the person's will, usually for ransom or in
furtherance of another crime, is becoming
everyone’s nightmare in our dear country. Daily,
we read nightmarish stories of people being
abducted as they go about their daily business. A
criminal act, which first attracted national
attention on 26 February 2006 when Niger Delta
militants kidnapped foreign oil...
workers to press
home their demand, kidnapping has since become
ubiquitous and commercialized.
It has spread from the Niger Delta to virtually all
nooks and crannies of the country, with some
states of course being hotspots. Similarly victims
have changed from being predominantly foreign
oil workers to Nigerians, including parents, grand
parents, and toddlers and about anyone who has a
relative that could be blackmailed into coughing
out a ransom. Those behind the recent wave of the
despicable act have also changed from being
exclusively Niger Delta militants to dodgy
elements from different walks of life - armed
robbers, unemployed, professional 419ers, and at
least one Catholic priest
There is no doubt that Nigeria is today one of the
major kidnapping capitals of the world. This has
obvious implications for investments, the
country’s development trajectory and even the
quality of governance.
The common tendency is to blame the pervasive
wave of kidnapping outside the Niger Delta
exclusively on the unacceptable rate of
unemployment in the country, an inefficient and
corrupt police force that is ill-equipped to fight
crime, and collusion between kidnappers and
politicians. These factors however appear to be
mere symptoms of a larger malaise, namely that
pervasive kidnapping, is one of the major
symptoms of both ‘failed’ and ‘failing’ states. Most
of the countries where kidnapping have been
pervasive have been either failed or failing states
– Baghdad after the 2003 invasion of Iraq,
Columbia from the 1970s until about 2001, and
Mexico between 2003 and 2007.
A ‘failed state’ is often used to designate a state,
which has become incapable of fulfilling the basic
functions of a sovereign government. These
functions include physical control of its territory,
provision of security of life and property for its
citizens, the monopoly of the use of legitimate
physical force and ability to provide reasonable
public services or to interact with other states as a
full member of the international community.
A “failing state” on the other hand denotes a state
in transition to a failed state. Here while the state
remains nominally a sovereign and fulfils a
modicum of the functions of a sovereign
government, the central government has become
so weak and ineffective that it has little practical
control over much of its territory, leading to an
upsurge in pervasive insecurity such as
kidnapping, organised assassinations and
robberies. A failing state is also characterised by a
weakened ability to provide basic public services
and widespread corruption as people think of
themselves first, following the failure of the state
to perform its traditional functions. Most of the
countries in the developing world involved in civil
wars or protracted internal conflicts could qualify
as ‘failing states’.
Following from the above, while Nigeria is not yet
a ‘failed state’, it could arguably qualify as a
‘failing state’. This in essence means that while
addressing the problems of unemployment and
inefficient and corrupt police force could be good
palliative measures in combating kidnapping, any
lasting solution to the menace will inevitably have
to address the key question of the nature of the
Nigerian state, including why it has transited from
a weak state to a ‘failing state’ and rapidly
gravitating towards being a failed state. I would
recommend the following:
One, there is a need to restructure the Nigerian
state to enthrone true federalism, including true
fiscal federalism. Classically, federalism is
regarded as a system of government in which the
centre and the federating units are each, within a
sphere, co-ordinate and equal. A true federalism
cannot work in Nigeria under the present
condition where the federating units are atomised
into 36 unviable states, (with the possible
exception of two or three states), which are
dependent on the centre for their survival.
Instituting true federalism will require merging
the present unwieldy number of states into about
six to make them manageable and cost efficient.
The federating units should be allowed to run their
own police force and to take measures they deem
fit, within the law, to protect the citizens within
their territory. Each federating unit ought to have
a database of people living in its territory,
including what such people do.
Two, the cost and efficiency gains from the
consolidation of the present 39 state-structure
could be channelled towards improved provision
of public services and better quality of
governance. A computerised national identity card
scheme has become an imperative.
Three, states should invest in smart security,
especially preventative security, which could
involve phone tapping, extensive use of moles,
and possible use of private armies and private
military companies in protracted conflict areas. In
this sense, the recent call by Governor Peter Obi of
Anambra state that he would hold traditional
rulers in the state in whose domain kidnapping
takes place culpable, appears misplaced.
Traditional rulers, especially in the Southeastern
states, only have ornamental value and should
therefore not be expected to be the chief security
officers of their kingdoms. They are not paid
security agents of the state, and should therefore
not be expected to play the role of moles, which
was never part of the duties of traditional rulers.
There is however merit in the proposal that
kidnapping should attract capital punishment.
Four, in the social contract theory that created the
notion of sovereign (monarch or constituted
national authority), a key argument is that prior to
the creation of the sovereign, there was what the
English political philosopher, Thomas Hobbes,
called the ‘state of nature’. This ‘state of nature’,
he argued, was characterised by the ‘war of all
against all’. People agreed to the creation of this
sovereign, and willingly gave up their right to self-
help because they were very eager to escape the
conditions in this ‘state of nature’ where life was
‘short, nasty and brutish’.
This is the underlying philosophy of the social
contract between the government and the
governed. It could therefore be argued that
pervasive insecurity is a key manifestation of the
breach of this social contract by the government.
This raises an interesting question of whether
citizens should continue to be bound by this social
contract when one of the parties – the state- is
increasingly failing to keep its own side of the
bargain? A state becomes a failed state when
citizens and groups conclude that they too should
no longer be bound by the terms of the social
contract. In this scenario, the Hobbesian state of
nature reigns.
Is Nigeria moving in this direction?
home their demand, kidnapping has since become
ubiquitous and commercialized.
It has spread from the Niger Delta to virtually all
nooks and crannies of the country, with some
states of course being hotspots. Similarly victims
have changed from being predominantly foreign
oil workers to Nigerians, including parents, grand
parents, and toddlers and about anyone who has a
relative that could be blackmailed into coughing
out a ransom. Those behind the recent wave of the
despicable act have also changed from being
exclusively Niger Delta militants to dodgy
elements from different walks of life - armed
robbers, unemployed, professional 419ers, and at
least one Catholic priest
There is no doubt that Nigeria is today one of the
major kidnapping capitals of the world. This has
obvious implications for investments, the
country’s development trajectory and even the
quality of governance.
The common tendency is to blame the pervasive
wave of kidnapping outside the Niger Delta
exclusively on the unacceptable rate of
unemployment in the country, an inefficient and
corrupt police force that is ill-equipped to fight
crime, and collusion between kidnappers and
politicians. These factors however appear to be
mere symptoms of a larger malaise, namely that
pervasive kidnapping, is one of the major
symptoms of both ‘failed’ and ‘failing’ states. Most
of the countries where kidnapping have been
pervasive have been either failed or failing states
– Baghdad after the 2003 invasion of Iraq,
Columbia from the 1970s until about 2001, and
Mexico between 2003 and 2007.
A ‘failed state’ is often used to designate a state,
which has become incapable of fulfilling the basic
functions of a sovereign government. These
functions include physical control of its territory,
provision of security of life and property for its
citizens, the monopoly of the use of legitimate
physical force and ability to provide reasonable
public services or to interact with other states as a
full member of the international community.
A “failing state” on the other hand denotes a state
in transition to a failed state. Here while the state
remains nominally a sovereign and fulfils a
modicum of the functions of a sovereign
government, the central government has become
so weak and ineffective that it has little practical
control over much of its territory, leading to an
upsurge in pervasive insecurity such as
kidnapping, organised assassinations and
robberies. A failing state is also characterised by a
weakened ability to provide basic public services
and widespread corruption as people think of
themselves first, following the failure of the state
to perform its traditional functions. Most of the
countries in the developing world involved in civil
wars or protracted internal conflicts could qualify
as ‘failing states’.
Following from the above, while Nigeria is not yet
a ‘failed state’, it could arguably qualify as a
‘failing state’. This in essence means that while
addressing the problems of unemployment and
inefficient and corrupt police force could be good
palliative measures in combating kidnapping, any
lasting solution to the menace will inevitably have
to address the key question of the nature of the
Nigerian state, including why it has transited from
a weak state to a ‘failing state’ and rapidly
gravitating towards being a failed state. I would
recommend the following:
One, there is a need to restructure the Nigerian
state to enthrone true federalism, including true
fiscal federalism. Classically, federalism is
regarded as a system of government in which the
centre and the federating units are each, within a
sphere, co-ordinate and equal. A true federalism
cannot work in Nigeria under the present
condition where the federating units are atomised
into 36 unviable states, (with the possible
exception of two or three states), which are
dependent on the centre for their survival.
Instituting true federalism will require merging
the present unwieldy number of states into about
six to make them manageable and cost efficient.
The federating units should be allowed to run their
own police force and to take measures they deem
fit, within the law, to protect the citizens within
their territory. Each federating unit ought to have
a database of people living in its territory,
including what such people do.
Two, the cost and efficiency gains from the
consolidation of the present 39 state-structure
could be channelled towards improved provision
of public services and better quality of
governance. A computerised national identity card
scheme has become an imperative.
Three, states should invest in smart security,
especially preventative security, which could
involve phone tapping, extensive use of moles,
and possible use of private armies and private
military companies in protracted conflict areas. In
this sense, the recent call by Governor Peter Obi of
Anambra state that he would hold traditional
rulers in the state in whose domain kidnapping
takes place culpable, appears misplaced.
Traditional rulers, especially in the Southeastern
states, only have ornamental value and should
therefore not be expected to be the chief security
officers of their kingdoms. They are not paid
security agents of the state, and should therefore
not be expected to play the role of moles, which
was never part of the duties of traditional rulers.
There is however merit in the proposal that
kidnapping should attract capital punishment.
Four, in the social contract theory that created the
notion of sovereign (monarch or constituted
national authority), a key argument is that prior to
the creation of the sovereign, there was what the
English political philosopher, Thomas Hobbes,
called the ‘state of nature’. This ‘state of nature’,
he argued, was characterised by the ‘war of all
against all’. People agreed to the creation of this
sovereign, and willingly gave up their right to self-
help because they were very eager to escape the
conditions in this ‘state of nature’ where life was
‘short, nasty and brutish’.
This is the underlying philosophy of the social
contract between the government and the
governed. It could therefore be argued that
pervasive insecurity is a key manifestation of the
breach of this social contract by the government.
This raises an interesting question of whether
citizens should continue to be bound by this social
contract when one of the parties – the state- is
increasingly failing to keep its own side of the
bargain? A state becomes a failed state when
citizens and groups conclude that they too should
no longer be bound by the terms of the social
contract. In this scenario, the Hobbesian state of
nature reigns.
Is Nigeria moving in this direction?
No comments:
Post a Comment