COMPLETE SCHOOL PROJECT TOPICS & MATERIALS :
CHAPTERS: Chapter 1-5
|
DOC FORMAT: MS WORD/PDF
|
PRICE: ₦5,000
A STUDY CASE OF BUHARI’S ADMINISTRATION
Abstract
This study is an assessment of the Impact of Political leadership on Infrastructural Development in President Buhari’s administration, from 2015 to 2019. This is predicated upon the assumption that political leadership advance or foster infrastructural development and also, based on the belief that Nigeria, having returned to political leadership in 2015, opened a new chapter to write a new history in developmental issues, it becomes empirical to assess the effects of political leadership on infrastructural development using a case study. Invariably, Nigeria has faced developmental challenges for many years after her independence going through series of political instability and change of government over the years and the return to political leadership in 2015 presented an epoch good enough for academic study. Also, the period witnessed an intense political thuggery and thus, it is imperative to examine if infrastructural development could thrive under such heightened political situation. The study used three survey instruments (questionnaires, In-depth and Focus Group Discussion) to collect the primary data and the secondary data using documentary method. The data was quantitatively and qualitatively presented and analyzed through triangulation method. The Modernization Theory was adopted to analyze the phenomena of political leadership, good governance and their effects on infrastructural development. The adoption of this theory is informed by the fact that the wave of democratic transition in Africa and many developing countries anchored the desire for development in line with the actualization of the dividends of political leadership which is dependent on the manner of governance found at all levels in Nigeria. The study found out that, though not commensurate to the desires of the people, President Buhari’s administration has recorded some infrastructural development in areas such as growth in education, employment and social amenities, between 2015 to 2019. The study also found out that living standard of people has improved. Corruption, imposition of leaders, bad, visionless and unresponsive leadership/governance are chief among the challenges identified to be hindering the growth of political leadership in the region. In view of this, the study recommends that leadership and governance be taken as key areas of priority to be tackled for the growth of democracy in order to advance infrastructural development. Corruption, which is at the core of the challenges hindering the growth of democratic governance in fostering infrastructural development must be sincerely and adequately tackled as urgent as possible.
List of Abbreviations/Acronyms
APP – All People‟s Party
CMML – Christian Mission in Many Lands
DTAT – Data Transcription and Analysis Technique
FCT – Federal Capital Territory
FGD – Focus Group Discussion
FRSC – Federal Road Service Commission
ICDA – Igala Cultural and Development Association
ICT – Information Communication Technology
IDI – In-Depth Interview
INEC – Independent National Electoral Commission
LGA – Local Government Area
MDG – Millennium Development Goals
NA – Native Authority
NAPEP – National Poverty Eradication Programme
NBS – National Bureau of Statistics
PDP – People‟s Democratic Party
QDI – Quality of Democracy Index
QIM – Qua-Iboe Mission
SPSS – Statistical Package for Social Sciences
SURE-P – Subsidy Re-Investment Programme
UNCDP – United Nations Committee for Development Policy
UNDP – United Nations Development Programme
UN-ESCAP – United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and Pacific
UN-OHRLS – United Nations Office of the High Representatives of the Least Developed
Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States YAD4KOGI – Youth Advancement and Development for Kogi
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the Study
Political leadership and development are being increasingly used in development literature to mean series of complementary unification of concepts closely tied to good governance. Democracy is one of the universal and indivisible core values and principles which according to the United Nations World Summit Outcome Document (2001) is “based on the freely expressed will of people and closely linked to the rule of law and exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms”. Democracy therefore, backed by good governance, feeds into economic and social policies that are responsive to people‟s needs. Its basic features therefore includes political tolerance, citizens participation, equality, respect for rule of law, social and economic freedom, human rights, multi-party system, culture of accepting election results, among others.
However, the meaning or definition of good governance is relative as what is „good‟ for one person may be bad for the other (Adagba, 2009: 377). However, a more general conceptualization of good governance can be seen through a broader perspective to include the following eight characteristics: participation, consensus orientation, accountability, transparency, responsiveness, efficiency and effectiveness, equality and inclusiveness and, the rule of law (UN ESCAP, 2015).
Development can simply be seen as economic growth, increase in quality of life of a given population and anything that adds value to the improvement in human life and society as a whole. This view gives a general and wider look at the term „development‟ because of its multifaceted outlook.
The three concepts (democracy, good governance and development) have been accorded intellectual attention in development literature at various levels over the years. Whether in practice or on paper, these concepts when respectively used and applied tend to flow into one another as they appear to be the indicators of internationally and locally accepted civilized sources of administrative and governmental apparatuses to bring government closer to the people.
The recent Nigerian history, that is, from 2015 till date sees the popularisation of these concepts as they hinge on the pragmatic identification of politics to cut across the inadequacies of governance and democracy in order to precede infrastructural development. This period has also seen the expression of high hopes by the masses especially with the feeling that the democratic dispensation would address issues of poverty, poor health care, unemployment, inequality, lack of social amenities and improve the general living conditions of the people. Many also believe that the democratic dispensation would meet the yearnings of the people especially as regards fostering of economic freedom, increase in earnings, improved market structure, respect for human rights, respect for rule of law, press freedom and greater economic prospects.
However, despite the abundance of huge human and natural resources, history indicates that Nigeria, irrespective of the many social and economic policies propagated over the years by different successive administrations, have been faced with many social, economic and political development issues, ranging from acute youth unemployment, poor health prospects, insecurity, heightened crime rate, poor infrastructural development, abject poverty among the masses, widespread of malnourishment, to mention but a few (Ogundiya, 2010). Both students of development and government have the responsibility of identifying the causes of these multifarious development challenges in Nigeria. Noteworthy, therefore is the fact that democracy, political leadership and good governance are absolutely imperative for social and economic progress. The question therefore remains whether the yearnings of the people have been met over the years, especially during the period under study.
Over the years, many arguments have been put forward to ascertain the actuality of the effects of political leadership and good governance on infrastructural development. Some scholars (Ake, 2000; 1996; Toyo, 1994; Ogundiya, 2010), have engaged some academic rigour to hold the point that democracy, possibly backed by good governance enhances development and vice versa. Many of these discourses occur probably as a result of the perception and conceptualization of democracy.
Whether the arguments put forward on the right definition of democracy and its possible effect on infrastructural development are genuine, the simple fact remains that, judging from the view of Ake, that is, seeing democracy as popular power, one can dare to state that such popular power should uncharacteristically be anchored by good governance in order to enhance socioeconomic development. This definitely is the case for Nigeria in general and President Buhari’s administration in particular. For instance, there cannot be infrastructural development if democratic governance is mixed with bad leadership which is a prototype of bad governance.
However, it is worthy of note that in any political institution, the system of government and governance are germane to social and human development and, political leadership, backed by good governance has been given much credence towards this extent. It is therefore imperative to critically evaluate the extent to which this practice has been observed in Nigeria. Unlike in advanced societies where these practices, to a large extent are strictly adhered to, the situation with Nigeria appears to be different. This is a problem that has created doubts over the credibility of our democracy and its sustenance in the nearest future.
1.2 Statement of Research Problem
Owing to the assumption that democracy promotes development, it has become imperative to conduct an empirical study to ascertain whether the return to political leadership in Nigeria in 2015 has enhanced infrastructural development in President Buhari’s administration. This study, therefore, sets out to examine the extent to which political leadership has promoted infrastructural development in President Buhari’s administration between 2015 to 2019, especially in the areas of poverty, poor health, unemployment, inequality and general living conditions.
The period under study is important because, just after the return to political leadership in 2015, the state witnessed in 2003, a change of administration from one political party to another (APP to PDP) after four years. The new administration from 2003 witnessed several legal battles regarding the credibility of the election that brought it into power and the subsequent one, a situation that later saw the administration spanning through nine (9) years. Also, the period witnessed an intense era of political thuggery which brought about a heightened political tension in the state. Thus, it is necessary to investigate whether infrastructural development could thrive under such situation.
However, the choice of this topic is predicated on the fact that the researcher hails from this region and his good knowledge of the area makes it worthwhile for an academic investigation. However, with the informal expectations and yearnings from the people of this region on the dividends of democracy, having produced the three Executive Governors that have ruled the state since the return to political leadership in 2015, this research becomes also imperative to assess the complementary role of Political leadership on Infrastructural Development, bearing in mind that, a region does not produce a governor to develop its area only.
1.3 Research Questions
This study attempts to provide answers to the following research questions:
- To what extent has political leadership promoted infrastructural development in Nigeria between 2015 and 2019?
- What are the challenges hindering infrastructural development in Nigeria 2015 to 2019?
- How can such challenges be tackled to foster or promote infrastructural
development President Buhari’s administration?
1.4 Aim and Objectives of the Study
The aim of this study is to assess the exten tto which political leadership has promoted infrastructural development in President Buhari’s administration between 2015 and 2019. However, the specific objectives of this study are:
- To examine the extent to which political leadership has enhanced infrastructural development in President Buhari’s administration between 2015 and 2019.
- To study the challenges hindering infrastructural development in Nigeria since the return to political leadership from 2015 to 2019.
- To identify ways through which political leadership can foster infrastructural development in President Buhari’s administration.
1.6 Significance of the Study
The significance of this study centres very significantly on the fact that existing literature on the complementary effects of democracy on development have all been anchored on the macro level and none has so far, been particularised to the micro level of which this study is set to unravel. Thus, this study is most significant as it basically looks at the effects of political leadership, backed by good governance on infrastructural development at a micro level, with specific regards to President Buhari’s administration. The knowledge gathered therefore would help broaden the understanding of the effects of political leadership at a micro level.
1.7 Scope and Limitations of the Study
The scope of this study is the examination of the Impact of Political leadership on Infrastructural Development in President Buhari’s administration from 2015 to 2019.
The period under study is important because, just after the return to political leadership in 2015, the state witnessed in 2003, a change of administration from one political party to another (APP to PDP) after four years. The new administration from 2003 witnessed several legal battles regarding the credibility of the election that brought it into power and the subsequent one, a situation that later saw the administration spanning through nine (9) years.
1.8 Chapter Organization
This research is made up of five chapters. Chapter one covers the general introduction which culminates the detailed description on how the research was conducted. Chapter two consist of the review of relevant literature related to the subject under study. The bulk of literature was therefore thematically and systematically done and a theoretical framework was adopted to enhance the analysis herein.
Chapter three of this study encompass the research methodology. The methodology gives the details of how the data used in this study were derived and analyzed. However, a historical overview of the infrastructural activities in President Buhari’s administration was given to enhance the understanding from the field result.
The bulk of work in chapter four consists of data analysis which was done with descriptive quantitative and qualitative analysis. Also, chapter four states the summary of findings from the analysis advanced in the study. Chapter five is the final chapter of the study and it consists of summary, conclusion and recommendations from the study. However, the later part of the chapter gives a detailed list of references and list of various appendixes used herein.