POLITICAL BEHAVIOUR (POLSC 301) COURSE OUTLINE
Meaning and Emergence of Political Behaviour
Scope of Political Behaviour
Political Culture
Political Socialization
Political Participation
Micro-Political Analysis -
The Elite Theory
-
The Group Theory
-
Rela Relati tive ve Depr Depriv ivat atio ion n Theo Theory ry
-
The Power Theory
-
Clas Classs and and Clas Classs Stru Strugg ggle le (Cl (Clas asss Anal Analys ysis is))
Public Opinions and Political Communication
Political Parties and Voting Behaviour
Political Corruptions and Political Violence
Identity politics (Religion, Ethnicity and Race)
Social Movement and Revolution MEANING AND EMERGENCE OF POLITICAL BEHAVIOUR
Every political system is constituted by static and mobile structure. The static structures perform the role of maintenance of law and order and translation of policy decisions into actions. Examples of static structures are the courts, civil service, and the police as an institution. The roles performed performed by these static structures are essentially essentially routinized routinized roles for the maintenance maintenance of law and order. However, However, under condition conditionss of threats to the political system, these structures can by themselves originate incidental incidental changes. On the other hand, the mobile element or structures refer more specifically to the lessstructured and less-framed human processes in the political system, which work by self-automated dynamism that propels propels change in the political system. That is to say, these activities activities singly or collectively collectively go by the designation designation of political political or better still, political behaviour.
1
In the past, the static categories were accorded primacy by political political scientists scientists but the mobile (human element) were sufficiently studied, however the more modern tendency is to highlight highlight the identity and importance of the dynamic dynamic processes. It is in fact, the dynamic combination and interaction of these features (human activities in the political system) that we here designate by the generic name – political behaviour that is the behaviour that wheels the machinery of governance.
MEANING OF POLITICAL BEHAVIOUR
Political behaviour refers to the behaviour of man in a social system that gives him shelter, shelter, protection protection configured configured in terms of power. It is not all human behaviour behaviour that could be termed political. political. Political behaviour is that pattern pattern of behaviour, which relates to power in order to increase power, to protect power, to modify power or to use power in advancing the individual or the collectivity from any already given power power situatio situation. n.
This This patter pattern n of behaviou behaviourr consti constitut tutes es the univers universal al aims and
objec objecti tive vess of the the poli politi tical cal man.
It is howe howeve verr impo import rtan antt to note note that that poli politi tical cal
behaviour extends far beyond governmental behaviour, which connotes the machinery of lawmaking (policies). The behaviour of individuals such as tribal organization organization or anomic, anomic, all constitute political political behaviours. behaviours. However, However, one thing that has persisted persisted in all political system is the vital role, which human behaviour plays in the development and operations of political political system. In fact, whatever the type of political system that is adopted by the people or imposed on them, the impact of human behaviour on the system has made far-reaching and sometimes fundamental changes on the system generally. generally. A living political political system is a change change in system, system, structures, structures, institution institutions, s, princ principl iples es and manifest manifestoes oes,, etc. on their their own cannot cannot lead lead to change change..
It is the
behaviour behaviour of the citizens that that account for so much of the inevitable inevitable change. change. These citizens are leaders, followers, anarchists, terrorists, the masses, etc. they also include groups like human human right organizations, anomic and institutional institutional organizations, etc. In fact, when we weigh human and non-human on a scale, man behaviour is heavier than non-human element in the shaping of political system and it is ultimately the chief decisive factor in the political system. Thes Thesee huma human n eleme elements nts incl includ udee both both indi indivi vidu dual al and and grou group p beha behavi viou our. r. Indivi Individua duals ls bring bring in their their charac character ter and their their aggreg aggregate ate demonst demonstrat ratee their their own characteristic characteristic.. The two together together or in institution, institution, influence influence the nature of political political system in any given given universe. Therefore, in the study of politics we ask: what what impact 2
can the human individu individual al make on the political system? system? How can individu individual al and groups interact in a political system.
SCOPE OF POLITICAL BEHAVIOUR
There are two senses in which scholars understand political behaviour 1.
Som Some rega regard rd it it as a dist distin inct ct and and spec specif ific ic area area of of stud study y with within in th the nob noble discipline of political science and such scholars are Lipset, Blumer, Harold Lass Lasswe well ll,, Wa Wall llas as,, Robe Robert rt Lein Lein,, etc. etc.
They They argue argued d that that the the poli politi tica call
behaviour of man like every other behaviour of man emanated from his pol polit itica icall envi enviro ronm nmen ent. t.
The The orig origin in and and mode mode and and dyna dynami mics cs of such such
interacting and initiative are vast enough to constitute a distinct area of study in political science. 2.
Some Some reg regar ard d it as as simp simply ly as as an app appro roac ach h to the the stu study dy of of poli politi tica call scie scienc nce, e, in other words, it is a type of mental orientation or methodology, which conditions the instinctual advocates to the study of political science. This method of studying political science started at about 20 th century. At the inception of the 20 th century, century, most political scientist particularly particularly from
Amer America ica becam becamee
diss dissati atisf sfied ied with with
the the
trad tradit itio iona nal, l,
lega legali list stic ic,,
cons consti titu tuti tion onal al,,
philosophical and historical historical approaches to the study study of politics. Consequently, a new new style style of enquiry enquiry emerged emerged in the form form of behaviou behavioural ral approach approach..
The The behavi behaviour oural al
approach to the study of political science may be described as the application of scientific scientific method to the understandin understanding g and analysis of political political phenomenon. phenomenon. The main focus of behavioural movement is the individuals and not the institutions so far as the analysis of political events are concerned. Essent Essential ially, ly, behavi behaviour ourism ism focuse focusess on the behavi behaviour our of the indivi individua duall as a polit political ical actor within within an interes interestt group, group, a politi political cal party or a legisl legislativ ativee body. body. It advocates advocates the observatio observation n of political political behaviour behaviour underlying underlying particular institutional institutional – lega legall arra arrang ngem emen entt and and the the anal analys ysis is..
In fact fact,, the the tech techni niqu quee of opin opinio ions ns of
psychological analysis and small group especially has reached significant attention from behavioralist in political science empirical research.
3
ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF POLITICAL BEHVIOURAL APPROACH
The behavioural approach in the field of political science owes its origin to the intellectual development in philosophy, sociology and psychology, particularly of note is the writing of Pavlor in Russia and John B. Watson in USA, who contributed extensively on behavioural psychology and the works in the field of philosophy by logical logical positivis positivists ts have also exerted exerted considerab considerable le influence influence in the use of behavioural behavioural approa approach ch became became very very promin prominent ent and was used used to enhanc enhancee unders understan tandin ding g in the invest investiga igatio tion n of voting voting behavi behaviour our,, politi political cal behavi behaviour our,, party party identi identific ficatio ation n and attitudes, attitudes, etc. Some of the prominent prominent writers in the field include include Graham Wallas of England and Arthur Bentley of the United States. Notwi Notwiths thstan tandin ding g the fact that that severa severall Europe European an schola scholars, rs, psych psycholo ologis gists, ts, philo philosop sopher herss and social social scient scientist istss have have signif significan icantt contri contribut bution ionss in the field field of behaviouralism, its revolution received patronage mainly from the American political scient scientist ists. s.
Remark Remarkabl ably, y, Charle Charless E. Merriam Merriam of the Chicag Chicago o Unive Universi rsity ty takes takes the
credit as the intellectual father of this movement. movement. In collaboration with other political scient scientist ist,, he develo developed ped method methodss of researc research, h, derive derived d from from the method methodolo ology gy of psych psycholo ology, gy, sociol sociology ogy and mathem mathematic aticss as a result result of this this develo developme pment, nt, a good good number of other European scholars shifted shifted to the United States in the 1920s. More so, in the years preceding the Second World War, the movement joined memorandum and began to use the quantitative data and statistical tables as expatiated by Stuart Rice and Harold Harold Gosnell. Gosnell. In fact, behavioural behavioural movement movement affected affected virtually virtually every schola scholarly rly work work of the time time partic particula ularly rly the writin writings gs of Harold Harold Lasswe Lasswell, ll, Gabriel Gabriel Almond, Robert Dahl, David Easton and Karl Deustch. All these scholars and many more contributed immensely to the behavioural revolution.
CONCEPTUALIZATION CONCEPTUALIZATIO N ISSUE
According to Robert A. Dahl, behaviorism is a protest movement within the discipline discipline of political political science of some scholars scholars who are dissatisfie dissatisfied d with the meager achiev achievem emen entt of conv conven enti tion onal al poli politi tical cal scie scienc ncee part particu icula larly rly thro throug ugh h hist histor oric ical al,, philosoph philosophical ical and the descriptive descriptive-insti -institutio tutional nal approach. approach. He also added that either additional methods and approaches existed or could be developed that would help political science with empirical propositions and theories of a systematic sort tested by closer, more direct and more rigorously controlled observations of political events. 4
Again, the movement aims at bringing political studies into closer affiliation with theories, methods, findings and outlook with other social sciences like psychology, sociology, anthropology and economics.
It is an attempt to make the empirical
equipment of political science more scientific. More so, David Easton stated that behavioral research seeks to elevate the actual human beings to the centre-ofattention. For him, traditionalists have placed so much emphasis on institutions, which fail to give a scientific character to the study of political science. Collaborating Easton, David B. Truman argues that political behaviour refers to those actions and interactions of men and group, which are involved in the process of governing others. Meanwhile Robert Dahl observes that the aim of behaviourism is to study all the phenomenon of government in terms of observed and observable behaviour of men. For him therefore, it is an attempt to improve the understanding of politics through modern methods.
These modern methods have to do with the methodology of
scientific research. Again, for David B. Truman, the behavioural approach to the study of politics must be systematic and also it must place primary emphasis upon empirical methods. That is, observable or verifiable evidence or indices. By systematic research we mean a precise problem statement, which are the hypothesis and consequently a rigorous ordering of evidence. This must be guided and explained with the help of an adequate theory essentially, the ultimate aim of the student of political process.
CHARACTERISTICS OF BEHAVIOURISM
According to David Easton, the basic assumption of behaviourism would be located in what he calls the intellectual foundations of political behaviour. These assumptions are:
Regularities
Verification
Techniques
Quantification
Values
Systematization
Pure Science; and
Integration
5
A.
Regularities
Behaviouralists argue that there are certain discernable uniformities in political behaviour, which can be expressed in generalization of theories. In order to explain and predict political phenomenon, this assertion is anchored on the premise that human behaviour is more or less similar in certain respects under given conditions. Essentially therefore, the task of the researcher is to engage himself to finding out the existence of regularities. This process will facilitate to explain and predict the political phenomena and in the ultimate analysis, will make political science a truly scientific discipline with explanatory and predictive values
B.
Verification
It is the contention of the behaviouralist that for knowledge to be valid, it must consist of propositions that have been subjected to empirical investigation. To be sure, the validity of all propositions depends on their capacity to be tested.
C.
Techniques
A distinguishing feature of behaviourism is its emphasis on the correct techniques for acquiring and interpreting data. This is not so with traditionalist that lay emphasis on mere description of political events. The specific research tools adopted by behaviouralists ensure valid, reliable and comparative data. This includes multi-varied samples of a mathematical model and simulation, etc.
D.
Quantification
This expresses the importance of not only generating data but also of measuring and quantifying same. Quantification and measurement is the essential ingredient that determines the scientific nature of data.
This helps to verify the
conclusion or impression of the researcher.
E.
Values
In behavioural approach, facts are usually separated from values. They must be studied separately or even in combination but should not be mixed up with one another. There should be a clear-cut line of distinction between ethical evaluation and empirical explanation.
One of the major points of disagreement between the 6
behaviouralist and the traditionalist is on the question of value-neutrality. Scientific enquiry in order to be objective must be value-free. Political science is a scientific study of politics in its functional aspect carried through empirical methods and therefore has nothing to do with morals or ethical question.
F.
Systematization
In bahavioualist approach, research will be systematic. That is to say that research must be theory-oriented and theory-directed. The theory and research should form part of a closely interrelated, coherent and orderly body of knowledge. Theory should consist of analysis, explanation and prediction instead of being speculative.
G.
Pure Science
The pure scientific nature of behavioural approach is that theory and its application are part of the scientific endeavor. Hence, research should be of pure type. The understanding and explanation of political behaviour, logically precedes and in the ultimate analysis, provides the basis for efforts to utilize such knowledge in the solution of urgent political problems of society. Research should be perfectly verifiable by evidence.
H.
Integration
The behaviouralist argues for the use of interdisciplinary approach. As one of the social sciences, political science should be integrated with other social sciences in order to enhance understanding. Meanwhile, E. Kirk-Patrick asserts that there are four (4) characteristics of behaviouralism that are of utmost importance: •
Behavioural movement is a rejection of political institutions as the basic conceptual units and a substitution of the individual and group behaviour.
•
It is an emphasis on the unity of social sciences, hence an increased willingness to cross-disciplinary lines
•
It lays more emphasis on precisions, measurements and quantitative technique
•
It seeks to develop systematic empirical theory.
7
WEAKNESS OF BEHAVIOURAL APPROACH
The main objections of behavioural movements are raised by the traditionalists. For the traditionalists, the craze for a pure science of politics by the behaviorialists has led to the following: i.
Political phenomena cannot be subjected to any rigorous study because of its very nature. Essentially, the traditionalists point that it is very difficult to study human behaviour either as individual or group with objectivity which is a necessary condition in the acquisition of scientific knowledge. They also argue that political phenomena are the consequences of interplay of a number of variables and historical contingencies as a result, efforts for a rigid generalization for the discovery of the laws of human behaviour are seriously impaired. This emanates from the fact that human beings behave differently under similar circumstances and are also motivated by quite different reasons.
ii.
The observability of political phenomenon is quite limited hence, for a comprehensive understanding of political phenomenon, one has to go beyond observable behaviour
iii.
Also, the traditionalists argue that data in social sciences can never be objective. The technique should not be exalted at the cost of content. For them, self-consciousness about methodology carried too far may act as an impediment in the pursuit of knowledge
iv.
More so, the traditionalist contain that quantification of political phenomenon is an unattainable goal. They argue that only trivial question can be put into measurement. Most of the phenomena in the field of politics are by nature unquantifiable and immeasurable
v.
The value-mentality position has been considered by traditionalists as untenable.
The researcher undoubtedly has value-preferences that
inevitably creep into research. vi.
Again, so much emphasis on inter-dependence of political phenomena and other aspects of the individual’s behaviour may prove dangerous in the sense that it would result in an undesirable loss of identity, integrity and autonomy of political science.
8
As a corollary of the above criticism, Sibley stated that “we are not questioning the propositions that behaviourism in its several forms has an important contribution to make in the study of political phenomenon. We do question however, whether the behavioural approach is adequate in itself for an understanding of politics.” In addition, Le Strauss appears to have unleashed an unmitigated criticism and attack on the behavioural movement. He indeed appears to be the most vehement critic of the behavioural movement.
He observed that behavourism or scientific
positivism has introduced parochialism into political science. He alleged that the behaviouralist in their attempt to make their analysis value-free, reject all grounds for evaluation and treat all values as equal.
EVALUATION
Generally speaking, despite all the criticism leveled against the behavioral movement, it has its own contribution, which is very significant in the field of research in political science. As a result of the patronage received by the approach from leading American political scientist, it has led to the willingness among political scientists to seek new methods and theories of enquiry from other social sciences. Thus, the achievement of the movement can be seen in the theory building and techniques of research.
There were in fact remarkable achievement in the
development and refinement of the tools and techniques of research as a result of the behavioural movement. This development manifest broadly in the field of: •
Content Analysis
•
Case Study Analysis
•
Interviewing/Observation
•
Statistics More so, in the light of the general systems approach, a number of new
approaches in the field of political science have been developed. As a result, major framework of political enquiry like structural-functionalism and input-output analysis has been developed.
The behaviouralist also made use of new approaches like
decision-making approach, games theory and field models, etc. Essentially, the behaviouralist differs from the traditional approach in its nature, goals, methods and conceptual phrase of reference. Its focus was on the use of
9
scientific methods or better still, empirical methods of enquiry. The behaviouralist favours the use of scientific method in making accurate statement about political phenomenon. The main objective of the behavioural movement was to describe political phenomena realistically and to predict things (events). It laid emphasis on the mutual interdependence of theory and research, in fact, the ultimate purpose of the movement was to formulate an empirical theory of politics that constitute reliable knowledge.
POLITICAL CULTURE
The study of political culture essentially is the study of political culture of democracy and of the social structures and processes that sustain it. It attempts to focus on the diffusion of western technology and democratic norms and values. Accordingly, Almond and Weber argue that physical goods and their modes of production seem to present the least difficulty in diffusion. It is apparent that this aspect of Western Culture is diffusing rapidly along with the technology upon which they depend. This is because, the non-western world though has not successfully developed an industrial technology and an efficient bureaucracy, yet it desires these institutions and has some understanding of them. However, the diffusion of western democratic norms and values, etc. appears to encounter serious problems that are aspects of diffusion of political culture that is discernable is the political culture of participation. In all the imaginations of the world, the believe that the ordinary man is politically relevant and ought to be an active participant in the political system is widespread particularly during the independence struggle era. In fact, a democratic form of political participation system requires a political culture that is consistent with it. As a result, political culture could be conceptualized as the basic attitudes, beliefs, values, orientations, etc. of the members of a political community towards politics. Essentially, it is the political way of life of a people, which is a product of many years of political interactions, transferred from one generation to another and is maintained, revised and improved through political education and political socialization. As political culture develops, it influences the society and is also influenced by the society.
But very significant is that political culture of every society is
determined by the economic foundation of that society.
Meanwhile, the nation’s 10
political culture refers to the basic attitudes and orientations of its people towards the political system. It is the pattern of distribution of orientations, members of a political community have towards politics. This collective pattern of orientation determines and influences the structures of the political system and the political lives of the people. According to Lucian Pye, political culture is a set of attitudes, beliefs and sentiments which give order and meaning to the political process and which provides the underlying assumptions and rules that govern behaviour in the political system. It embraces both the political ideas and operating norms of a polity. For him therefore, it is the manifestation of an aggregate form of the psychological and subjective dimensions of politics. Political culture is also rooted in public events and private experiences. More so, as enunciated by Sydney Weber, political culture consist of the system of empirical beliefs, expressive symbols and values, which define the situation in which political action take place. Political culture also encompasses shared goals and commonly accepted rules.
Accordingly, Almond argues that every political
system is embedded in a particular pattern of orientations to the political actions. That is to say, it is the pattern of individual patterns and orientations towards politics among the members of a political system. By orientation therefore we refer to the internalized aspects of objects and their relationships.
These include: cognitive
orientation, affective orientation and evaluative orientation.
Cognitive Orientation
This is knowledge of and belief about the political system, its roles and the incumbent of these roles, its inputs and its outputs.
Affective Orientation
This refers to the feeling about the political system, its roles, personnel and performance.
Evaluative Orientation
This concerns the judgement and opinions about political objects that typically involves the combination of value-standards and criteria with information and feelings. Meanwhile in the classification of political culture the important thing is what objects individuals are oriented to, how they are oriented to them and whether these 11
objects are predominantly involved in the upward flow of policy making or in the downward flow of policy enforcement. In fact, the distinction that we draw from such classification, determines whether a nation’s political culture could be described as parochial, subject or participant. Hence, we arrive at the three major types of political culture. 3 x 4 Matrix
Types
Objects Parochial Subject Participant
System as general object 0 1 1
1.
Parochial political culture
2.
Subject political culture
3.
Participant political culture
Input object
Output
Self as active participant
0 0 1
0 1 1
0 0 1
Parochial Political Culture
A political culture is parochial when the frequency of orientations to specialize political objects of the four kinds approaches zero.
According to Coleman the
political cultures of African tribal societies and autonomous local communities are parochial. More so, a parochial orientation also implies the comparative absence of expectations of change initiated by the political system. In fact, the parochial expects nothing from the political system
Subject Political Culture
This refers to high frequency of orientations towards a differentiated political system and towards the output aspect of the system, but orientation towards specifically input objects and toward the self as an active participant approaches zero. The citizen is aware of specialized governmental authority, he is affectively oriented to it, and he may take pride in it and accord legitimacy or otherwise to the system as general object. It is essentially a passive relationship.
Participant Political Culture
12
This is one in which the members of the society tends to be explicitly oriented to the system as a whole and to both the political and administrative structures and processes, that is, to both the input and output aspects of the political system. Individual members of the participant polity may be favourably or unfavourably oriented to the various classes of political object. They are oriented towards active participation notwithstanding that their feeling and evaluation of political role may vary from acceptance to rejection. Meanwhile, it is necessary to state that adding participant orientations to subject and parochial orientations changes the earlier orientation. Hence, parochial orientations must adapt when new and more specialized orientations entered into the system.
In the same vein, both parochial and subject orientations change when
participant orientations are acquired.
In fact, a significant measure of difference
between political cultures of different political systems could be related to the extent to which parochial, subject and participant orientations are combined or fused together within the individuals of the polity.
This however, does not imply
homogeneity or uniformity of political cultures. It is the degree of the fusion of political cultures that determines the level of development of a political culture of any political system. Thus, this fusion or mix could manifest as: 1.
parochial-subject culture
2.
subject-participant culture
3.
parochial-participant culture
13
POLITICAL PARTICIPATION
Political participation is a concept within the discipline of political science that has various meanings. The term refers to the extent to which citizens get involved in and are affected by politics. It has also been characterized as a civic duty, as a sign of political health and the best method of ensuring that one’s private interest are not neglected. Accordingly, Okolie noted that political participation expresses right to rule, freedom of expression, association, right to free flow of communication, influence decision process and right to social justice. As a matter of fact, from the time of Aristotle, to the present age, popular political participation has been extolled as a source of vitality and creative energy as a defense against tyranny and as a means of enacting collective wisdom, through participation in the affairs of the state, stability and order could be promoted, but more importantly and disordered and unrealistic government could equally be changed. Participation gives an opportunity to express one’s own point of view and possibly secure the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Political participation has been defined as the overt and covert involvement of citizens in the politics of any given society. It cuts across the various aspects of a nation’s political life, ranging from the daily services in government to attendance of political party rallies, meetings, voting and being voted for during elections, etc. To be sure, political participation involves any act that has manifest or latent political undertone. This could be in form of political protest, that is legally permitted, and any other actions against the state that might not be legally permitted. Accordingly, Agbo H. N. (2007) defines political participation as all manner of involvement, direct or indirect, overt or covert, legal and extra legal by individuals or groups, within a political community that have some consequences on the political system. However, in its restricted sense, political participation refers to the activities of the incumbent of different roles and that of the citizenry during elections. Meanwhile, Huntington and Nelson categorized political participation as either voluntary (autonomous) or manipulated (mobilized). Accordingly, voluntary participation is the activity which is designed by the actor himself to influence governmental decisionmaking, while manipulated participation refers to activity which is designed by someone other than the actor to influence governmental decision-making.
14
Factors Influencing Political Participation
The form and nature of political participation differs from one political system to another. Accordingly Milbrath argues that political participation differs in relation to four (4) major factors: 1.
The extent to which the individual receives political stimuli
2.
The individual’s personal characteristics
3.
The individual’s social characteristics
4.
The political setting or environment in which the individual finds himself More so, it is argued, that the level of education determines one’s level of
participation in politics. That is to say, the more educated citizens tend to participate more actively than the less-educated ones. But very significant, is the contribution made by Igwe (2002) that various forms of injustice, inequality and poverty, illiteracy and ignorance and anti-people political system awkward and archaic cultural practices, electoral and ballot rigging traditions and long years of military rule or some of the factors that affect political participation and could in fact, create political apathy.
By political apathy, we mean lack of interest or concern for persons or
institutions of the political system. It denotes a situation of indifference to or lack of concern or feeling of interest in situations that should normally provoke active reaction.
Okolie argues that political apathy is not only a psychological
predisposition, but also a behavioural trait of the individual. Factors that Cause Political Apathy
These factors are in the recommended text book! POLITICAL SOCIALIZATION
The concept of political socialization is quite new in the field of empirical and behavioural research. It is the process by which an individual is acquainted with the political system, which determines his perception of politics and his reactions to political phenomenon. It is usually determined by the social, economic and cultural environment of the society in which the individual lives and by the interaction of the experiences and personality of the individual. Political socialization is the process by which political cultures are maintained and changed. It refers mainly to the learning process by which norms and behaviour acceptable to the political system are transmitted. In a general sense, it refers to the way society transmits its political
15
culture from generation to generation. Accordingly, Herbert Hyman defines political socialization as the individual’s learning of social patterns corresponding to his social positions as mediated through various agencies of the society. More so, Almond and Powell, defines political socialization as the process whereby political attitudes and values are inculcated as children become adult and as adult are recruited into roles. It is also defined as all political learning, formal and informal, deliberate and unplanned, at every stage of the life cycle, including not only explicitly political learning but also nominally non-political learning of political relevant personality characteristics. Also David Easton and Jack Dennis define political socialization as those developmental processes through which persons acquire political orientations and patterns of behaviour. In fact, there are many other conceptions of political socialization as there are scholars but generally, they regard political socialization as a necessary process of reengineering restructuring and learning of the specific and generally acceptable political culture of a given polity in order to create an acceptable political behaviour among its citizens towards the political system. Stages of Political Socialization Political socialization is conceived as a process which continues throughout
life, affecting the children, adolescents and adults. As already stated, it is a process whereby political attitudes and values are inculcated as children become adults and as adults are recruited into roles. The thrust of the study of political socialization has two (2) aspects. First, it is concerned with the process of transmission of cultural characteristics from generation to generation. Second, in order to understand the transmission process, the study of political socialization attempts to identify the process whereby children gain an awareness of politics and also the ways in which the attitudes of adults are maintained or changed through later life. Through this, the persistence in cultural patterns and political style exist because societies are able to pass their major values and attitudes, intact from one generation to another. Hence, the stability of a social or political system depends on the political socialization of its members.
Therefore, political socialization aims to achieve the goal of political
stabilization. Accordingly, scholars have identified three (3) major stages of political socialization viz:
16
1.
Childhood socialization
2.
Socialization of adolescence
3.
Socialization of adults Agents of Political Socialization
As has been stated earlier, political socialization is a process through which one develops political awareness from early childhood to adulthood. Therefore, it is necessary to study the relevant agents of political socialization. This in essence refers to the roles played by groups and organizations as they influence the development of political orientations. The main categories of socializing agents are: 1.
Primary groups
2.
Secondary groups
3.
Reference groups More so, other agents of political socialization, as enunciated by Okolie are:
the family, school, peer groups, employment sectors, mass media, political parties and pressure groups. These can also be located within our three broad categories and the details are contained in our recommended textbook. MICRO-POLITICAL ANALYSIS The Elite Theory Originally it was developed in the field of sociology to explain the bahaviour
of men in the social setting. In its broad sense, it holds that every society consists two categories of people: 1.
The superior minority known as the elite, which exercises a preponderant influence within the society; and
2.
The inferior majority or the masses. The term elite refer to those people who have some distinct qualities by which
they are differentiated from the general mass of the people. At the hearth of the elitist theory is the assumption of the inadequacy of the average citizen. This therefore implies that every political system particularly democratic systems must rely on the wisdom, loyalty and skill of their political leader, not on the general mass of the people. Every political system is divided into two (2) groups: the elite (political entrepreneurs) possessing ideological commitment and manipulative skills and the masses (citizens at large). In fact, the masses are the apolitical clay of the system, a much larger class of passive followers, who have little knowledge of public affairs
17
and are less interested in politics. Generally, in every sphere of life, the people who have the highest indices in their branch of activities are normally referred to as elite. That means we have elite of doctors, lawyers, lecturers, thieves, kidnappers, prostitutes and what have you. The elite are also divided into governing elite and non-governing elite. The governing elite comprise of individuals, who directly or indirectly play some considerable part in government and the non-governing elite comprise of people not connected with governmental affairs. Definitions of Elite The first scholar to articulate the idea of division of society from the elitist prism was Gaetalo Mosca, in his: “The Ruling Class (1896)”.
However, it was
Vilfredo Pareto in “The Mind of the Society (1915 – 1919)” that first used the term elite and masses to indicate superior and inferior groups in the society. Also, Roberto Michels made a significant contribution in his “Political Parties: A Sociological study of the Oligarchical Tendency of Modern Democracy (1911).” Meanwhile, Vilfredo Pareto defines elite as people in a society who possess a marked degree qualities of intelligence, character, skill and capacity of whatever kind. Parry Geraint defines elite as small minorities who appear to play an exceptionally influential part in political and social affairs. According to C. Wright Mills, elite is composed of men who have the most of what there is to have, money, power, wealth, beauty and prestige, who are able to realize their will even if others resist it, whose positions enable them to transcend the ordinary environment of ordinary people and who are in positions to make decisions having major consequences. It has also been defined as those minorities, which are set apart from the rest of the society by their preeminence in one or more spheres of distributions of various privileges and benefits. According to Mosca’s postulations, the people are divided into two (2) groups – the rulers and the ruled. The ruling class controls most of the wealth, power and prestige in society and exercises all power in whatever form of government that might be adopted. The ruled are not competent to replace it. As propounded by Roberto Michels in his famous “Iron law of Oligarchy”, which implied that every organization whatever its original aims are, is eventually reduced to an oligarchy that is the rule of the chosen few.
18
Majority of human beings, it is argued, are apathetic, indolent and slavish and they are permanently incapable of self-government. Accordingly, Pareto concluded that the elite show highest ability in their field of activity whatever its nature may be, while the masses are characterized by the lack of qualities of leadership and fear from responsibility. In fact, the masses feel better in following the dictates of the elite.
Characteristics or Basic Assumption of the Elitist Theory
Deriving from our discussion so far, the characteristic or basic assumptions of the elitist theory could be summarized as follows: 1.
That every political system is divided into 2 groups the elites (rulers), the masses (ruled).
2.
The masses are the apolitical passive followers, with little knowledge of governmental affairs and politics.
3.
The elite control the social, material and political resources in every society.
4.
There is the reliance of the political system on the wisdom, loyalty and scale of the view than on the population at large
5.
The elitist theorist assume that politics is the determining force in history and not economics
6.
It also assumes that the men in power, constitutes a coercive group. These basic assumptions of the elitist theory demonstrate that democracy as
government of the people is incapable of realization. The proponent of democracy has demonstrated an inability to repudiate the argument advanced by the elitist theorist. What indeed we call government of the people “democracy” is in fact, government of the minority “oligarchy”. As a result, the champions of democracy sort to accommodate the elitist theory in the framework of democratic theory, which lead to its revision. Consequently, the elitist democratic theory was developed by several writers (scholars). Accordingly, Karl Mannheim in his attempt to reconcile the elite theory and democratic theory argued that society does not cease to be democratic by entrusting the actual shaping of policy to the elite. He maintained that as the masses cannot directly participate in government, they can make their aspirations known, accepting intervals and this is sufficient for democracy. He insists on selection by merit and bridging of the gap between the elite and the masses in order to ensure 19
compatibility between elite rule and democratic government. In his own contribution to the Elitist theory, Schumpeter argued that the forms of government should be distinguished by their institutions and especially by their method of appointing and dismissing the supreme-makers of law and policy. In words of Schumpeter, “the democratic method is that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions, in which a competitive struggle for the people’s vote”. It could be deduced from their both conception that in a democratic political organization, decisions are taken by the leadership, not by the inferior majority. More so, it implies that leaders compete for peoples’ vote in election.
Consequently, one can argue that democracy is not a
government of the people, or a means to give effect to the will of the people, because rulers comprise a distinct set of people, other than the masses. In fact, the role of people in every so called democracy is reduced to merely choosing the leaders in a competitive election between or among the elite; however what gave democracy credence is that unlike other forms of government, it does not permit tyrannical rule, because the political leadership that wield absolute power, could be voted out in subsequent election. As a result, political leadership must draw up policies with an eye on gaining more support from the masses than its opponents. Meanwhile Raymond Aaron in his attempt to combine democratic and elite theories argued that liberal democracy is characterized by a system of check and balances, and plurality of elites as a result of government becomes a business of compromise between the government elite and the masses. Hence, the government must be sensitive to public opinion and conscious to the opposition element with which they have to change seats in due course. However, just like Mannheim and later for Schumpeter, Aaron also posit that the imitative still remains in the hands of the elite, while masses play the relatively passive role of choosing the rulers from among the elite. More so, there is no significant difference between Schumpeter and Giovanni Sirtori in his “Democratic Theory 1958”. Accordingly, Giovanni Sirtori regards democracy as a procedure in which leaders (elites) compete at elections for authority to govern. For him the role of the elites does not suggest any imperfection of democracy, but the call of democratic system. He also advised that any notion of self-governing people is a delusion, except govern by selecting their leaders. He therefore concluded that the real danger to democracy emanates not from the existence of leadership, but form the absence of it which would result in the people being exploited by anti-democratic counter-elite. 20
GROUP THEORY
Group theory of politics emerges as a reaction to the principle of atomistic liberalism, enunciated by John Locke and Jeremy Bentham. The attempt to establish the group rather than the individual or the society as the basic unit in political analysis is the point of departure of the group theorist. Group theory therefore focuses upon collectivities of individuals who interact in pursuance of common political good. Group theory was developed for political analysis by Arthur Bentley in his book “The Process of Government, 1908”. Scholars did not follow up their theoretical application of group theory to political analysis, until David B. Truman made an important study using group analysis. The study known as the master piece is titled “Governmental Process, 1951’. Bentley conceptualized group in terms of actions of men directed towards one end. A group for him is certain of the men of the society taken however not as a physical mass of activities which does not preclude men who participate in it, from participating likewise in many other group activities. A group is seen as a mass of activity that tends to move to some definite cause of conduct. Interest is seen as what gives direction to this mass of activity, hence, a group can be perceived as “as a mass of activity directed by interest”. The social system which consists of a large number of groups marks the arena for the interaction of group activity. It is interest which links to the formation of groups. David B. Truman defines a group as a collection of individuals, which on the basis of one or more shared attitudes makes certain claims upon other groups in the society for the establishment, maintenance or enhancement of behaviour that are implied in the shared attitudes. What seems to proceed from the above definitions is that a group is an aggregate of individuals, who interact in varying degrees in pursuance of a common interest. Group theorists focus on the collectivity and not on the individuals in the attempt to uncover the real or basic forces of political life. They see power, interest and conflict as the main variables in the systematic study of politics. They argue that interest is the primary propelling force and that every action is based upon sharing of interest. Power configuration is seen as basically, the configuration of competing interest organized into groups. In this connection, ideology, values, the state, the formal organization of political decision making and the content of decisions are 21
determined by the dynamic interplay of interest and group forces. Group theorists believe that society comprises of dynamic processes (activities) and not merely specific institutions (structures) or substantive content (values). The study of politics and political behaviour for them, concerns the analysis of these groups and their competing interests. As Bentley puts it, “when the groups are adequately stated, everything is stated”. groups’ conflict.
Legislation, politics and administration are the product of
Lathan puts it succinctly, the legislatures referees the group’s
struggle, ratifies the victory of the successful coalition and records the forms of the surrenders, compromises and conquests in the form of statutes. S. V. Varma supports this view and maintains that administration is the process of carrying into effect, the treaties that the legislators have negotiated and ratified and the bureaucrats can be compared to armies of occupation, left in the field to police the rule won by the victorious coalition. Group theorists like Gabriel Almond, James S Coldman and G. Powel have developed typology of groups for comparative political analysis across national boundaries. They identified four (4) types of interest group namely: 1.
Associational interest groups
2.
Institutional interest groups
3.
Non-associational interest groups
4.
Anomic interest groups On a general note, Almond and Powel, define interest group as a group of
individuals who are linked by particular bonds of concern of advantage and who have some awareness of these bonds. Associational Interest Group
These are highly organized and specialized aggregates that explicitly represent the interest of particular collectivity. They are well-staffed and relatively tightly knit. Examples are trade unions, business, ethnic and religious organizations and civic groups. Institutional Interest Groups
These are created and assigned certain political functions by the state. Their roles as interest groups are primarily to lobby in support of their own existence. Thus, the defense ministry may draw attention to the dire necessity of increasing military budge in the face of serious threats from the enemy even if this would lead to slashing welfare budget. Examples mentioned by Almond include: legislatures, bureaucracies, 22
political parties, armies and churches. Others are subgroups like legislative blocks, officer cliques and skill groups and ideological groups. Non-Associational Interest Group
These pursue their interest informally and possess highly fluid, relatively concealed and highly interactive pattern.
Non-associational interest groups are
characterized by intermittent pattern of articulation, absence of organized procedure, for establishing the nature and means of articulation and lack of continuity in the internal structure. Examples include, kingship, lineage, ethnic, regional and status collectivities. There are essentially two (2) forms of non-associational interest group: 1.
The formal group of clique
2.
Categoric Aggregation such as racial, ethnic, class and religious groups. These groups are attributed objective interest upon which policy makers act as
if these groups consciously pursue their interest in their own behalf. Anomic Interest Group
This includes spontaneous and eruptive aggregations such as riots, demonstrations and other manifestations of mob activities. These groups may no be in self-conscious pursuit of an interest though a particular interest may be attributed to the group activity. Examples of anomic interest groups in Nigerian politics include “The-Ali-must-go riot of 1977, the SAP riot of 1989, the annulment of June 12 presidential election of 1993, the anti-government riot of the death of M. K. O. Abiola of 1998. Anomic groups are usually disturbing and disorderly to the ongoing social and political system.
The anomic groups are usually disturbing and disorder the
social and political system. The pattern of group formation is the most dramatically intermittent in the anomic interest group.
THE THEORY OF RELATIVE DEPRIVATION, RISING EXPECTATION AND FRUSTRATION AGGRESSION MODEL
The theory of relative deprivation is one of the most popular behavioural explanatory frameworks in the study of violence. The central thesis of this framework is that aggression is always a consequence of discontent of a kind.
Relative
deprivation is defined as a perceived discrepancy between man’s (groups), value expectation and value capabilities. By value expectation we refer to the goods and conditions of life to which people believe they are rightfully entitled.
Value
capabilities are the goods and conditions, they think they are capable of attaining and 23
maintaining given the social means available to them (Ted Gorr 1970). Therefore, relative deprivation is the discrepancy between “oughts” and “is” of collective value satisfaction. It is in fact, the degree to which the individuals (groups) feel deprived as it relates to anger and frustration. This is related to frustration-aggression model of analysis. Consequently, Gorr argued that relative deprivation is a necessary condition for violence.
BASIC PREPOSITIONS OR ASSUMPTIONS OF RELATIVE DEPRIVATION
The following constitutes the basic assumptions of relative deprivation theory: 1.
The greater the extent of discrepancy that men (group) see between what they seek and what seems to be attainable, the greater their anger and consequent disposition to aggression.
2.
Men (group) who feel they have many opportunities (ways) to attain their goals are less likely to become angry when one is blocked than those who have few or just one alternative.
3.
The intensity of men’s (groups) expectations, the greater their anger when they meet unexpected or increased resistance. More so, Gorr provided four (4) intervening variables which may condition
the perception of deprivation. They are: 1.
The legitimacy of the political regime in which violence occur
2.
Coercive potentials
3.
Institutionalization
4.
Social Structures Similarly, James Davis attributed outbreak of violence to the frustration that
results from a short-term decline in achievement following a long-term increase that generates expectation about continuing increase. Thus, he argues that whenever the discrepancy between achievement and expectations become intolerable, it could lead to violence. This also could mean revolution of rising expectations which refers to the formation of expectations, which outruns the capacity of the political system to satisfy them.
24
WEAKNESS OF THE THEORY OF RELATIVE DEPRIVATION
Following the conceptualization of the theory of relative deprivation and its various propositions and assumptions, we can observe some theoretical and empirical difficulties or impurities. First, the difficulty of conceptualization of “expectations”.
According to
Obserschall, there is enormous difficulty in adequately defining the meaning of expectation and empirically separating it from hopes, desires, wants, needs, daydreams, wishes, etc. He further stated that even with the use of sophisticated tools of measurement, like self-anchoring scale, measurement of expectations and relative deprivation are subject to problems. Second, implicit in the theory of relative deprivation is that violence occurs when the want-get gap becomes intolerable.
That is, when the gap between
expectation and capabilities become so wide.
However, it is observed that the
estimation of intolerability is frequently indexed by the occurrence of violence itself. Hence, there is the need for an independent evaluation of intolerability instead of its behavioural consequences. Finally, the above criticisms not withstanding, it is a valid conclusion to say frustration arising from deprivation, in most cases motivate people to violent act. However, it appears rather narrow, to argue that frustration will and often produce violence. It evident from empirical observation, that even when deprivation is intense on individual or a large group, it is only a necessary conditions not a sufficient one for violence. By necessary condition we mean, a variable that must combine with others to produce an outcome. It would be absolutely essential to identify the other factors with which it must relate and it what ways to yield a consequence, while on the other hand, it is equally essential to note that when a condition is sufficient, it may or may not mean that it is the only one with that potential. By sufficient condition we mean, a variable that can act alone to produce an outcome (Igwe 2002).
25
THE POWER THEORY
The real meaning of power has been a matter of controversy to many scholars on account of its social, economic, political, psychological, sociological and spiritual ramifications. Recently, the idea of power has assumed an importance of its own in the realm of political theory. The reason for this should be traced to the fact that, the meaning of politics has changed from one of being a study of state and government to that of being a study of power.
Accordingly, Curtis stated politics is organized
dispute about power and its use involving choice among competing values, ideas, persons, interests and demands.
The study of politics is concerned with the
description and analysis of the manner in which power is obtained, exercised and controlled, the purpose for which it is used, the manner in which decisions are made, the factors, which influence the making of those decisions and the context in which those decisions take place. Power has been defined in so many ways, by scholars and practitioners, depending on their vibrancy and circumstances. Accordingly Toney defines power as the capacity of an individual or a group of individuals to modify the conduct of others in the manner which one desires. According to Mao Tse-Tung, power comes from the barrel of a gun, while an apostle of peace, truth and non-violence like Ghandi substituted the force of gun and bomb with the power of love and truth emanating from the will of the people. Hans Morgenthau defines power as man’s control over the minds and actions of others. Power is thus seen as the ability of an actor to direct other actors to bend towards one’s will; to extract habitual obedience, to bring others into submission and the ability to dominate. Politics is therefore, the struggle for domination and control. Political power on the other hand refers to mutual relations of control among the holders of public authority and between the latter and the people at large. Also power may be defined as the ability of an actor to achieve its objectives in spite of opposition and despite obstacles. It is in this sense, that power is defined as the capacity to produce an effect. Power is measured at the end of the action. Power is exercised only when an obstacle has been scaled or overcome, that is, when an objective has been achieved. Karl Deutsch defined power in this sense as the ability to prevail in conflicts. Another definition of power tends to contradict the behavioural perception of power in terms of human relationship. Power is also seen as the possession and control of resources of influence and compulsion. This includes skill, 26
technology, economic resources, financial resources and instruments of coercion. This definition of power does not involve relationship.
It is in this sense that
individuals or nations that possess such elements of power as stated above as seen to be powerful. However, power as a possession, tends to contradict its behavioural implications in human relations.
For instance, the possession of vast strategic
economic resources like petroleum by Nigeria does not imply the control over such resources. The production of Nigerian petroleum resources is more or less, controlled by foreign technology.
Again, power as a possession, is certainly in conflict
contradicted. Power is the faculty or capacity to conquer in a contest. Force is an adjunct and not an essence of power. It is the most brutal manifestation of power. However, the potency or capacity to manipulate the will and activities of others to make them conform to the power-seeker’s will is the central point in power. Power may be based on other elements like fraud, ingenuity or combination and group tactics. It can also be derived from established constitutional and legal procedures. However, instead of involving one’s self in the cobwebs of different ramifications of power, one may take a generalized view and say that power is taken to denote the whole spectrum of those external influences that by being brought to bear upon an individual (group) ca n make him move in a required direction.
CLASSES AND CLASS STRUGGLE Class Analysis
The social class analysis of the political system has both the liberal and Marxist political economy variants. Generally however, the social class analytical framework regards social stratification as a fundamental reality on social and political life. This stratification system has been and hard-grave noted not only includes all member of the society but also forms the basic determinants of conflict and change. The Liberal Perspective of the Social Class Analysis
Scholars of the liberal orientation, divide social classes into various strata such as upper class, middle class and lower class. There are equally further sub-divisions of upper-upper class, middle-upper, lower-upper, upper-middle, middle-middle, lower-middle, etc.
The definition of such social stratification is based solely on
wealth and social status. Those who own and control property have a high birth rate 27
good education, etc. belong to the upper class or middle class. Those with high birth always belong to the upper class, while those individuals with low birth but with wealth belong to the middle class. Those who are poor have no property and prestige belong to the lower class. These individuals are mostly low income factory workers and peasants who eke out their living on daily or monthly basis. The recognition of the relationship between social class and the political process represents the critical point of investigation for the social class analytical framework. Social class position of an individual defined in terms of wealth and social status is assumed to relate to a nation’s political process. The liberal perspective of the social class analysis, is concerned with determining whether a particular socio-economic class (upper class for example), dominate the ultimate decision making process. Once this relationship is established or supported by evidence, the liberal class analyst is interested in the capacity of the society to process and act upon the demands of the masses. The liberal theorists see the politics of most nations as being dominated by the upper and middle classes. Political power is perceived to flow from the dominant sector of the society downwards.
The rich and the prestigious exercise exceptional influence on the
decision making processes even as social mobility occupies from the lower to the higher status position.
Liberal theorists hold the view that the widening of the
franchise and the more democratic application of the institutions of representative government, would expand the middle class towards citizenship, property, manner, liberty, responsibility and commitment; and according to David Abter, we depend on the degree to which new political opportunities are opened up as new leaders are drawn from an ever-widening pole. The more participation there is in a common political culture, the faster rigid class distinctions disappear. Criticisms of the Liberal Social Class Analysis
Nnoli (1986) has taken a sweep at the liberal perspective of social class analysis. His argument is proceeds as follows: •
The liberal perspective tends to equate classes with social groups that share occupation, education, income, lifestyle, etc. In this way, classes are seen as socio-economic groups with differentiated access to wealth. It sees classes as an economic and not a political relationship. This reduces the concept of class to a static quantitative category. The political implication, nature and character of class, is wittingly and unwittingly removed. Thus, the implication of class for state power is obfuscated. Politically, the upper class, middle and
28
lower classes are identified and political attitudinal patterns are arbitrarily assigned to them. However, there is no logical link between the assumed existence and their political behaviour. Classes are therefore frozen in static statistical frame and implication for political action is that emphasis is placed on distribution and not on production. At the level of distribution, the society does appear as a collection of individual consumers or income groups. In this way, the historical role of social classes and their political efficacy in the development process is rendered redundant. The Marxist Political Economy Social Class Analysis
Marxist political economist view of the concept of class is predicated on Karl Marx analysis of classes and his theory of class theory. In the Communist Manifesto jointly produced by Karl Marx and Fredrick Engel, it is quoted thus “that the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle, freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guide master and journey-men, in a world, oppressor and oppressed stood in constant opposition to one another, carrying on an uninterrupted now-hidden, now-open fight, a fight that each time ended either in a revolutionary reconstruction of society at large or in the common rein of the contending classes.” Marxist political economists perceive class struggle as a struggle between classes. According to V. I. Lenin, classes are large group of people, differing from each other by the place they occupy in a historically determined system of social production by their relation to the means of production, by their role in the social organization of labour, and consequently, by the dimension of the share of social wealth of which they dispose and the mode of acquiring it.
Classes as Lenin
maintains are groups of people, one of which can appropriate the labour of another, owing to the different places they occupy in a definite system of social production. The existence of classes is therefore associated only with historically determined modes of production. Marxists generally perceive class differentiation in terms of: 1.
The appropriation of labour
2.
The participation in the labour process Class relations are seen as political power relations; class struggle is seen as
political struggle; class consciousness is seen as political consciousness and class conflict is seen as political conflict. The focus of analysis is therefore on the mode of production and the dialectical arguments immanent in the production process and the
29
subsistence of antagonistic classes in society. The social relations of production of a society is seen to throw up two groups or classes of people – a group of class that controls the means of production – the haves and the group of class that do not control the means of production – the have nots. Thus, social class simply refers to the social relations of production in the society. The haves are the economically dominant class who reproduce their dominance at the political level as the political dominant class. The have nots are the economically subjugated class whose subjugation is reproduced at the level as the political dominated or oppressed class. For Marxists, class struggle takes the form of social division of labour. Intraclass struggle involves the different factions or fractions of the dominant class as typified by the nature and character of social division of labour. The state becomes the mechanism that gives stability to class struggle by moderating it either peacefully or violently as occasion demands. Associated with the concept of class and class struggle are the notion of class in itself and class for itself. Class in itself means that members of the group play a similar role in production, but are not conscious of their common interest. Class for itself means that a group not only shares a similar role in production, but is also aware of their common interest and engages in some form of conscious collective struggle. Structurally however, a group’s class position is determined by its place in the production process and its role in the domination of the state irrespective of whether its members define their identity in those terms. Therefore, an understanding of the class position of a group in structural terms may be used to predict pattern of behaviour, which may not be perceived by actors as class oriented. A political analyst using the Marxist political economy social class analysis is therefore concerned with how a society produces its material existence. The analysts focuses on the mode of production and on the contending groups of classes, and proceeds by asking the questions, who decides what is to be produced, when it is to be produced, how it is to be produced and how the product of production process is to be distributed. By focusing of the nature of the relations of production, the Marxist political economy social class analyst captures the complexities of human societies.
It sees the
differences among them in terms of an unending struggle among the various classes for a position of dominance over the production process. Thus, the state becomes equally the focus of analysis because, the state is not only a product of this struggle, and it is also an expression of it. 30
The implication of this mode of analysis is that it shows why each state is different from the others – because of the peculiarities of its dominant class, the subjugated class, the nature of the struggle between them, the level of sophistication of the state agencies employed in this struggle and the manner in which the dominant class appropriates the product of production and ensures its survival. It is on this basis that states can be differentiated from each in comparative political analysis. Thus, when we talk of politics, the political process or the political system, the Marxist political economy social class analysis helps us to focus on those activities, which has to do with the coming into being of a particular state notably, the assumption of power by a particular fraction of the dominant class, the struggles between the various classes, and their fractions to retain or gain political power and the manner in which society is organized in order to ensure that material and psychological privileges accrued to the dominant class without threatening their domination. The society can therefore be understood in its past and present and its future can be predicted on this basis because at any time, the society represents a specific manifestation of the endless struggles of contending classes over the means of sustenance.
In this context, a political system is properly perceived as a social
formation which is distinguished by its modality of social class domination and to this end, comparative political analysis is enhanced. To conclude, the Marxist economy social class analysis shunned of its ideological biases has a very illuminatory, explanatory and emancipatory value for the analysis of political system.
PUBLIC OPINION AND PROPAGANDA
Public opinion are widely held stable views not naturally unanimous or majority views but a view held simultaneously by a collection of people linked together by common desires within a political system. Every political system is made up of several “publics”. It is the aggregate of individual attitude or belief held by the adult population. It can also be defined as the complex collection of opinions of many different people and the sum of all their views. It is to be stated that opinion of the public is not necessarily the opinion of the people, yet it represents the opinion of a public capable of functioning politically and this is vital to an understanding to politics or the dynamics of the political system. In fact, hard-won human and civil rights guarantee that public opinion can exist and can be expressed. And this includes 31
freedom of thought, opinion and speech, freedom to associate and to demonstrate and finally freedom of the press. Public opinion as a concept gained credence with the rise of “public” in the eighteenth (18th) century.
The concept came about through the process of
urbanization and other political and social forces.
For the first time, it became
important what people thought as forms of political contentions changed. Accordingly, Jeremy Bentham opined that public opinion has the power to ensure that rulers rule for the greatest happiness for the greatest number. In another development, the American sociologist Herbert Blumer proposed an altogether different conception of the “public”. According to him, public opinion is discussed as a form of collective behaviour which is made up of those who are discussing a given public issue at any given time. Following from this definition therefore, there are many “publics” each of them comes into being when an issue arises and ceases to exist when the issue is resolved. For him, people participate in public in different capacities and to different degrees. As a result, public opinion polling cannot measure the public or the people adequately. The situation in which people independently make decision about for example, which brand of phone to buy is a form of collective behaviour different from the public and therefore is not public opinion. Public opinion plays an important role in the political sphere. Cutting across all aspects of relationship between government and public opinion are the studies of voting behaviour. These have registered the distribution of opinions on a wide variety of issues, and have explored the impact of special interest groups on election outcomes and have contributed to our knowledge about the effects of government propaganda and policy. Three (3) communities of people who form public opinion are: public leaders and thinkers; common educated class; and common people. Moreover, it is important to note that whether public opinions are formed by the elites or non-elites, there are certain agents (like agents of socialization) that account for the formation of public opinion by any class of people. Accordingly, Leeds identified these agents to include the following: •
Social groups and institutions
•
Mass media
•
Pressure groups and political parties
•
The role of government
32
PROPAGANDA
Propaganda is the conveying of facts and opinions in such a way as to teach the people how to make up their minds not how to think and consequently, how to behave. In fact, for any communicative interaction to have a controlling influence on public opinion in a determined direction is propaganda.
With propaganda, the
audience of the communication process is not allowed much freedom to reject the content of the communication. Thus, propaganda involves the use of communication strategies, techniques and tactics that compulsively campaigns and appeals to the emotions, sentiments and conviction of the audience. In this light, propaganda is ideological communication. It main objective is the justification of policy or line of action. It is also use to undermine the position of the opponent. It is to be stated that as democratic government depend on the favour of public opinion so does the success of any major governmental programme depend to an extent on the attitude of the people whose support emanate from their knowledge as express through propaganda. The people’s knowledge came about as a result of appropriate information and conviction. In fact, propaganda is the attempt to convince. It is a conscious and definite intent on the part of persons, governments or pressure groups to influence the formation of attitudes, the expression of opinion and the behaviour of the persons to hlakjd;alkdja they address their efforts. It implies the use of suggestion by means of which opinions expressed by the propagandist became those of his audience through the transformation, adoption and integration of their attitudes. Therefore, any person, organization or government that addresses itself (himself) to the problem of communicating ideas with the intention of influencing his hearers towards a line of action is a propagandist. The intention must be direct and conscious. On the other hand, any action, utterance, etc. which meets the end of its goal by simply coming into being but which nevertheless happens by uncalculated design is not propaganda. It may achieve a propaganda objective but its at best coincidental pseudo-propaganda or unintentional propaganda.
TECHNIQUES AND TACTICS
Propaganda strategy is the overall campaign plan and therefore covers the aims or policies of the government or group carrying out the propaganda. Technique refers to the content of the communication i.e. what is said and what is done. Tactics
33
refer to the method, that is, how it is said and how it is done. As a result, technique and tactics go hand in hand and includes the following: •
Spreading false rumour
•
Misrepresentation through skillful selection or distortion of facts
•
Bandwagon. This implies stressing the endorsement of the group’s policy by the majority and therefore suggesting to the audience to adopt the fashion since everyone is supporting it.
•
Emotional appeals: this is the use of emotional rather than appeals such as appealing to passion or prejudice in order to cloud the main issue or divert attention. Here, slogans, symbols, or catch-words are used.
POLITICAL PARTIES AND VOTING BEHAVIOUR
Origin of Political Parties Originally, the emergence of parties was not designed by a theory or blueprint nor were they always considered necessary to a democracy. They were viewed as infamous bodies of rabble-rousers and were dismissed by political thinkers as enemies of the democratic process and the orderly pursuit of society. The early development of party theory was hampered by a general fear of factions by both political philosophers and political leaders. Until the development of parties, most political systems with rare exceptions have the monarchies.
The monarch’s interest in
preserving his own power base, has led him to suspect any opposing force, which were viewed as divisive and therefore harmful. The party as a newly developing social institution was often considered to be a faction by government leaders and thus, was attacked. Long before the coming of electoral democracy, the state had had a varied structure of public officials – mayors, members of parliament, ministers, etc. These offices were attained by people in a variety of ways: by being born into them (hereditary), by buying the offices through bribery and by appointment, etc. In fact, hostility towards parties was evident in the newly emerging American nation. In his farewell address, George Washington warned about the division of the electorate into parties or factions. He emphasized the common ties that bounds citizens together, the benefit to be found in unity and the inability of the party membership to prevent the rise of cunning ambitions and of unprincipled men who will subvert the power of the people and usurp for themselves the reins of government.
The implication of
Washington’s fear is that the domination of one faction over another sharpened by the
34
spirit of revenge natural to party dissention, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. In fact, long after the parties have been formed and acknowledged, and particular in the late 1800 and early 1900, two (2) European theorists Moisi Ostrogorskr and Roberto Michelles actively opposed parties as inevitably anti-democratic. Ostrogoskr’s fear that the party will become an obstacle to voters’ representation was shared by Roberto Michelles in his famous “Iron Law of Oligarchy”, Michelles argue that party leadership will inevitably become an oligarchy – the few ruling the many.
He
maintained that the party leaders would automatically have a vested interest in maintaining and increasing their power.
Thus, political participation would be
subordinated to party survival. However, not all elite political theorists and leaders perceive the party as a divisive and hence a destructive force in politics. For example, Edmund Burke in 1700 defined party as a body of men united for promoting by their joint endeavours the national interest upon some particular principle in which they are all aggrieved. He saw party as a respectable and at times a necessary component of a democratic system.
And even as Washington warned
against parties, members of his own cabinet were leading separate and hostile groups of
government
officials;
with
the
growth
of
these
groups
and
official
acknowledgement of their leaders, the American party for all intent and purposes was born. Consequently, as parties have become an integral part of political system, the trend to view them as inherently anti-democratic has largely disappeared. Indeed, some American political scholars have argued that modern democracy would be impossible except in terms of parties as postulated by Schatt Schneider organization was necessary to the foundation and maintenance of democracy. The most important question in politics was power and the mark of a democratic regime was its ability to give the masses power. However, in order for the masses to receive power some type of organization was necessary. exercise power in their name.
The organization representing the masses would
Accordingly, he concluded that the best organization
to represent the masses and distribute power was the party.
Importance and Functions of Political Parties
Among other things political parties perform the following functions:
35
•
It provides alternative government
•
It serves as the basis for electoral democracy
•
It stands for the promotion of the national interest.
•
It serves as an institution that distributes power in a state to the people (masses).
•
It serves as an agent of mobilization of the masses
•
It serves as an institution for the recruitment and socialization of leaders
•
It provides a sources of democratic identity
•
It provides political leaders with a channel of control over other leaders
•
Political parties play the role of makers of a democratic government
•
It articulates and formulates the interest of the masses, etc.
Political parties created democracy but modern democracy is unthinkable except in terms of political parties, discuss within the context of political parties.
VOTING BEHAVIOUR
One of the major characteristic of a participatory political culture is the exercise of franchise during election. This manifests as voting power, which the masses/people have and this also expresses the power of the people.
Voting
demonstrates the degree of people’s involvement and participation in politics. In a democratic state particularly where free and fair elections are conducted, the fear of people’s vote is the beginning of wisdom of the political class (elites). Whenever free and fair elections take place, particularly through secret-ballot voting, the direction and genuine individual feeling about a particular candidate or party, manifests in its true form. To be sure, voting has to do with the picking of choice between one or more alternatives. These alternatives could be in form of policies or candidates. Generally, what people actually vote for are not limited to the goods and services promised in the manifesto of the party, but also on who should be given the mandate to provide the services. In fact, through voting, people put their future in the hands of a chosen few. As simple as the idea of voting may appear, it embraces the totality of a people surrendering their rights and power of governing themselves to a body of men (government) purposely to provide for them those things that they cannot individually provide for themselves. It connotes the choice to live a better life or to be doomed.
36
Therefore, the concept of voting is a very serious matter. However, the critical issue is what constitutes voting behaviour, that is to say, why and how do people vote, how can voting behaviour be identified in order to make a generalization, etc.
Factors Affecting Voting Behaviour
Among the factors that affect voting behaviour are” •
Prevailing historical circumstance
•
Religion
•
Ethnicity
•
Gender issue
•
Ideological alignment
•
Personality in politics
•
Policies and programs; and
•
Monetary inducement
POLITICAL CORRUPTION AND POLITICAL VIOLENCE
Political violence is a necessary product of political corruption. Do you agree? Discuss in context of Nigerian politics. In any organization or state, there are usually a set of rules and norms that regulate or guide the operations of the system. These rules performs the functions of controlling the workers in the system or maintaining social order in the state; and a deviation from these rules is likely to lead to corrupt practices.
Accordingly,
corruption is an act which deviates from the formal rules of conduct governing the actions of someone in a position of authority because of private regarding motives such as words, power and status. Essentially, political corruption refers to such acts as misuse of public office of the state for private aggrandizement. This includes fraud, embezzlement, bribery, misappropriation of funds, mismanagement of funds, extortion, misuse of government vehicles for private purposes, etc. These vices have been attributed to insecurity and uncertainty of the social security system. By social security we mean, the act designed to guarantee the possible risk of the old, the disabled, and the unemployed. It is the protection which society provides for its members through series of public measures against economic and social distress that otherwise would be caused by the loss or substantial reduction of
37
earnings resulting from sickness, maternity, employment injury, unemployment, invalidity, old age and death, etc. In fact, the underlined principle is the pulling of risk and finances together and the packaging of benefits to cushion the effect of contingencies. Corruption is essentially a social problem to the extent that it affects many people even if it is committed by one person. Following from the above therefore, political violence is usually a consequence of political corruption. Political violence is any act that is targeted to the political system or the incumbent of political offices in the state. It is any forceful or violent act that is intended to compel or redirect the stable cause of development of the political system. It is usually a consequence of the deprivation of any group within the political system. Political violence may also arise from external sources, when wars and other belligerent activities induce abnormal procedures in the conduct of domestic affairs. Certain extreme measures by international actors including the out-rightly unlawful act of aggression may equally constitute political violence upon the global system.
IDENTITY POLITICS
By identity politics, we mean any political action that is initiated and or executed by members of a political community with the aim of protecting their group interest. Often times, the political action is targeted towards the state or its incumbent by a group supposedly oppressed on the basis of their identity. In Africa, as elsewhere in the globe, groups are usually characterized by multiple identities; it is either southerner or northerner, Arab or Black Africa, Muslim or Christian and other various ethnic cleavages, each of these may have some leaning on the group’s political conduct and socio-economic role in the society. It is the particular identity that has he most significant impact on the political behaviour of the individual group that is the determinant element of the group’s being. More so, identity informs and guides political behaviour as they add dynamism to political conduct in the context of plural society. Deriving from the above, we shall focus on ethnic and religious identity. Ethnicity:
Ethnicity is a social phenomenon that is associated with the identity of members of the larges possible competing communal groups (ethnic groups) seeking to protect and advance their interest in a political system. The relevant communal 38
factors may be culture, race, religion or common history.
It is associated with
interactions among communal groups. Meanwhile, the salience of identity politics defined in the context of ethnicity has continued to intensify its political relevance in the understanding and interpretation of African politics in spite of the pervasiveness of global political culture. Since most societies are heterogeneous, it should not be surprising that ethnicity has remained such a powerful factor in the domestic politics of many nations particularly Nigeria. To be sure, the whole essence of mobilization of people on the basis of ethnicity is to eliminate the tendency of marginalization especially as it concerns the allocation of resources. In fact, the distribution of the benefits of modernization across different ethnic groups is usually inevitably allocated, this is easily identified because ethnicity is one way in which a people can be distinguished from one another especially as criteria for measuring the level of socio-economic and political distribution. Thus, we witness in Nigeria, the marginalization of certain ethnic groups as it concerns certain resource distribution particularly political and economic resources. Among other things, the following constitute the basic attribute of ethnicity: •
Cultural prejudice
•
Socio-economic and political discrimination
•
Ethnocentrism
•
Common consciousness
•
Exclusiveness of members of a group
Cultural Prejudice:
Prejudice and discrimination characterize ethnicity, in-group
sentiment and sense of solidarity, predisposed members of ethnic groups to look more favourably on their own group members than on neighbouring out-group members. This bias often finds expression in interethnic discrimination in jobs, housing, and admission into schools, promotion, business deals and welfare services. Socio-Economic and Political Discrimination:
This characterize ethnicity, it
embodies a tendency to exclude out-group members from socio-economic opportunities and welfare services. Ethnocentrism: This is attitudinal in form and perceptional in content. It represents the subjective dimension of ethnicity. The members of a group (communal, national or international) are ethnocentric when they are proud of it and consequently are
39
inward looking.
Their attachment to and pride in the group reflects their
ethnocentrism Common Consciousness:
Ethnicity is characterized by a common consciousness of
members of the communal groups I relation to other such groups. More than any other factor, this factor defines the boundary of the group that is relevant for understanding ethnicity at any historical point in time.
It is this factor that
distinguishes the Hutu and Tutsi of both Rwanda and Burundi; who share the same culture, language, religion, etc. Exclusiveness of Members of a Group: This nature of exclusiveness is associated with in-group/out-group boundaries which the groups guard jealously. Consequently, acceptance and rejection on communal grounds characterize the social relations among competing groups. As a result, members of a communal group look towards their group for support; the consequent inter-group cohesion act to solidify boundaries of communal groups. It is worthy of note that during the pre-colonial times, there was a great mixing of African peoples especially at the boundaries of their societies. However, because of ethnicity such mixing of peoples is no longer very possible today.
In-group/out-group boundaries have emerged and become frozen cultural
barriers. THE ROLE OF ETHNICITY
Ethnicity does not exist in a pure form it is always closely associated with political, religious and other social views which constitute its important ingredient as well. Ti also alters its form, place and role in the life of society. It is not immutable among other things ethnicity performs the following functions: •
It promotes the appreciation of individual social roots in the community and the creation of a social network which provides material and emotional support for members of society.
•
It fosters in the relevant population a sense of belonging and also mediates between the individual and the larger society.
•
Within the context of the socio-economic and political insecurity generated by state violence and destructive competition in the market commodity, ethnicity holds individuals together, gives them internal cohesion, encourages them to provide mutual security for each other and promote their sense of identity and
40
