Traditional rulers and local government in Nigeria: a pathway to resolving the challenge

Abstract

AbtractThis paper examines the problem of integrating traditional rulers into the contemporary local government system in Nigeria with a view of resolving the problems arising from the tradition/modernity nexus in the present scheme. Two basic questions guided this work. The first relates to the relevance of indigenous traditional institutions to the challenges of contemporary democratic processes. The second relates to whether traditional modes of thought, behaviour and institutions constitute resources or impediments to the projects of modernisation and development. This paper concludes that the goal of modernisation is to generate rapid increase in social wealth and its driving force is economic development; and where traditional institutions are able to contribute positively to this goal, their input should not be jettisoned.

Traditional Rulers, Electoral Process, and Nigeria’s Fourth Republic: Exploring Relevance

“…A "traditional ruler" may be defined as the traditional head of an ethnic group or clan who is the holderof the highest primary executive authority in an indigenous polity, or who has been appointed to such position in accordance with the customs and tradition of the area concerned by instrument or order of the state government, and whose title is recognized as a traditional ruler title holder by the Government of the State (Ola & Tonwe , 2009, p. 174;Tonwe & Osemwota, 2013).…”

“…Therefore, traditional rulership institution becomes crucial element in the functional society; it regulates, normalizes, contributes and partakes in the societal activities, thus seen as viable instrument in Nigerian electoral processes because its roles are immeasurable in the peaceful political conducts in the society. Tonwe and Osemwota (2013) observed that the traditional ruler formed the nucleus of governance. One striking fact is that the geographical spheres of authority of these traditional rulers are essentially localized and no traditional ruler ever had jurisdiction over the entire geographical area of modern Nigeria.…”

Historical origins of persistent inequality in Nigeria

“…Differential British policy between the centralized areas of the Muslim North versus the South of Nigeria led to strengthening of hegemony among centralized ethnic state leaders in the highly Muslim North of the country, a process termed hegemonization here (Berger, 2009;Mustapha, 2006;Tonwe & Osemwota, 2013). An existing sophisticated local tax bureaucracy in the largely Muslim North under the Islamic empire known as the Sokoto Caliphate 34 made it an attractive prospect for the imposition of direct taxation using the existing local elites as Native Authorities under colonial official Sir Frederick Lugard's indirect rule system.…”

“…It relegated them to advisory roles only. It also allowed for an official grant for the new local government leaders as a proportion of mostly oil-fueled federal revenue (Blench, Longtau, Hassan, & Walsh, 2006;Hickey, 1984;Mustapha, 2006;Tonwe & Osemwota, 2013). The 1970s also marked a period of substantial investment in infrastructure, with notable investments in grid expansion and sanitation, like access to flush toilets by the military government (Uduku, 1994).…”

“…Under the legal policy regime, the centralized, hegemonized ethnic state leaders, could choose to 'comply' and step down from their official post without inciting rebellion among their constituents or 'not comply' and refuse to step down, typified by refusal to abstain from local governance politics, withholding tax revenue and, notably from the historiography, inciting rebellion among their constituents. The slew of uprisings afterwards, peaking in the 1980s with the Maitatsine riots, were a prime example of these rebellions stemming from federal-local tensions in many areas, including the present-day states of Kano, Borno and Kaduna 40 (Hickey, 1984;Tonwe & Osemwota, 2013). If the hegemonized ethnic state leaders chose to comply, their expected payoff was the public service provision issued from the military autocrat minus the political autonomy given up, along with the proportion of initial wealth and government revenue given up by the ethnic state leaders with the relinquishing of their positions as official local government representatives.…”