TOPIC: MACHIAVELLISM IS
THE THEORITICAL BASIS FOR WARFARE PARADIGM IN POLITICS. CRITICALLY DISCUSS HIS
NOTION ON POLITICS AND POLITICAL LEADERSHIP VIS-À-VIS THE NIGERIAN EXPERIENCE.
INTRODUCTION:
Few people see their names pass into
language, and very few seek the fate that befell Niccolo Machiavelli. The word
‘Machiavellian’ is used for those who are deceitful, machinating, and cunning.
Machiavelli was closely involved in the politics and conflicts of Italy’s
independent states. His native Florence became a republic, and Machiavelli
served as secretary to its chancery, undertaking diplomatic missions and observing
how effectively various rulers practiced government. His own political career was unsuccessful, in
that the Medici family retook Florence and imprisoned and tortured Machiavelli.
His response was his writing. His ‘discourse on Livy(1531)’ conveyed his own
preference for self-governing states, though it is ‘the prince(1513)’ which
made his name and post humous reputation.
In the form of a letter to Lorenzo de
Medici, this work sets out the maxims by which a prince should seek to rule
successfully. What gives Machiavelli his status as a founder of political
philosophy is that he breaks completely with the earlier tradition of seeking
wise and just governments. Machiavelli is more brutally realistic, to him
governance is about seizing and holding power; and doing whatever it takes to
do so successfully. It is easy he says to hold unto an hereditary state. All
the ruler need do is keep its customs and act prudently. It is harder to seize
power and establish a secure new rule. It helps if you start by murdering the
previous ruling family. The prince sometimes needs to act cruelly in order to
inspire fear, and should be eked out slowly so their good –will lasts longer.
Deception plays a key role because people see only the appearances, and the
vulgar are always taken in by them. Rulers have to be brutal, even evil, he
advices, because force is successful whereas virtue is not, but the ruler
should feign virtue to avoid incurring hatred.
Machiavelli, who himself wrote on ‘the art
of war(1520)’ , says a ruler should have no other study. He should maintain a
strong army and not rely on mercenaries or auxiliaries who can turn against him
later on. Machiavelli illustrates his point with copious examples drawn from
the turbulent politics of his day, but his model was the brutal and amoral
cesare Borgia. This was strong stuff and Machiavelli was not himself restored
to princely favor. His stark insights into power have made his name endure,
however, though as a by word for devious duplicit
Machiavelli’s notion of
politics:
The view that Machiavelli’s political
doctrine was Machiavellian is evident by his famous statement; “The answer
is, of course, that it would be best to be both loved and feared. But
since the two rarely come together, anyone compelled to choose will find
greater security in being feared than in being loved”. Leo Strauss argues
this is because to be loved depends on others (Its out of your hands) but to be
feared depends on you (You control your own fate). This
is mirrored by other opinions he held, such as that expressed in the
Discourses; “I believe it to be a most true thing that it rarely or
never happens that men of little fortune come to high rank without force
and
without fraud, unless that rank to which others have come is not obtained
either by gift or by heredity.” These
ideas of Machiavelli re-assert the notion that political advancement and
ethical behavior are completely different entities. In effect, he
expresses what has always been thought, but never truly verbalized.
It does not take much critical examination
to discover that Machiavelli was a realist. For example, he was concerned with
people who don’t look at men as they are but in their idealized state. In his
view republican reformers like Savonarola or Soderini caused the ruin of
Florence because they replaced what should be for what is. However, the
traditional definition of the term ‘Machiavellian’ claims that any means that
are available are legitimate in order to get ahead in the political pack. There
are so many interpretations and scholarly opinions on the true nature of his
work that it seems improbable that his political doctrine can be unveiled by a
curious student.
What
can be challenged is the notion that the definition of Machiavellian, and the
ideas
Machiavelli espoused are concurrent. In “The Prince” it is fair to
suggest that Machiavelli divorced ethics and politics. He saw what happened to
Savonarola who acted and ruled from a Christian basis. Humility and meekness
and other Christian principles where in Machiavelli’s view a poor guide to
rule. Speaking in “The Discourses”, Machiavelli talks about how working
for the common good creates a better society. Compare with “The contrary
happens when there is a Prince, where much of the time what he does for
himself harms the City, and what is done for the City harms him. So that
soon there arises a Tyranny over a free society, the least evil which
results to that City is for it not to progress further, nor to grow
further in power or wealth, but most of the times it rather happens that
it turns backward”. This is contradicted by the virtues that define rule which are
noted in chapter fifteen of the Prince. Machiavelli takes a stern
view
of this. At the start of the chapter he details a list of good and bad traits
that characterizes rulers; “it will be found that something which looks like
virtue, if followed, would be his ruin; whilst something else, which
looks like vice, yet followed brings him security and prosperity.”Machiavelli
makes the point that if a sound society can be built from conquest and cruelty,
then it must not be evaded. Essentially, when times are good you can afford to
be virtuous, when times are bad cruelty is a political necessity. In a
letter to Francesco Vettori Machiavelli stated that he loved his city more than
his own soul. His fundamental allegiance to Florence perhaps outweighing his
closer felt Republican allegiances. Machiavelli
disliked
rulers
taking moderate positions, as mentioned in “The Discourses”; “But men
take up
certain
middle paths which are most harmful, for they do not know how to be entirely good
or entirely bad” Strong rule in the interests of the state would become a basis
of power for tyrants and dictators such as Benito Mussolini, Franco and Jozef
Stalin in centuries to come.
Influence of niccolo Machiavelli political thought on Nigerian political
elites:
It has been a common view among
political philosophers that there exists a special relationship between moral goodness
and legitimate authority. Many authors (especially those who composed
mirror-of-princes books or royal advice books during the middle age and
renaissance) believed that the use of political power was only rightful if it was
exercised by a ruler whose personal moral character
was strictly
virtuous. Thus, rulers were counseled that if they wanted to succeed, that is,
if they desired a long and peaceful reign and aimed to pass their office down
to their offspring-they
must be sure to
behave in accordance with conventional standards of ethical goodness. In a
sense, it was thought that rulers did well when they did well; they earned the
right to be obeyed and respected inasmuch as they showed themselves to be
virtuous and morally upright. It is precisely this moralistic view of authority
that Machiavelli criticizes at length in his best-known treatise. The Prince: “Machiavelli
contributed to a large number of important discourses in Western
thought-political theory most notably, but also history and historiography,
Italian
literature, the principles of warfare, and diplomacy. For him, there is no
moral basis on
which to judge
the difference between legitimate and illegitimate uses of power. Rather,
authority and power are essentially coequal: whoever has power has the right to
command; but goodness does not ensure power and the good person has no more
authority by virtue of being good”. Thus, in direct opposition to a moralistic
theory of politics, Machiavelli says that the only real concern of the
political ruler is the acquisition and maintenance of power (although he talks
less about power per se than about “maintaining the state”). In this
sense, Machiavelli presents
a trenchant
criticism of the concept of authority by arguing that the notion of legitimate
rights of ruler ship adds nothing to the actual possession of power. The Prince
purports to reflect the self-conscious political realism of an author who is
fully aware on the basis of direct experience
With the
Florentine government, that goodness and right are not sufficient to win and
maintain political office. Machiavelli thus seeks to learn and teach the rules
of political power. For Machiavelli, power characteristically defines political
activity and hence it is necessary for any successful ruler to know how power
is to be used. Only by means of the
proper
application of power, Machiavelli believes, can individuals be brought to obey
and will the ruler be able to maintain the state in safety and security. The
ideas in the Prince were aptly summarized by the Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that:
“Machiavelli, in The Prince, describes the arts by which a Prince can retain
control of his kingdom. He focuses primarily on what he calls the principle
nuovo or "new prince," under the assumption that a hereditary prince
has an easier task since the people are accustomed to him. All a hereditary
prince need do is carefully maintain the institutions that the people are used
to; a new prince has a much more difficult task
since he must
stabilize his newfound power and build a structure that will endure. This task
requires the Prince to be publicly above reproach but privately may require him
to do things that are evil in order to achieve the greater good”. A careless
interpretation of The Prince could easily lead one to believe that its central
argument is "the ends justify the means," that any evil action can be
justified if it is done for a good purpose. This is a limited interpretation. Machiavelli,
however, placed a number of restrictions on evil actions. First, he specified
power for its own sake is not an acceptable end and does not justify evil
actions. Second, Machiavelli does not dispense entirely with morality nor
advocate wholesale selfishness or degeneracy. Instead he clearly lays out his
definition of, for example, the criteria for acceptable cruel actions
(it must be
swift, effective, and short-lived). The term "Machiavellian" was
adopted by some of
Machiavelli's
contemporaries, often used in the introductions of political tracts of the
sixteenth century that offered more 'just' reasons of state, most notably those
of Jean Bodin and Giovanni Botero. However, while reference to Machiavelli is
not bad, we subscribe to the idea and opinion
that the
pejorative term “Machiavellian” as it is used today is a misnomer, as it
describes one who deceives and manipulates others for gain; whether the gain is
personal or not is of no relevance, only that any actions taken are important
insofar as they affect the results. It fails to include some of the more
moderating themes found in Machiavelli's works and the name is now associated
with the extreme viewpoint. Machiavelli’s observation that “one can say this in
general of men:
they are ungrateful, disloyal, insincere and deceitful, timid of danger and
avid of profit…. Love is a bond of obligation which these miserable creatures
break whenever it suits them to do so; but fear holds them fast by a dread of
punishment that never passes” (Machiavelli,
1965) has been
misinterpreted and misunderstood by many including the politicians in Nigeria
in particular. This has been the basis of their immorality and illegal
termination of lives of their supposed opponents.
Implication of Nigerian political elites’ recourse to Machiavelli
political thought on Nigeria’s democracy and democratic consolidation:
Few years before the 21st century, there
was some inexplicable concern of many statesmen and important world bodies for
all nations to adopt democracy as a form of
government.
Although, in most countries inequality is entrenched in the socio-political
system, yet the spokesmen insist that life of men on earth will be greatly
improved
morally,
physically and mentally if all people came to live under democratic government
(Awa, 1997 as cited by Akindele, 2002)
This statement
is incontrovertible because, the issue of good governance which, according to
Akindele (1995), remains historically deep-seated, is explicitly decipherable
from it, as
being anchored on the concept of democracy as does the centrality of the
combination of both (that is, democracy and governance) to the multidimensional
systemic existence of all political animals within the universe. And, from it,
one could infer that the issue can
hardly be taken
for-granted without severe consequences for mankind relative to the “universal
applicability of certain standards, namely legitimate rule, pluralism, rule of
law, accountability and fair representation of societal interest” (Schmitz,
1997 quoted in Akindele, 2002). It is against
this backdrop that Nyerere (1999), posited that "an essential ingredient
of democracy is based on the equality of all the people within a nation's
boundary", most polities particularly the world powers in the western
nations within the global political community have consistently
striven through
democracy or democratic process for the attainment of good governance for
effective citizenship (Akindele, 2002). Such polities have gone through
committed reliance on holistic approach that properly weaves together the
asymmetrical aspirations and goals of the various groups and interests that form
the core of their pluralistic pillars in ways conducive to positive nation
building (Akindele, 2002). All these among others have made democracy
attractive and desirable as a form of government that need to be consolidated.
Democratic
consolidation assumes two things. The first being that there is already in
existence a state of democracy characterized by all democratic features via
periodic election, security of life and property, fundamental human rights and
freedom, constitutional stability as a fulcrum of
society and
governmental stability and also opportunities for equality, justice and fair
play (Kolawole, 2005). On the other hand, it assumes that there is a need to
consolidate the base of the existing democracy (Kolawole, 2005). This implies
making firmer, more solid and more resilient the base of the existing democracy
(Kolawole, 2005). From this, it could be inferred that given the current
situation, Nigeria can be said to have instituted and institutionalized
democracy and
democratic rule. Following from here is that one thing is to be able to democratize
another thing is to be able to consolidate it. The sustenance of democracy
requires the existence of certain conditions, which may be social, economic or
political in nature. Of these, the focus of this present paper is on those
political factors in terms of the political activities and behavior of the
political elites or class as essential for the continuance of democracy. In the
case of developed countries though the economic and social conditions helped in
the consolidation of democracy, these factors are not free from criticisms
(Kaur, 2002), it was primarily the political institutions, which had evolved
over a period of time that democracy was a success. It was as a result of this success
in the West that a number of developing countries that attained liberation in
the mid 20th century opted for it.
The primary
reason for imitating this model of government was:
i.) That it was
linked to development.
ii.) It was
regarded as a form where values like freedom;
liberty and
equality could be realized (Kaur, 2002).
The model was
therefore adopted without taking into consideration the contextual differences
in terms of political maturity. The result was that in the case of some, where
favorable social, economic or political conditions existed that the experiment
was a success while in the case of others it collapsed (Kaur, 2002). This paper
while recognizing the impact of social and economic conditions on democracy and
democratic consolidation focuses on the issue of political assassinations as
aftermath of political parties’ activities that weaken the political
institutions in Nigeria. This has a high propensity to impede the consolidation
of democracy in the country. The reason for this is that, the political
institutions prevailing in the society provide viable
channels through
which people can express their dissatisfaction mainly through resorting to
non-violent means. The political system is protected from any direct attack by the
political institutions. These institutions therefore serve as shock absorbers
and hence protect the system from crumbling down (Kaur, 2002). However, in
Nigeria, the conceptualization of democracy
and democratic
government seem to coincide with the view of Laski (1980) that “Democratic
government is doubtless a final form of political organization in the sense
that men who have once tasted power will not, without conflict, surrender it”.
Thus, while there have been several attempts at consolidating democracy in
Nigeria (1960 - 66; 1979 - 83; 1999 till date), some indicators have shown that
the task is faced with a lot of difficulties. Fifteen of these are
identified by
Kolawole (2005) as historical limitation, military intervention in politics,
leadership problem, apathy on the part of the citizens, poverty, gender
inequality, politics of godfatherism, ineffective civil society, weakened
legislature, state of the economy, unemployment, corruption, incessant
executive-legislative conflicts, tendency towards democratic despotism and
failure to accept electoral defeat. In addition to all the aforementioned is
the question of the place of our traditional rulers in Nigeria government and administration
which has become a very serious recurrent national issue. Some have argued that
the institution had outlived its usefulness and should be abolished. The
reasons they adduced were that the assumption of the position is undemocratic
and as a result and in some cases allow incompetent persons to be appointed.
Most importantly are the occupants of these positions unethical involvement in partisan
politics which has resulted in their being corrupt and disrespected by their
subjects. This notwithstanding, it
has equally been
argued that the institution is still relevant in today’s governance particularly
in their role as a unifying force in many societies in Nigeria and Africa in
general. Consequent on this therefore, in order to accommodate them in
governance, the 1979, 1989 Constitutions and the Draft constitution of 1995
carved constitutional role for this institution while creating local, state and
national institutions for them. In fact, just as we have 774 local governments,
so do we have 774 traditional councils. At the state level, as we have 36 state
governments so do we have 36 states Council of Chiefs. At the National level,
with the existence of one federal government is the existence of one National Traditional
Rulers Forum. Surprisingly, the 1999 constitution expunged all these from its
contents. In fact, it refused to recognize them at all causing another round of
debate over their relevance in modern governance. An attempt at bringing them
to the
limelight again
by current governments is found in most state governors’ extravagant spending
and lavishing of state resources on the institution. This in itself has caused
a
lot of problem
in many states of the federation. While one cannot ignore any of the factors
above, worse still is the attitude of our political elites not to easily accept
the verdict of election when they are not favoured. This culminated into
resorting to the use of all means to achieve this interest particularly by
assassinating their political opponents. The reason for this behaviour can be
found in the historical analysis of the nature of the Nigerian state which has
made the professional, economic and political elites to seek political power as
a condition to fulfilling and furthering their economic and political interests
as earlier explained in this paper. This emerging scenario of political assassinations
is very dangerous and destructive for our democracy. Many patriotic political
elites have worked relentlessly to achieve independence on behalf of all
Nigerians. For whatever their individual intensions, these patriots were bent
on making Nigeria truly independent and not a human abattoir. It is now the
year 2006, our politics is still immature and our politicians are still selfish
contrary to the principles and philosophies of those that wrestle the country
away from the British. Instead of maintaining the infrastructures we
inherited from
the British, all are left decimated. The railway system has reached the
crescendo of dilapidation, the inherited educational system are empty shell of
their formal self.
Nigerian liberal
democracy presents the leaders as lords and masters, and not servants
accountable to the electorates. Our democracy is not deeply-rooted in rural
area, where those local communities that nurtured, observed and familiar with
the characters of those running for office can attest to the characters of
their prospective leaders and politicians. Leaders are being forced on the
masses and even on members of political parties by political godfathers that
have taken over the party machineries and the electorates. This is why the
country has not been free from various political crises, among those arising
from the
installation of
political actors as puppets of their various godfathers. This manifested in the
case of the likes of Chris Uba (godfather)/Ngige (godson) in Anambra and
Adedibu
(godfather)/Ladoja
(godson) in Oyo states respectively. Thus, any conflict between the political
actor (the godfathers and the godson, contestants and so on) results into violent
confrontation between the two and their apologists. Nigerian politicians have not
imbibed the African culture of benevolence and kindness into our body politics.
Politics should be a mere competition for those who can serve the nation best
and not those who are better killers among us. In true politics, a leader
should be able to see the plight of the governed and take steps to relieve the
suffering of the masses, but not in Nigeria. Our leaders live in opulence,
spend lavishly while failing to neither help the poor move up the economic ladder
nor do our leaders see the suffering masses and show concerns. In Peru, for
example, President Alan Garcia cut government salaries, including his own,
three days after announcing a long list of austerity measures in his inaugural
address. In Venezuela, President Chavez, like him or not, is challenging the
great America and fighting for his people, building infrastructures, creating
jobs, and align with other countries that can help him achieve his goals and
objectives, even in the face of many assassination
attempts. Our
leaders in Nigeria instead of doing this are more preoccupied with the ways in
which life can be taken out of their political opponents. Politics is a
vocation in which participants are required to volunteer all their energies for
service to their fatherland
(Nigeria
Tribune, 2006). This could be said to be the ideal. But it is an ideal that
represents the irreducible minimum. Any departure from this ideal, that is, the
principle of service, compromised the essence of politics. However in Nigeria,
the ideal of service does not drive political participation by all political
actors. This is attested to by the failure of different systems of government
(such as the Britain-inherited first republic parliamentary system and the
second republic
up till date’s American-style presidential democracy) that have been experimented
in the country since independence up to date. This obviously shows that the
fault is not with the systems but with the people operating them. Thus, the net
effect and tragic irony, according to the Nigeria Tribune (2006), is that every
successive government has left the scene worse than it met it. Hence, for
Nigerian politicians, it has been service to selves rather than to the people
(Nigeria Tribune, 2006). This is contrary to the view of Machiavelli, that
behaviors and action must be directed at satisfying the interests of the state.
Politics is the
most lucrative endeavour in Nigeria to the extent that the contest for political
office is fierce and the method is brutal. Political post is seen as a job to
our political leaders rather than a service to humanity and their fatherland.
Leadership is about creating and establishing enabling and enduring
socio-political and economic political environment conducive for development
and not about killing to stay in power. It is an incontrovertible fact that
this attitudinal behavior of our politicians and political class portend danger
for the survival of democracy in the country particularly as the frequency
increases with the approach of 2007 general elections. This trend in the
current political terrain illustrates the extent of desperation that
characterizes political contest and activities in Nigeria. This will result in
what Akindele
(2002) described
as bad governance characterized by the followings:
(i) Failure to
make a clear separation between what is public and what is private, hence a
tendency to divert public resources for private gain.
(ii) Failure to
establish a predictable framework for law and government behaviour in a manner
that is conducive to development, or arbitrariness in the application of rules
and laws.
(iii) Excessive
rules, regulations, licensing requirements etc which impede the functioning of
markets and encourage rent-seeking.
(iv) Priorities
that is inconsistent with development, thus, resulting in a misallocation of resources.
(v) Excessively
narrow base for, or non-transparence, decision-making (World Bank, 1992 as
cited in Akindele, 2002).
In addition, the
situation may also scare credible and interested candidates away from partisan
politics; it equally portrays and affirms the misconception of politics as a
dirty game characterized by mutual distrust, suspicion and deceit. In this
circumstance, no credible candidate will be willing to contest any election for
fear of being assassinated. When this happens, the political activities will be
left opened for low esteem recalcitrant politicians who use the country as
experimental lab for their ill-conceived manifestos and for building their
battered self-esteem through force, maiming and killing of political opponents.
The tendency
is for the
situation to get out of hand to such an extent to turn the whole country to
Hobbesian state of affairs where each party was in war with the other party and
was ready to employ any means to achieve political power. Such a state of affairs
therefore created obstacles in the
smooth
functioning of the democratic process. This is particularly so in that, those
people involved are the hoodlums who dropped out of primary and secondary schools.
They are our frustrated jobless secondary school graduates, who are garage
touts. They are the university
graduates that
are not employed even after four years of hard labor. They are those that have
natural propensity for mischief, and they are the sycophants of all shapes and sizes.
These people plodded along the periphery of power because they see themselves
as people that have been
sentenced to the
eternity of poverty and deprivation. They think the only way to circumvent
poverty is to wield influence and political power by all means in order to use the
state as a means of enriching themselves.
Conclusion and Recommendations:
Since the activities and behaviour of our
political elites and actors is seen to be capable of thwarting democracy and
efforts at consolidating it, serious steps should be taken to stop the trend
that has already dressed Nigeria’s political climate in flowing murderous robe.
The first step should be for Nigerians to learn from the mistake of the past
and experience. History has it that the nature of the state inherited by the
political elites is responsible for their crude and cruel political behaviour.
In this respect, it is important for our political actors to change their
orientation from seeing the state as an instrument through which they can accumulate
wealth and exploit others. Thus, any individual or group of individuals who is found
or is in the habit of hanging unto power for this purpose should be prosecuted.
There is also the need to unmask and bring to book those behind all the
killings since 2001. It is our conviction that the failure to apprehend those
behind successive past assassinations has been the force propelling the
perpetrators to continue the devilish acts. We also suggest that all agencies
of government saddled with the responsibility of maintaining internal security
in the country should be better
equipped and
re-oriented to confront the fast growing crime as a way of rekindling the hope
and confidence of Nigerians not just in the political process but also in the
ability of the government to protect their lives. The political class must do
internal critical re-appraisal. Political aspirants must be given code of
conduct to guide their campaign and mobilization strategies. Desperate
individuals with do or die political aspirations should be exposed before
perpetrating murderous acts while aspirants or candidates should be held
responsible for violence and other criminal activities orchestrated by their
supporters and sympathizers. The argument, according to the Nigerian Tribune
(2006) that a fat pay packet will banish the thought of stealing from the mind of
political office holders has failed to hold water. Political position should be
made less attractive. This will reduce the stakes and check the influx of
desperate power seekers with murderous instincts into the political arena
(Nigerian Tribune 2006). It is after the system must have been thoroughly
sanitized that the current state
of terror would be checked for Nigeria’s democracy to be steered away from the
bestial struggles of the jungles to ensure its survival and sustenance.
REFERENCES:
African Leadership Forum (1990). Farm House
Development on Technology and Development. Dialogue, 31st Aug -2nd Sept. p. 5.
Agagu AA (2005). The Nigerian State and
Development: A Theoretical and Empirical Exploration In Agagu AA, Ola RF (eds)
Development Agenda of the Nigerian State. Ibadan. FIAG (Nigeria) Publishers.
Ajetumobi S (1991). Political Leadership and
Political Decay- A Synopsis of Post-Independent Nigeria In Tyoden SG (ed)
Leadership, Democracy and the Poor. Proceeding of the Annual Conference of the
Nigerian Political Science Association, Held at Bwari, Abuja FCT. Aug, 1991,
pp. 26-29
Ake C (2001). as cited in Agagu AA (2005) The
Nigerian State and Development: A Theoretical and Empirical Exploration In
Agagu AA. Ola, RF (eds) Development Agenda of the Nigerian State. Ibadan. FIAG (Nig)
Publishers.
Akindele ST (1995). Intergovernmental
Relations in Nigeria: A Theoretical Appraisal of the Involvement of Local
Governments" in Awotokun AM (Ed) 1995) New Trends in Nigerian Local
Government. Ife: OAU Press and Dept of Local Government Studies, O.A.U. pp.
137-145.
Akindele ST (2002).The Concepts Of Democracy
And Governance: A Theoretical And Empirical X-Ray Of Their Linkage And
Practical Application Within The Nigerian Political Landscape, J. Of Soci. Sci:
Interdisciplinary Reflection Of Contemporary Society, Sambalpur, India, 30(6):
173-188.
Anam-Ndu EA (1979). The Leadership Question in
Nigeria: A perspective Exploration, Lagos: Geo-Ken Associates Limited.
Awa E (1997). Political Leadership and
Secession in democracy in Vanguard
Babarinsa Dare(1999). House of War, Lagos:
Tell Communications Limited
