interests are reconciled with one another. However, politics in
this broad sense is better thought of as a search for conflict resolution than as its achievement, as
not all conflicts are, or can be, resolved. Nevertheless, the inescapable presence of diversity (we
are not all alike) and scarcity (there is never enough to go around) ensures that politics is an
inevitable feature of the human condition.
Any attempt to clarify the meaning of politics must nevertheless address two major problems.
The first is the mass of associations that the word has when used in everyday language; in other
words, politics is a loaded term. Whereas most people think of, say, economics, geography,
history and biology simply as academic subjects, few people come to politics without
preconceptions. Many, for instance, automatically assume that students and teachers of politics
must in some way be biased, finding it difficult to believe that the subject can be approached in
an impartial and dispassionate manner (see p. 19). To make matters worse, politics is usually
thought of as a dirty word: it conjures up images of trouble, disruption and even violence on the
one hand, and deceit, manipulation and lies on the other. There is nothing new about such
associations.
As long ago as 1775, Samuel Johnson dismissed politics as nothing more than a means of rising
in the world, while in the nineteenth century the US historian Henry Adams summed up politics
as the systematic organization of hatreds.
The second and more intractable difficulty is that even respected authorities cannot agree what
the subject is about. Politics is defined in such different ways: as the exercise of power, the
science of government, the making of collective decisions, the allocation of scarce resources, the
practice of deception and manipulation, and so on. The virtue of the definition advanced in this
text the making, preserving and amending of general social rules is that it is sufficiently
broad to encompass most, if not all, of the competing definitions.
However, problems arise when the definition is unpacked, or when the meaning is refined. For
instance, does politics refer to a particular way in which rules are made, preserved or amended

(that is, peacefully, by debate), or to all such processes? Similarly, is politics practised in all
social contexts and institutions, or only in certain ones (that is, government and public life)?
From this perspective, politics may be treated as an essentially contested concept, in the sense
that the term has a number of acceptable or legitimate or alternative conceptions, it is helpful to
distinguish between two broad approaches to defining politics (Hay, 2002; Leftwich, 2004). In
the first, politics is associated with an arena or location, in which case behaviour becomes
political because of where it takes place. In the second, politics is viewed as a process or
mechanism, in which case political behaviour is behaviour that exhibits distinctive
characteristics or qualities, and so can take place in any, and perhaps all, social contexts. Each of
these broad approaches has spawned alternative definitions of politics, and, as discussed later in
the chapter, helped to shape different schools of political analysis (see Figure 1.1). Indeed, the
debate about what is politics? is worth pursuing precisely because it exposes some of the
deepest intellectual and ideological disagreement in the academic study of the subject.
Politics as the art of government
Politics is not a science . . . but an art, Chancellor Bismarck is reputed to have told the German
Reichstag. The art Bismarck had in mind was the art of government, the exercise of control
within society through the making and enforcement of collective decisions. This is perhaps the
classical definition of politics, developed from the original meaning of the term in Ancient
Greece.
The word politics is derived from polis, meaning literally city-state. Ancient Greek society
was divided into a collection of independent city-states, each of which possessed its own system
of government. The largest and most influential of these city-states was Athens, often portrayed
as the cradle of democratic government. In this light, politics can be understood to refer to the
affairs of the polis in effect, what concerns the polis. The modern form of this definition is
therefore what concerns the state (see p. 57). This view of politics is clearly evident in the
everyday use of the term: people are said to be in politics when they hold public office, or to be
entering politics when they seek to do so. It is also a definition that academic political science
has helped to perpetuate.

In many ways, the notion that politics amounts to what concerns the state is the traditional view
of the discipline, reflected in the tendency for academic work. Henry Kissinger said that ninety
percent of politicians give the other ten percent a bad name. Of course Kissinger is one of the
genuinely bad ones, implicated in violence against humanity such as the carpet-bombing of
Cambodia, the invasion of East Timor by Suhartos Indonesia, and the overthow of the
democratically-elected Allende government in Chile by the brutal dictatorship of Pinochet.
Nevertheless, it is worth distinguishing between good and bad politics. Bad politics is
factionalism, manipulation, Machiavellianism. It is power-based, using power to get our way,
exercising power to overcome the legitimate interests of others without due process or debate. It
is the politics we are used to the politics that has given politics a bad reputation.
Good politics is more fundamental to human nature. It is about appreciating peoples talents and
welding them into a whole. It is about collectively discerning the good, finding the right
direction for our societies, and discovering ways to harmoniously deploy our combined attributes
and resources to reach our goals. Yes, it involves prioritization and economics, because there are
hard decisions to make, but it is based on respect for the weak, and the desire for wholeness.
Aristotle famously said that man is a political animal, and he distinguished mankind from
other creatures such as bees who are merely social. What makes mankind political is our ability
to discern the good, and to collectively strive for it. Bees are not political because although they
are social they cannot reflect on their purpose nor adjust their behaviour. In the Nicomachean
Ethics Aristotle writes:
If, then, there is some end of the things we do, which we desire for its own sake (everything else
being desired for the sake of this), and if we do not choose everything for the sake of something
else (for at that rate the process would go on to infinity, so that our desire would be empty and
vain), clearly this must be the Good and the chief Good. Will not the knowledge of it, then, have
a great influence on life? Shall we not, like archers who have a mark to aim at, be more likely to
hit upon what is right? If so, we must try, in outline at least, to determine what it is, and of which
of the sciences or capacities it is the object. It would seem to belong to the most authoritative art
and that which is most truly the master art. And politics appears to be of this nature.

Politics is the master art because it takes all other skills and arts within a society and welds
them into a coherent whole, tending towards the chief Good: It is [politics] that ordains which
of the sciences should be studied in a state, and which each class of citizens should learn and up
to what point they should learn them; and we see even the most highly esteemed of capacities to
fall under this, e.g. strategy, economics, rhetoric; now, since politics uses the rest of the sciences,
and since, again, it legislates as to what we are to do and what we are to abstain from, the end of
this science must include those of the others, so that this end must be the Good for man.
Each art or skill has its own particular end or good: In medicine this is health, in strategy
victory, in architecture a house, in any other sphere something else, and in every action and
pursuit the end. All these goods serve the chief Good which is happiness, just as all the arts and
sciences serve the master art which is politics. Happiness is the final Good, which is pursued for
its own sake and not for the sake of anything else.
What is the smallest political unit? The modern state is political, the city or town is political,
even the family can be thought of as political, because they are all composite social organizations
made up of multiple individual human members. What about individuals ourselves? Are we
political units? Is there some sort of political process occurring within each of us individually?
In many ways the process of individual psychological development is similar to politics. We try
to use our faculties such as reason and intuition to discern the good for ourselves to find
purpose and meaning in our lives and then we try to move our lives in that direction. Often we
undergo internal struggle, as visions of the good life compete with one another, or recalcitrant
attitudes attached to inferior ways of living resist and protest, binding us to negative behaviors.
Is it too much of a leap to say that the process of individual self-development is truly political
rather than just a similitude of politics? Perhaps the individual does not fulfill the basic
precondition for a political entity, of being a composite social organisation. Surely in order for an
entity to be political it must be composed of discrete, diverse units, each with some sort of
autonomy. Is it correct to say that our thoughts, emotions, dreams, unconscious tendencies and so
forth have enough autonomy, diversity and discretion to make each individual a political unit?
To what extent are even the individuals within a society autonomous? To some extent
individuality itself is an illusion. If we try to draw hard and fast lines between ourselves we will

fail. We are all swimming in the same cultural soup and our psychological lives are the texture of
that soup. Looking from above the bowl it looks like a single meal, even though from inside the
bowl we are each identifying ourselves as discrete chunks!
If a political entity does not need to fulfill the strong criteria of being composed of discrete,
diverse, fully autonomous units, it does at least need to fulfill the weaker criterion of being
heterogenous composed of distinguishable parts. A completely bland and homogenous entity
cannot be political. Under this weaker criterion the individual could be political.
Diversity, at least in the sense of heterogeneity (i.e. distinguishable difference within an entity) is
a necessary precondition for politics, along with dialectic: the possibility for resolving tension
arising from difference by using individual or collective discernment of the good.
A concept which further illuminates diversity is pluralism. Pluralism is diversity-plus! Diversity
is difference, and pluralism is recognizing strength in difference. Pluralism does not merely
tolerate diversity, it rejoices in it.
Pluralism should not be confused with liberalism (Parekh, 2006). Liberalism espouses a
particular set of values such as the importance of individual freedom and autonomy. Pluralism on
the other hand espouses no values other than the appreciation of good qualities in diversity.
Liberalism can be intolerant of those who do not espouse liberal values, such as members of
traditional religions and pre-Enlightenment cultures. Pluralism on the other hand looks for the
strengths in both liberal and traditional cultures. Therefore either liberals or conservatives can be
pluralistic.
The point about pluralism is that it requires flexibility. It requires the ability to step outside our
own skins and inhabit others space. Seeing the world through others eyes we come to
appreciate their good qualities. This enables the resolution of tensions or conflicts between
groups, the dialectic that makes politics work.
Dialectic is the resolution of difference. It takes two positions which are in tension (thesis and
antithesis) and finds a third position (synthesis) which resolves the tension. Politics is the
governing element of society because it is capable of resolving tensions between different groups
and moving the whole society in a particular direction. When politics is working well a society

enjoys a high degree of unity. When politics is not working then the differences within a society
widen into deep and painful rifts.
The unity enjoyed by a society in which politics is working should not be mistaken for
uniformity. Unity is possible whether a society is culturally uniform or heterogenous (i.e.
multicultural). The most dynamic harmonious societies are pluralistic. Good politics involves
awareness of the larger, macro dimension of our activities. It is lifting up our heads from the
particular tasks we are engaged in to see the bigger picture. It means investing our activities with
a broader awareness, thereby improving their quality. Political awareness is an uplifting
experience and also poignant, because we know that many of our activities are links in a chain of
suffering. For example, if we understand where our food comes from we may become aware of
the poverty of many of the farmers who produce it, the pollution caused by transporting it, the
difficulties of retailing it, and the compromises made in cooking it. This awareness is political
and it may change our behaviour with regard to what food we buy, from where, and how we treat
it. Organic food pioneer Alice Waters describes her restaurant as a political place where people
are not just engaged in the creative process of making food but they are aware of the
consequences out there in the world.
Political awareness is a form of spirituality because it invests our activities with a sense of
connectedness to a bigger whole. Spirituality inbues activity with a special quality which can
truly be called creativity or productivity. Political awareness means that we are deeply immersed
in our activities and at the same time we transcend them. The opposite of the feeling of
connectness that comes from political awareness is alienation. Activity performed in a state of
alienation is devoid of any spiritual quality. It is exhausted and exhausting. It is truly
unproductive.
An important truth about the pragmatic nature of politics is captured in the saying politics is the
art of the possible. Politics is ultimately practical: it is about implementing solutions. People can
dream of many things, but if they want their dreams to become real they must get involved in the
practical sphere of politics. Politics is grounded in the world.
Being idealistic on its own is not enough, but this does not mean that people should not be
idealistic. Simply being pragmatic may result in policy being implemented, but it will not result

in society moving forward. The good politician needs a balance between idealism and
pragmatism, between heaven and earth.

2.2 REENFORCING DEMOCRACY IN NIGERIA.

It has been variously contended and profoundly demonstrated that democracy is at the
crossroads in Nigeria. However, despite the vicissitudes of democracy in the Nigerian State, the
horrendous setbacks brought about by the States recent encounter with authoritarianism make it
imperative for Nigerians to fully embrace democracy. But democracy in its current tendencies in
Nigeria is also not so attractive for such full embrace. It is contemplated in this study that what
needs to be done necessitates the reinforcement of the existing pillars of the democratic
foundation in Nigeria.
It has been variously contended and profoundly demonstrated that democracy is at the crossroads
in the Nigerian State (Joseph and Gillies, 2010; Awopeju, Adelusi and Oluwashakin, 2012;
Kumolu, 2013; Idike, 2014; Nnanna, 2014; Oni and Segun, 2014). According to Idike (2014:133)
democracy in Nigeria is currently characterized by immense experimentation. In other words, the
usual procedures of enthroning democratically elected governments in Nigeria, are still marked
(even marred) by administrative and executive trials and errors (Idike, 2014). As a matter of fact,
Nnanna (2014) has highlighted that unless great care is taken, Nigerias democracy is heading
towards uncertain waters, in the coming few months. However, despite the vicissitudes of
democracy in Nigeria, the horrendous setbacks brought about by the Nigerian States recent
encounter with authoritarianism make it imperative for Nigerians to fully embrace democracy.
Democracy in its current tendencies in Nigeria is also not so attractive for such full embrace. It
has been posited in this regard that democracys advantage over authoritarianism lies not in some
inherent democratic ability to offer citizens instant gratification of their needs and desires, but
rather in democracys superior institutional and intellectual readiness to cope with the
dissatisfaction produced by its citizens choices (Krastev, 2010:118). It is thus, contemplated in
this study that what needs to be done necessitates the reinforcement of the existing pillars of the
democratic foundation in Nigeria. democratization and democratic consolidation in Nigeria.

The definition of democracy has continued to defy all attempted propositions of common
understanding (Idike, 2014). Kroenig (2011) argues that democracy has gained the status of a
mantra. Yet there is no consensus about how to conceptualize and measure regimes such that
meaningful comparisons can be made through time and across countries. In any case, a major
problem with the various attempts at conceptualizing democracy is the tendency to imbue the
concept with too many attributes. As posited by Munck and Verkuilen (2002), the tendency to
specify the meaning of a concept in a way that includes too many attributes -the problem of
maximalist definitions -has two potential drawbacks. On one hand, the sheer overburdening of a
concept may decrease its usefulness by making it a concept that has no empirical referents. The
inclusion of the notion of social justice as an attribute of democracy is an example. On the other
hand, even if a concept is defined in such a way that empirical instances can be found,
maximalist definitions tend to be so overburdened as to be of little analytical use. For example, if
a market-based economic system is seen as a defining attribute of democracy, the link between
markets and democracy is not left as an issue for empirical research. The problem with such
definitions, as Alvarez, Cheibub, Limongi, and Przeworski (1996) argued, is that they foreclose
the analysis of issues that may be just too interesting to be resolved by a definitional fiat
(Munck and Verkuilen, 2002:9).
In this highly interesting contribution to the conceptual issues in democracy, Munck and
Verkuilen (2002:9) further acknowledges that the effort to avoid the problem of maximalist
definitions usually takes the form of minimalist definitions, which have the obvious advantage of
making it easy to find instances of a concept and allowing for the study of numerous empirical
questions. However, minimalism has its own problems. Indeed, if a concept is so minimalist that
all cases automatically become instances, researchers must add attributes to a concept as a way to
give it more content and thus better address relevant theoretical concerns and discriminate
among cases. Thus as a counterpart to the problem of maximalist definitions, analysts must also
be sensitive to the problem of minimalist definitions, the omission of a relevant attribute in the
definition of a concept (Munck and Verkuilen, 2002:9). The fact remains however that in the case
of democracy, the orthodoxy has become more of maximalism than minimalism. We may be
accused of minimalism in this study as we only view democracy as a people-centered system of
government. Idike (2014:134) further affirms that people are central to the democratic concept
and practices. Democracy is therefore, essentially people-centered (Idike, 2014).

According to Izueke (2014), the elite theory seeks to describe and explain the power
relationships in contemporary society. The theory posits that society is stratified into two, the
masses at the bottom and the ruling elite at the top. The elite are the rich, well educated and
politically influential groups, who share common beliefs and use their influence to dictate public
policies. A major proponent of the theory, he highlights, is Thomas Dye. Hence, according to
Dye (1981), the elite actually shape mass opinion on policy questions more than the masses
shape elite opinion because the people are apathetic and ill-informed about public policy. Dye
and Zeigler (1981) further stated that public policy may be viewed as the preferences and values
of the governing elite. This implies that public policies portray the preferences and values of the
governing elite and not those of the masses. Public officials and administrators merely carry out
the policies decided upon by the elite. They neither contribute nor influence public policies
(Izueke, 2014).
Furthermore, the elite theory postulates that public policy reflects the values and preferences of
the elite rather than demands of the masses. The elite consist of those few individuals who wield
powers and hold leading positions in the strategic aspects of society. The majority, the masses,
only obeys and are guided, controlled and governed by the few. Many of the elites do not hold
formal or legal authoritative powers but are rather behind the scene, teleguiding and
manipulating overt political and policy actions. It is on the basis of presumptions that the masses
are contented and are incapable of challenging the authoritative position of the elite that the elites
dominate public policy and its processes (Ikelegbe, 1994; Arowolo and Aluko, 2012).
Nigerias democracy is highly cantankerous. This cantankerous character is principally due to the
fact that political leanings of the partisan politicians are not based on discernible ideological
inclinations. The political parties operate without identifiable programmes. Nigerian politicians
therefore continuously move from one political party to the other. The case of Governor
Theodore Orji of Abia State was highly remarkable. Within a period of three years, Governor
Orji migrated from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), to Progressive Peoples Alliance
(PPA), to All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) and then back to the PDP. According to
Ugwu (2010) Orji had on July 2, 2010 officially moved to APGA, after severing his links with
the PPA, which gave him the ticket to become governor. The well celebrated defection brought
APGAs national leader, Dim Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu and others to Umuahia (the

Abia State Capital) to embrace their new high profile member. Orji and his wife were publicly
issued APGA membership cards by the partys national chairman, Chief Victor Umeh. Barely
three weeks later, Orji appeared set to defect once again, this time to PDP. The national chairman
of PDP, Dr Okwesilieze Nwodo, led a team to Umuahia to woo the Abia Chief Executive. Orji
was originally a PDP member but followed his then boss, Dr Orji Uzor Kalu (former Governor
of Abia State) to form PPA when the PDP became too uncomfortable for them. Now the PPA has
caught the crisis bug, making Orji to part ways not only with his erstwhile political godfather
(Orji Kalu) but also with the party that gave him the platform to become a governor.
Onyemaizu (2010) confirms that Governor Orjis eventual decampment from APGA to PDP was
actualized in less than two months of his joining APGA. Essentially, these movements were all
about the estranged relationship between the two Orjis (Theodore Orji and Orji Uzor Kalu) as
Kalu had attempted to rejoin the PDP and with his monstrous financial influence preparing to
teach his turncoat former political lieutenant a lesson or two, as he was preparing to re-contest
for the position of Governor in 2011, under APGA (Onyemaizu, 2010). Hence, while Governor
Orji was stating the wishes of his people as the reasons behind his untoward movements, it
was the cantankerous relationship between him and his former governor-mentor that informed
his decisions. He eventually re-contested for the position of Governor, under the PDP and
remained Governor of Abia State.
The All Progressives Congress (APC) is the new opposition amalgam of different political
parties that have come together as a single political party with a single agendum (no other
programme known to anybody) of dislodging the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) from
power. One of the partys heavyweight members is Modu Sheriff, former Governor of
Nigerias Bornu State. In the partys national convention late June, 2014, to elect its first
substantive national officers, Oladesu (2014) records Sheriff as declaring as follows: Today, we
are making history. This convention shows that we have come together for the APC. APC will
solve all the problems we are facing in Nigeria. Meanwhile, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, a former
Governor in Nigerias Lagos State is generally regarded as the Leader of the APC. Owete (2014)
narrates that in March, 2014, the National Executive Committee, NEC, meeting of the All
Progressives Congress, APC, almost turned violent following the threat by a former governor of
Borno State, Ali Modu Sheriff to beat up a national leader of the party, Bola Tinubu. Mr. Sheriff

exploded midway into the meeting, raining abuses on Mr. Tinubu and threatening to slap the
former Lagos State governor. But for the intervention of some party leaders attending the
meeting, including the presidencial candidate of the party, Muhammadu Buhari and a former
Vice President, Atiku Abubakar, the former Borno Governor, almost made real his threat.
The APC NEC meeting was convened to discuss some pressing issues in the party, including the
intended inaugural ward, local government and state congresses as well as a national convention
(Owete, 2014). Mr. Sheriff is a member of the NEC, in his capacity as a former governor and a
leader of the defunct All Nigeria Peoples Party, ANPP, which last year merged with the Action
Congress of Nigeria, ACN, Congress for Progressives Change, CPC, and a section of the All
Progressives Grand Alliance, APGA, to form the APC. He was the Chairman of the ANPP Board
of Trustees until the merger. On his part, apart from being a former governor, Mr. Tinubu is a
respected leading light of the countrys main opposition party. At the end of the meeting, the
APC NEC fixed May 24 for its first national convention. It also fixed April 5 for the ward
congresses while the local government and state congresses would hold April 12 and 23
respectively.
Owete (2014) narrates how Messrs. Sheriff and Tinubu clashed when the meeting began
discussions on the congresses and convention. Angered by a certain development at the meeting,
the former Borno State Governor grabbed the microphone and expressed his opposition to the
issue at stake. Mr. Sheriff was also said to have made some remarks which suggested that he
believed that APC was not yet mature as a party. He was reportedly cautioned by Mr. Tinubu,
who asked him not to speak about the party in a negative manner. The former Lagos State
Governor also asked Mr. Sheriff to quit the APC and go elsewhere, if he was not comfortable
with the party. At this point, Mr. Sheriff, who was now holding firmly to the microphone,
allegedly began to insult Mr. Tinubu, asking him if he owned the party. All the leaders of the
party present at the meeting reportedly watched with amazement as the former Borno State
governor reportedly rained abuses on Mr. Tinubu. It was the presidencial candidate, Retired
General Buhari who saved the day when, sensing danger in allowing Mr. Sheriff to continue
insulting Mr. Tinubu intervened. The the presidencial candidate was said to have tongue-lashed
Mr. Sheriff for losing his composure (Owete, 2014).

Owete (2014) further narrates that Mr. Sheriffs action was seen as a product of bottled-up anger
over the refusal of the party to accord him a prominent place in the fold since the conclusion of
the merger talks and eventual registration of the APC as a party. The former Borno governor was
said to have repeatedly positioned himself to play greater role given the positions he had
occupied as a senator, governor and ANPP Board of Trustees Chairman. Sheriff was believed to
have always blamed Mr. Tinubu, for the ill-treatment and the former Lagos Governors remark
presented a veritable opportunity to strike against him (Tinubu). Mr. Sheriff, it was further learnt
had always believed that Mr. Tinubu had not politically made more achievements than him as
they were not only former senators, but also fellow two-time governors. It was further gathered
that some APC leaders suspect Mr. Sheriff to be a mole planted in the opposition party by the
Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, perhaps due to his closeness to some senior members of the
ruling party. However, in spite of all this, Owete (2014) narrates, some of the partys leaders
were not willing to let Mr. Sheriff turn his back on the APC as he was still believed to have some
political value to bring to the merger. This, it was gathered, is majorly because of his popularity
in the north eastern state of Borno.
Hence, a very strong indications emerged that all was set for this same Sheriff to decamp to the
Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). According to Omipidan (2014), Sheriff was expected to defect
to the PDP, with a view to leading the re-election bid of President Goodluck Jonathan in Borno
State. This same Bornu State we recall has been the epicenter of Boko Haram terrorism in
Nigeria and as a matter of fact the birthplace of Boko Haram. In addition, Modu Sheriff had
variously been linked to the insurgent group in the past though he had equally denied any link to
the group (Okocha, 2014).
As a matter of fact, according to Okocha (2014), on November 22, 2011, the PDP in Borno State
sent a 10-man delegation to media houses and also held a press conference, giving graphic
accounts and declared in the media houses and on camera that Modu Sheriff created Boko Haram
in the build up to 2003 elections. The PDP Chairman, (then) Buba Basharu said this and all the
media carried it (Okocha, 2014). Okocha (2014) continues, the Minister of Information, in the
Goodluck Jonathan Government, Labaran Maku, was on Channels Television and NTA (the
Nigerian Television Authority) where he alleged that Boko Haram was a creation of Bornu State
Government during the regime of Modu Sheriff. The minister spoke for the federal government

that Goodluck is heading (Okocha, 2014). Thus while the international community is outraged at
the horror that Boko Haram had become, cantankerous Nigerian ostensible democrats are busy
strategizing on how to win elections in the Boko Haram dominated Bornu State in 2015, despite
their blame games on who originated Boko Haram . In any case, according to the former
governor, the indefatigable Modu Sheriff, he was joining PDP in the nation's interest (Andrews,
2014).
Another critical issue is that democracy in Nigeria is predominantly finance-dependent.
Everywhere in the world, even in the advanced democracies such as in the United States,
campaign finance is a central issue in the political process (Roberts, 1995; Smith, 1995; Lessig,
2014). However, the Nigerian campaign finance issue is of a different variant. How the funds are
generated and how they are utilized remains usually questionable. It is however well known that
when the funds come from the coffers of the state, victory is usually guaranteed. Thus, as soon as
elections are over, the winner steps into office and starts preparing for the next round of
elections, by amassing wealth from state sources. It is not usually his programmes or the
manifesto of his party that would guarantee victory for him in the next round of elections but
how much money he has siphoned off the state sources for subsequent elections. It is in a
nutshell, not his achievements in office that assures him of victory in the next round of elections,
except if achievements are then measured by how much money he has dubiously made in office.
The Nigerian democrat who ignores this fact of electoral democracy in Nigeria would at the end
of the day have only himself to blame. An important aspect of what the funds are used for is to
practically distribute it to potential voters, either as directly distributed by the candidate himself
or as given out to him by middlemen who would claim that the vote-money will get to the
potential voters. In any case, how much money that enters the hands of the voters is a
determining factor in who wins the election. Hence the political middlemen and their perfidious
principals have learnt to play by the rules of their dubious games. The studies of Adetula (2008)
have also demonstrated that in Nigeria it has been a case of money-dependent democracy.
At the end of the Governorship election in Nigerias Ekiti State on June 21, 2014, the politically
urbane sitting Governor of the State, Dr Kayode Fayemi, lost the election to his rival, the
maverick former governor of the state who was removed from office during the Olusegun
Obasanjo anocratic Presidency in Nigeria, on grounds of corruption and was now staging a

comeback. Political bookmakers had given victory to Dr Fayemi. National and international
good governance crusaders had predicted a landslide for Governor Fayemi, who had been a
stylish member of this class. Indeed, Fayemis records of achievements in office, had assured
him of victory in his re-election endevour. But he lost the election. Former Governor Fayose, it is
now acknowledged, is the better Nigerian politician. While Fayemi was developing
infrastructure, Fayose was directly giving bailout cash to needy citizens, giving them food items
and attending to their sundry personal problems. Thus, in the governance language in Ekiti State
there arose the twin paradigms of physical infrastructure which Governor Fayemi was largely
acknowledged to be developing and the stomach infrastructure which Fayose was availing to the
potential voters (Adindu, 2014; Akeredolu, 2014; Ogundele, 2014).
As a matter of fact, to underscore the role of cash distribution in the Ekiti election, Durotoye
(2014) opines as follows: Even though the election was largely free and fair, the overzealousness
of some security officials who restricted the movement of some APC Governors into Ekiti and
the arbitrary arrest of some officers of the party also prevented the APC from perfecting its last
minute plans for the election. One of those plans included the distribution of money to all the 177
wards to influence voters in favour of its candidate. Even where the money got to the ward level,
party officials were not able to share the money before the election due to the heavy presence of
security personnel. The security personnel were said to have looked the other way when PDP
was distributing money two days before the election (Durotoye, 2014). Campaign finance in the
Nigerian hue of democracy is largely understood in this manner of cash distribution.
Nigerias democracy is a center-related democracy that lacks important periphery attention and
invariably, important periphery input. This is highly attributable to the fact that the collective
resources of the Nigerian federation are disproportionately pooled at the center, to the detriment
of the other federating units -the States. According to Abubakar (2014), the federal government is
too big, too rich, and too strong relative to the federating states. Nigeria Federal Capital
Territory in Abuja might as well be designated Nigerias center of democracy. But that would be
a misnomer, as it is inherent in democracy to abhor centralization.
All the Governors of the 36 States of the Nigerian Federation, every notable person in partisan
politics in Nigeria, are all full fledged or quasi residents of the Federal Capital Territory, in a
bemusing manner. This is strongly indicative of the fact that the dividends of democracy, in the

form of modern infrastructure are not as available as they would be found at the Federal Capital
Territory in Abuja. Is it then whose responsibility to provide these facilities in these other
Nigerian areas?
Above all, democracy in Nigeria is squarely an elitist engagement. Critically speaking, from the
combatants in Nigerias Abia State, the opposition fighters in the APC and the different turncoat
democrats in Bornu state and elsewhere in the Nigerian State, political battles in Nigeria have
immensely bordered on elite perfidy. The welfare of the people usually remains unimportant. In
the process, the Nigerian elite have turned democracy into a government of the elite, by the elite
and for the elite. In their elitist imaginations, they conclude that what Nigerians need are
cashless economy, electronic voting, rebasing of GDP, Vision 20-20-20 and all the other
esoteric nomenclatures that mean little or nothing to the masses. In our bizarre imaginations, we
conclude that if we concentrate on masses-oriented issues as war against hunger and
starvation, security of lives and property, affordable housing schemes for the masses,
preventive healthcare programmes, it would look demeaning for our exalted positions. Hence,
commenting on the 15 years of uninterrupted democracy in Nigeria, Ero (2014) posits:
Fifteen years down the line, not much value seems to have been added to the lives of the people
while our values as a people appear not to have changed from what has kept us down as a nation
and stunted our growth more than 53 years after independence. Rather than abate, our woes seem
to be multiplying. We still lack basic amenities, such that have been taken for granted even in
some fellow African countries. Our huge oil revenues have not changed the life of the ordinary
Nigerian. Our infrastructure are still dilapidated or non-existent. Were facing grave security
challenges that are unprecedented in our chequered history from Boko Haram that is threatening
our existence as one country. The menace of Boko Haram has made such vicious crimes like
armed robbery, kidnapping and related crimes pale into insignificance. The Federal Government
releases economic figures and statistics that are completely out of tune with the reality on ground
as it affects the standard of living of Nigerians. Power supply is epileptic even though it is being
priced beyond what the people can conveniently afford. Worse still is the painful fact that people
of the clay-footed

Giant of Africa troop to their less endowed neighbours like Ghana to get good education
because here, universities and polytechnics can afford to shut their gates against students for
even up to a whole session.
In reinforcing democracy in Nigeria, the first critical step that needs to be taken is to return
partisan politics and electioneering campaign in Nigeria to an issues-based pedestal. The role of
the mass media in this regard is critical. If the Nigerian political parties lack ideologies and have
all agreed to operate without manifestoes and well defined programmes, the mass media should
take up the critical role of providing the agenda for political debates and political campaigns in
Nigeria. The Nigerian Political Science Association (NPSA) can also play a leading role in this
regard. As a matter of fact, let it be the agenda released by the NPSA that the mass media would
now adopt. The issues to be chosen from are indeed legion and the scenario therefore calls for
the role of a leading articulator, who releases the current issues that would engage our democratic
national attention. It could be free education, creation of additional states out of the present
number of states in the country, etc. It could be issues bordering on war against hunger and
starvation in the country, security of lives and property, affordable housing schemes for the
masses, etc. As a matter of fact, whenever the generic business of politics and the specific genre
of electioneering become fundamentally issues-based in the Nigerian State, the attendant
democratic culture will also become immensely participatory and undeniably inclusive.
Hence, if Nigerian politicians want to exchange fisticuffs, let it be on these issues. In an issuesbased electioneering campaign, nobody needs cash-inducement to vote in support of his
favourite programme. In soccer tournaments for instance, nobody needs cash inducement to
support his favourite team. Nigerian democracy must be saved from its Abuja dependency. It has
to be returned to the people, whom democracy is about their concerns. The local government
system in the Nigerian State for instance, needs to be strongly reinforced; with powers, resources
and commensurate autonomy to impact on the lives of the citizens. This may entail a
constitutional amendment to increase the constitutional influence of the local government
council in Nigeria. This would compel the Nigerian elite to return to a local government base to
attempt his elite antics. He will be attempting this at the home base of the masses too and it will
not be business as usual for him.

Dahl (1971), cited in Munck and Verkuilen (2002:9) has submitted that democracy consists of
two attributes -contestation or competition and participation or inclusion. The contests and
competitions that surround democracy in Nigeria are therefore parts of the acceptable processes
of democracy. It has however been argued that these contests and competitions can be done
devoid of mutually destructive tendencies and elite perfidies. Invariably, the balancing attributes
to the contestation and competition that are inherent in democracy, are participation and
inclusion. Findings of the study finally indicate that the central deficient element of Nigerias
democracy is locatable in its elite dependence. Reinforcing democracy in Nigeria therefore,
principally entails the making of the democratic culture, fully participatory and undeniably
inclusive.
2.3 APPROACHES AND METHODS TO THE STUDY OF POLITICS.
Politics has been defined in various ways. For instance, it has been seen as, 'the struggle for
power', 'the authoritative allocation of values' and the process of determining who gets what,
when and how'. One possible implication of these definitions is that politics exists in all social
groups. This is because there is not as yet a human organization in which the available elements
of power are enough to go round. Consequently, there is always some form of contestation or
struggle over the available power resources. We may also note that every organisation needs an
acceptable mechanism to regulate the inevitable conflicts over power and to allocate the scarce
resources.
It may be further deduced from the definitions that politics is a very crucial and complex social
phenomenon. It is therefore not surprising that the study of politics has engaged the attention of
scholars from the time of ancient Greek philosophers in the 5th century BC.

According to Alan C. Isaak, an approach to political inquiry may be defined simply as 'a general
strategy for studying political phenomena.' It is, in the opinion of Vemon Van Dyke, a term that
denotes, the criteria employed in selecting the questions to ask and the data to consider in
political inquiry.-Thus, while a particular approach may, for instance, emphasise economic or
sociological data, another may focus on psychological and ideological factors. We can therefore
suggest that an approach in political research is a type of lens for focusing on a particular aspect

of political life. It is an angle pr perspective from which to view political reality. An approach to
research leads the political scientist to concentrate on specific aspects of political phenomena and
thereby conditions his study.
The political system generates data in large quantities and at random. A student of politics
therefore needs an analytical approach in order to enable him make a coherent choice of the data
to concentrate on and to arrange them logically. More importantly, approaches suggest
hypothetical relationships among political forces and events which can be investigated by
researchers.
Many approaches exist in political science' and each of these stresses different, ideas and aspects
of political reality. The different research frames of reference can be grouped into two broad
categories: In the first place are the normative approaches which seek to describe ideals and to
prescribe standards of what 'ought', or 'should' be the right political order or conduct. The second
category consists of the empirical approaches, which, in contrast, emphasise facts and statistical
inquiries. It could also be noted that political scientists sometimes employ research approaches
which are .derived from other disciplines. Such approaches are usually labelled after these fields
of study. Among them are the philosophical, historical, sociological, economic and geographic
approaches.
According to Stephen Wasby, approaches to political science research can also be categorized
into three groups based on the aspects of political phenomena which they emphasis. The three
groupings consist of the philosophical and ideological approaches, the institutional and structural
approaches, and the behavioural approach. It may be necessary to note that there is some overlap
among the approaches and that, 'no approach is right or wrong [although] some may be more
useful than others. Each approach helps to throw some light on specific aspects of political life.
According to Vernon Van Dyke, philosophy denotes efforts to arrive at truth through the use of
reason'. Philosophical inquiries usually result in statements of preference, description of ideals
and prescription of values. The application of the philosophical approach in political science
usually leads to a focus on the great ideas, values and doctrines of politics and the reflections of
great political thinkers. The objectives of such efforts have been identified as being to 'establish

standards of the good, the right, and the just and to appraise or prescribe political institutions and
practices in the light of these standards.
As a discipline, sociology studies human behaviour within the context of social environment. Its
basic premise is that membership and interaction within human groups affect the behaviour of
the individual. Political scientists who adopt the sociological approach therefore investigate
issues such as the relationship between social environment, on the one hand and political
behavior on the other hand. Such analysts make considerable use of sociological concepts like
society, culture, status group, and role. They also employ sociological variables such as
education, income and occupation in their studies.
Psychology studies human behaviour by reference to the individual. Accordingly, political
scientists who employ the psychological approach seek to investigate the impact of personality
and other psychological variables such as motivation, perception and attitude on politics. For
instance, studies of public opinion, voting behavior and socialization have often involved the use
of psychological data of citizens.
The geographical framework to politics seeks to explain political phenomena by reference to
certain facts of geography- such as location, climate, rivers, mountains, seas, availability of
natural resources, etc. Students of international politics have regularly relied on geographical
features to explain and predict the foreign policies of different countries. For instance the
presence of crude oil is generally perceived as an important element of power of the Nigerian
state and a major determinant of its foreign relations.
As a frame of reference for the analysis of political phenomena, the political economy approach
derives from the writings of Karl Marx, a German philosopher. The central premise of his
perspective is that: "The mode of production in material life determines the general character of
the social, political, and spiritual processes of life. The political economy framework, thus
requires the analyst to take cognisance of the 'mode of production' which refers not only to the
state of technique but to the way in which the means of production were owed and the social
relations between men which resulted from their connections, with the process of production.
Marxian political economy in effect, provides a framework for an integrated study of political
reality by reference to relevant economic, social, legal and moral factors.

In broad terms, an institution can be defined as 'any persistent system of activities, or any pattern
of group behaviour. More concretely, an institution has been conceived as 'offices and agencies
arranged in a hierarchy, each agency having certain functions and powers. Accordingly, the
institutional approach to political inquiry focuses on the formal structures and agencies of
government. Political science research which is informed by this approach usually describes and
classifies the agencies of government such as legislatures, the judiciary, the executive agencies,
party systems, etc. Such studies also examine the constitutional and legal arrangements of
governments. The institutional approach has been criticized for the neglect of the informal
aspects of politics, norms, beliefs, values, attitudes, personality and the processes
The key assumption of the behavioral approach is that there are certain uniformities in political
behavior which can be stated as generalizations or theories and which are capable of explaining
and predicting political phenomena. Behaviouralists argue that research in political science
should seek to establish these regularities in political behavior and their causes that it should
desist from descriptive, normative studies in favour of rigorous, analytical examination of
politics.
The behavioral approach has been distinguished on the grounds of its nature, goals, methods and
frame of reference. Accordingly, it has been noted that: (1) Behavioral political analysis insists
on the use of "scientific" methods, on making accurate statements about political phenomena, on
cumulative research and on broad generalizations. That the goal of behavioral political science is
not the attainment of the good life but to understand and describe political phenomena
realistically and to predict trends. Behavioral political science emphasizes the systematic
gathering and analysis of data to confirm or reject hypotheses. It has also been noted that
behaviouralism specifies the behavior of persons and social groups rather than events,
institutions, structures or ideologies as the units of both theoretical and empirical analysis. The
behavioral approach generated much controversy when it evolved in the political science
discipline. Critics questioned its basic assumption and argued that political reality consists
mainly of unique elements and that whatever regularities mat exist are trivial in nature. It was
further posited mat political phenomena are not amenable to experimentation and mat any laws
concerning political behavior that may be formulated are certain to be vitiated by human
ingenuity. Behaviouralists have also been criticized for their use 'of numbers and emphasis on

methodology. It should be noted, however, that despite its perceived shortcomings, the
behavioral approach has greatly encouraged the scientific study of political phenomena.
David Easton is usually credited with pioneering the application of the systems approach to the
analysis of die political process. He defines the political system as 'the system of interactions in
any society through which binding or authoritative decisions are made and implemented. He
considers the political system as existing within an environment of other systems physical,
biological, social, psychological, etc., which affect it and are in turn affected by the political
system - through continuous transactions and exchanges.
According to Easton, the political system functions by getting inputs from its environment.
Inputs are events in the environment which evoke response from it. The inputs could be demands
that values be allocated in a particular way or they could be supports, that is, expressions of
approval for particular decisions. The inputs from the environment undergoes a conversion
process within the political system and come out as outputs, which are usually authoritative
decisions such as government policies, judicial decisions, acts of parliament, etc., promulgated
by the authorities. These authoritative outputs usually affect die environment as outcomes and in
turn excite some form of feedback, mat is, changes in the intensity and volume of demands and
support from the environment.
It may be noted, however, mat his formulations have been criticized as being too abstract, and
too isolated from concrete reality. However, the approach can be consider helpful in the
understanding of political events that we do not directly experience.
Structural functionalism has been found particularly useful in the comparison of political
systems. According to Gabriel Almond, one of the chief proponents of the approach in political
science, every political system performs certain functions. Taking Easton's systems analysis as a
starting point, Almond looks for the functions which could be included among the input and
output functions of all political systems. On the input side are the functions of (1) interest
articulation and (2) interest aggregation. Second, on the output side are the functions of (3) rule
making, (4) rule-application and (5) rule adjudication. The function of (6) political
communication is undertaken to inform all within the political system and outside of these

diverse activities. Additionally, every system performs (7) systems maintenance and adaptation
functions through political socialization and recruitment of people.
According to Almond, the functioning of any political system may also be viewed in terms of its
capabilities defined as 'the way it performs as a unit in its environment.' The concepts of
regulative, extractive, distributive and responsive. capability are employed as criteria to assess
how a system is performing within its environment, how it is shaping its environment and how it
is being shaped by it.
Almond's formulations have been faulted on three grounds. First, it has been noted that it is not
easy to distinguish between the 'deliberate aims of the participants and what takes place because
the system seemed to achieve certain aims.' Second, the identification of functions is alleged to
rest on the interpretation the analyst places on observed developments. Thus there cannot be
complete objectivity. In effect, the number of the identified functions can be more or less than
the seven listed by Almond. Third, the approach has been seen as culture-bound since the
functions attributed to the political system are too closely modelled on Western political systems.
However, Almond's structural-functional approach has been recognized as the major existing tool
for genuine comparative analysis of political systems and has been described as a 'fairly realistic
interpretation of the nature of political life.
Arthur Bentley is widely acknowledged to have originated the group approach to the
understanding of politics in his classic, The Process of Government. The framework got further
elaboration from David Truman in his, The Governmental Process. The group approach seeks to
explain politics by reference to groups. As Bentley puts it: 'when the groups are adequately
stated, everything is stated. When I say everything I mean everything. The complete description
will mean the complete science, in the study of social phenomena, as in any other field. This
statement clearly equates a description of group activity to a description of all politics. There are,
however, proponents of the group approach who do not share this extreme position. Instead, such
theorists, including David Truman, hold that politics is not the sum of group behaviour but is at
the centre of the political process.
To most group theorists as with most political scientists, 'a political group exists when men with
shared interests organise, interact, and seek goals through the political process. What is

emphasised is not the structural composition of a group but its activities. The interaction among
its members must be both relatively frequent, sufficiently patterned and be directed towards the
attainment of certain interests by its members. The group approach conceives of society as a
mosaic of numerous interest groups with cross-cutting membership. Exponents of the approach
posit that the form of politics of any society is ultimately determined by the interaction among
groups within the society and the competition among such groups to influence government in the
allocation of societal resources and exercise of power. Each group therefore seeks to gain access
to decision points within the government and its success in this regard is usually affected by
factors such as group cohesion and organisation, status, quality of leadership and wealth.
Although the group approach has been criticised for leaving out the characteristics of individuals
and for not considering the nation, the state and the society, it still remains a useful framework
for explaining politics. It has also been found useful in the study of community power structure.
The decision-making approach has been widely employed in the study of international relations
and in public policy analysis. The central assumption of the approach is that if we seek to
understand any political action we must analyze it from the position of the actors. According to
Richard C. Snyder,20 one of the foremost exponents of this approach, decision-making lies at the
heart of all political actions, and, therefore it alone provides the common focus under which the
political actors, situations and processes can be brought together for the purposes of analysis. He
posits that understanding a particular political action requires the analysts (a) to ascertain who
made the decisions that resulted in the action and, to (b) examine the interactive and intellectual
factors that influenced the decision-makers.
Snyder categories the factors which prompt decision-makers into three sets namely, (i) the
internal setting, (ii) the external setting and (iii) the decision-making process.

According to him, the internal setting includes such variables of the local society as public
opinion, dominant value orientations, organizational dynamics and social structure. The external
setting consists of such factors as the actions and reactions of other actors in the international (or
national) arena and the physical environment. Among the forces which make up the decisionmaking processes are the organizational division of spheres of competence, the flow of

communication and the motivation of decision-makers. The motivational factors compose of the
interests which an official acquires in the decision-making organization and personality traits
acquired from childhood. It is the combined impact of these factors that influence decisionmakers and thereby their actions.
The decision-making approach has been faulted for requiring an analyst to take cognisance of too
many factors and for attributing too much rationality to the process of decision-making by
assuming that officials carefully weigh the pros and cons before arriving at any particular
decision. It has also been alleged that the approach emphasises the process of decision-making
and not the outcome of the decisions made. Regardless of its shortcomings,-the decision-making
approach has helped to underline important variables in the analysis of foreign and domestic
policies.
According to Vemon Van Dyke, the term methods of political inquiry denotes processes for
acquiring and treating data. He identified a number of such methods, including the analytical
method, the inductive and deductive methods, the comparative method, and the scientific
methods.
The analytical method seeks to ascertain the different components of what is being examined and
to explain how these parts are related and fitted into a whole.
Quantitative methods are those that entail the measuring or counting of data. Numerical figures
such as dates are also recognised as quantitative data. It is usually required that items to be
counted be defined and identified with care and in such a way as to permit replication: In'
contrast to quantitative method, the qualitative method of data collection relies entirely on the
logical abilities, judgment or insight, or the imagination or intuition or impressions of the
researcher to generate data and establish relationships.
The inductive method seeks to establish truth by observation. This is in contrast to the deductive
method which attempts to draw conclusions from premises that are taken as given. Deductive
methods are essentially logical whereas inductive methods are both logical and empirical.
The comparative method seeks to establish similarities and differences among political
phenomena as a source of data for concept formation and classification.

In this regard, it has been observed that by comparing and contrasting events, institutions,
processes or even expectations and experiences, 'one gets clearer image of things observed and a
sharper understanding of the meanings of the symbols we employ.
The principal operation of the scientific method usually involves: (i) the statement of the
problem to be investigated; (ii) the formulation of hypotheses, that is tentative statements about
the relationships among the variables to be examined, and (iii) the collection of data to test the
stated hypotheses, in other words, data is generated to prove or disconfirm the relationships
which were assumed to exist among the variables. It is to be noted that these activities are not
always undertaken in the order in which we have highlighted them.

2.4 MEANING AND CHARACTERISTICS OF A POLITICAL SYSTEM.

Each society must have a political system in order to maintain recognized procedures for
allocating valued resources. In large complex societies, many decisions must be made about the
duties and responsibilities of citizens and also about the rights and privileges.
If the society is to be orderly, people must obey the rules that are made. The political institution
determines and enforces the laws and punishes those who disobey them.
Even in stateless societies which had no developed formal central institutions were seen having
some kind of decision-making and rule-making processes which were dominated by some
members. As societies become wealthier and more complex, political systems develop and grow
more powerful.
According to renowned political scientists, Gabriel Almond and James Coleman (1960),
Political system is that system of interactions to be found in all independent societies which
performs the functions of integration and adaptation by means of legitimate physical compulsion.
The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Sociology (1994) defines it as, a political system in any
persistent pattern of human relationship that involves (to a significant extent) power, rule and
authority. It is a collectivity of political institutions (e.g., government), associations (e.g.,
political parties) and organizations performing roles based on a set of norms and goals (like

maintaining internal order, regulating foreign relations, etc.). Sociologically, the term political
system refers to the social institution which relies on a recognized set of procedures for
implementing and achieving the political goals of a community or society.
The first characteristic of political system is that it allows the legal authority to use force. If
David Easton speaks of authoritative allocation of values, Dahl of Power, rule and
authority. All these definitions imply that legal authority can use force to compel anybody to
obey its orders.
It possesses legitimate and heavy sanctions and rightful power to punish. Consequently, we have
to agree with Max Weber that legitimate use of force is a distinct feature of political system,
giving it a special quality and importance, and its unity as a system. When the state or
governments extends certain facilities then at the same time it possesses power to impose taxes
upon the people and punish those who violate those orders.
Almond in his book, The Policies of Developing Areas, writes: Political system is that system
of interactions to be found in all independent societies which perform the functions of integration
and adaptation (both internally and vis-a-vis other societies) by means of the employment or
threat of employment or more or less legitimate physical compulsion. Thus the political system
not only includes governmental institutions such as legislatures, executives, courts,
administrative agencies but all structures in their political aspect.
Among these are included formal organisations like parties, interest groups, and media of
communication; traditional structures such as kinship ties, caste groupings anomic phenomena
such as associations, riots an demonstrations.
Consequently, the political system includes interaction between all the formal and informal
institutions. The process of interaction is divided into three phases input, conversion and
output. The Indian Constitution reflects the various interactions as many amendments were
brought about to bring out Zamindari abolition and socialism and remove poverty.
Interdependence means that when the properties of one component in a system change, all the
other components and the system as a whole are affected. In political system the political parties

having a wider base and mass media (Television, radio and newspapers) change the performance
of all other structures of the system and affect the general working of the system.
Not only that but the emergence of trade unions and pressure groups affect the working of the
political parties, the electoral process, the legislature, the bureaucracy and the judicial system.
For example, if the government is unable to check the ever rising prices or inflation, then the
labourers are bound to demand more wages.
In case the demand is not met by the employers, then the labourers may resort to strike which
may become violent in the long run. In that case the employers may call the police and the police
may resort to firing in order to quell the disturbances.
In such cases the mill-owners will close the mills. In order to solve this problem the government
will have to intervene by appointing a tribunal consisting of the representatives of the labour, the
management and the State.
If the dispute is not solved out by the tribunal, then the government will have to pass the
legislation fixing the minimum wages and increase the dearness allowance according to the
corresponding increase in the price index. The government will fix the bonus etc. All this amply
demonstrates how a happening of a great magnitude affects the entire political system.
Political System is comprehensive because it includes all the interactions from the formal as well
as informal institutions in the society. For example, it includes the interaction of regionalism,
religious upheavals, inflation, party-politics, tactics of pressure groups and social changes
brought about by modernisation.
Yet another aspect of the concept of the system is the change of boundary. The political system
consists of interacting roles of nationals, subjects, voters, the legislators, bureaucrats and judges.
The same individuals who perform role in social and economic system also play their notable
role in political systems. When the individuals form interest groups, vote or pay taxes, they
change their role from non-political to political ones.
For example, on the Election Day, the citizens leave their farms, plants and offices to go to the
polling stations. In this way they are crossing the boundary from economy to politics. Similarly,

during the war time the large fluctuations in the boundaries of political system take place.
Therefore the boundaries of political system frequently change.
However Almond has given yet another set of characteristics of a political system. These are:
(1) There is universality of political system. It means that political system exists everywhere.
(2) Every political system performs the same functions, though there may be differences in the
different political systems and their structures.
(3) Every political system has some structures. It is possible that there may be some specialised
structures which may perform more functions than the less specialised structures.
(4) Every political system is mixed in the sense of culture because the system can be more
advanced or less advanced.
(5) Every political system is multi-functional and performs a number of functions irrespective of
the degree of specialisation.
A political system performs two types of functions:
1. Input Functions:
David Easton classifies input functions into two types of demands and supports.
Almonds and Powell classify Demands into:
(1) Allocation of goods and services such as demands for more wages and fixation of working
hours, opening of educational institutions, provision of recreational facilities, roads and
transportation;
(2) Participation in the political system, such as the right to vote, to hold office, to petition
Government bodies and officials, and to organise political associations such as pressure groups
and political parties.
(3) Regulation of behaviour such as provision for public safety, control over markets and rules
pertaining to marriage, health and sanitation.

(4) Communication and information, such as demands for the affirmation of norms ,the
communication of policy intent from policy elites or the display of majesty and power of the
political system in time of threats or on ceremonial occasion.
Similarly, the examples of supports which the people get in the political system are:
(1) Material support such as the payment of taxes or other levies and rendering services as labour
on public works or military services;
(2) Attention paid to Government communications and the manifestation of respect to public
authority, symbols and ceremonials.
(3) Obedience to laws and regulations.
(4) Participatory supports such as voting political discussion, and other forms of political
activity:
While David Easton divides Inputs into Demands and Supports, Almond calls them:
(1) Political socialisation;
(2) Political Recruitment;
(3) Interest Articulation;
(4) Interest Aggregation;
(5) Political Communications.

(1) Political Socialisation:

Political Socialisation refers to the process of recruiting individuals into political roles and to
give them training in citizenship, political Socialisation acts through various agencies such as
family, church, schools, work groups, voluntary associations and media of communications. It is
a process of inducting individuals into political culture.

All political systems not only continue but also make their permanent cultures and structures
through political socialisation. Due to political socialisation the members of society begin to
possess a particular attitude.
(2) Political Recruitment:
Political recruitment starts where political socializations role ends. It recruits members of the
society out of particular sub- cultures-religious, status, class and the like-and introduces them
into specialised roles of political system, trains them in appropriate skills, gives them political
values, expectations and effects. So its main concern is to recruit the citizens to enable them to
play their special role.
(3) Interest Articulations:
Almond has defined interest articulation as the process by which individuals and groups make
demands upon the political decision-makers. It is the first functional set-up in the conversion
process.
If certain groups within the society do not find sufficient democratic means to ventilate their
grievances and satisfy their demands, then their dissatisfaction and utter discontent may erupt
into violence. Under such circumstances the government which is the runner of the political
system may satisfy their demands or curb their violent activities by force.
(4) Interest Aggregation:
It means that interests, claims and demands of various groups in the society are aggregated or
combined. Interest aggregation or combination is achieved by the recruitment of political
personnel who are more or less committed to particular pattern of society.
In some systems the legislature, the executive, the bureaucracy, the media of communication, the
various political parties and interest groups from the interest aggregation because they reconcile
the various interests.

(5) Political Communication:

Political Communication, according to Almond, Is the crucial boundary maintenance
function, autonomy in the media of communication can help the free flow of information from
the society to the government. It can communicate the articulation of interest emanating from
political parties, legislatures and bureaucracies which themselves can correct the actions of
interest groups.
2. Output Functions:
These are the functions performed by the Government in response to the input (political
functions):
(1) Rule-making:Rule-making was previously known as legislation. Rule-making has been preferred over
legislation because it refers to a specialised structure and explicit process as legislation. Rulemaking goes on in every type of government whether democracy, dictatorship or monarchy.
Now-a-days in a democratic set-up the rule-making power is exercised by the legislature or
parliament.
(2) Rule Application:Rule making was previously known as the execution. The rules made by the legislature or the
Executive are enforced by the bureaucracy, therefore its role and importance have considerably
increased.
Moreover, rule application also implies that the established goal:, of the society are fulfilled. It
also sees their interaction of the laws on the society. Effective implementation of the laws can
fulfill the present laws and help in achieving new targets.
(3) Rule Adjudication:Rule adjudication was previously known as judicial functions, it is the duty of the judiciary to
interpret the laws and punish the guilty .judiciary also resolves the conflicts between the
government and citizens and the citizens themselves.

According to Edward Shills, there are three main types of political systems.
These are discussed as under:
Totalitarian system:
A system in which the state controls and regulates all phases of life considered essential for
perpetuating its power and for carrying out programmes arbitrarily. It is the most extreme form
of authoritarianism. Unlike democracies, where a variety of groups struggle for a voice in
government, the government dictates the societys values, ideology, rules and form of
government.
Societies having totalitarian system do not permit dissent. The centralized authority always
dominates over the autonomy of individual or sub-groups within the society. Mussolinis Italy,
Hitlers Nazi Germany and Stalins Soviet Union are often quoted as examples of totalitarian
states.
Totalitarian states are ruled by one political party that organizes the citizens into a unified
group. In practice, the state is represented by a politically powerful ruling class or elite that
dominates all other interest groups.
Oligarchic system:
Any form of government in which there is a rule by a few, for example, by members of a selfregulating elite having domination over a large society is known as an oligarchic political
system. It is a system in which a small group (elites) rules and holds supreme power over a larger
society.
Democratic system:
In its broadest sense, democracy is a way of life in which an individual feels free to act within
accepted boundaries of norms and also equal in respects of his/her rights. In the narrower sense,
it is a form of government, a power structure in which people govern themselves.

People participate in the government through their representatives that they elect. In other words,
people represent themselves and take their own decisions. It is an imagination of the replica of an
equalitarian society.