'Power and Stability in Nigeria' By Bretton L. Henry

BookTitle; Power and Stability

Author; Bretton L. Henry

Publisher; F. A Praeger, New York, N.Y. 1962

Pagination; 208

Language; English

Review; Iroabuchi Onwuka



Introduction.



The book is about Nigerian political formation and the forces that mitigated the general stability of that independent Nigeria. There was much hope for the new Nigeria Republic in 1960, and the realised call of Nnamdi Azikiwe to self rule took on a new meaning in 1960. The early Nigerian politicians did not know what to do with the country, they were not sure how to begin the new Nigerian Republic, neither could they say whether or not the Nigeria union of states was ever going to make it. Fom the very beginning, the country seem to hold their breath with hope that time will offer new meaning to the country.

The author seem to reflect his experiences in matters concerning the impact of colonialism in a Nigerian fragile union, and how the weight of the British colonialism so to speak, seem to fracture the 'power and stability' of Nigeria. The author Bretton L. Henry spent the first two years of new Nigerian Republic in Nigeria, recording what he considered useful in terms of data collection. In those two years, he served as an eye witness to matters arising from the whole political condition evident in the turbulent years of Nigerian independence and thereafter. He recorded the problem on the new Nigeria with a tendency to Lessellian Theory, where much of his theory concerning the irregularites of a new republic seem to hang.



Body.



The role of leadership qualities in Nigeria at its early stage seem now forgotten, but in this book, the author may have reminded us of the urgency of the problems that faced Africa in 1960's and in Nigeria enough leadership quality was the essential part of the whole problem. The author pointed out that despite the need to emback on the betterness of the Nigerians concerned, there was serious problems of leadership stemming from its member parties and tribes. In essence, Nigeria had much more of the problem of leadership than the movement it represented and the author, L. Henry who was himself an American, was not sure of the very survival of Nigeria since the political power bases and Party systems, were only tribal but regional as well.


He observed that Nigerians were living the illusion that power in the country was ethically 'diffuse' but in reality the whole theme was seriously misleading. Not only were political parties set on the platform of tribe, there were other chieftain elements murking the waters for all Nigerian. In fact, religious rulers in Northern Nigeria infact prodded the said political parties.
In the book we read for instance that "in the North especially, the leaders who control the land, the means of production of wealth, and the channels of distribution are too closely identified with imperial rule to subject themselves and their group successfully to a thorough political metamorphosis." This had been his formal way of arguing on the fact that tribal as well religious heads in Nigeria, especially in the Northern Nigeria, were translating their local rulership into political dictatorship.

In this book, there is much to be learnt Nigeria in its early years, especially the very constitution of the country and deomgraphics. The book provided a first hand account of the condition of life in Nigeria some of which is nolonger true. For instance, the book did show that the Northern Nigeria were made up of mainly Hausa and Fulani, many of them with very illiterate background. The West of Nigeria were made up of people with as much education as schools permitted but the rise of education is the East was a phenomenom. Though overated, seem to have been a shining light for the country and care was to be taken if the political weight of Nigeria does not fall squarely on the South alone, yet greater fear was in the North were oligarchist that spurred the North before the English, had refused to dismantle the institution.

Bretton L. Henry tend to suggest that long after the English left that there was still serious power construction in the hands of the power players and the parties they represent. These parties acting as one complete whole were actually puppets for the very English. Nigerian leaders seem to have inherented much power from their colonials, and the country of 40 million people at the time of the book had much to deal contend with. The first politicians were sure of their own ability, there were not certain what that ability really meant nor the tribe will be asked to abandon their own identity.

L. Henry seem to indicate the evolution of English policies towards independence had so much to do with the cost of maintaining such expensive colonies around the world. In Nigeria, there was a great number of educated people seeking to move into the ranks of politicians and who in times past, had offered their own degree of loyalty to the country. L. Henry suggested that the rush to grant British colonies their independence were not acts of benevolence, rather the practical matter of maintaining an English rule much longer than necessary in provinces which has taken a very human face. The structure for economic business were still very English and visible, they were not dismantled at all, a fact which which the locals were aware of, an incident which may have forced the Nigerian locals to call for a communist experiment.

The drift towards communism didn't last long, and the those who maintained the communist agenda easily became unpopular. In the years leading to independence of Nigeria, the English used favoritism to conduct the appointment of office. Such act could not have been avoided since Nigeria before independence had been very restive and neither the English nor their business men could entertain any form of challenge. In the end, the institutions of money and wealth left over to lobbied friends of colonials led to ranks of corruption which was perpetuated in the Northern Nigeria. In a sense, the colonials normalised the habit of currying favor and according L. Henry it sought became perpetuated.


Commentary/Conclusion

The forementioned episodes were means employed by the author to archieve his view of Lesselian theory which he elaborated by saying that "in the more highly developed free societies substantive changes are brought about by forces operating outside the confines of parliament in open economic competition." 1962 Nigeria was a country that was still surving due to the impact of British society on it and that impact brough several degree of good and corruption. The Nigerians were also aware of the inevitable decay of their economy and country were acting to it. In essence, the foreign influences were necessary but the residual effect of such influences can be counter productive and in country with vast many resources, the level of training on the ground may or may no carry the thick demands of the country.

According to the book, the federal minister of Economics Development Ibid, stated that "expatriate firms and individuals who engage in our country's distributive trade and road transport business are extremely powerful, influential, and virtually control the economy of our country..."

That the Federal ministry of commerce and industry in Nigeria noted, that "the economy of our country, strictly speaking, is not in our hands. Over 70 percent of our overseas trade is controlled by forces over which we have no control"...Ibid, (November 16, 1961). Even as we write, these forces which were briefly checked by the military episode in Nigeria are still very much active and may still retain the business of the trade route since the English left in 1960.

The book also mentioned a very acid comment by one Senator Nwafo Orizu who was the senate president until the military took over, that "the trend is to call every company a Nigerian company. That is, somebody is appointed from outside, a Nigerian, one foolish man, who is usually given a big appointment, and a big salary, so that they can call the company Nigerian. He has nothing to with the company".

Last but not least, Chief Obafemi Awolowo in a speech given in the House of Representatives, November 29. 1961(Col.3527) 1961/2 section, also noted on this foreign manipulation of Nigeria which was over bearing on the country that "because they control the bulk of our financial institutions, they accordingly influence, for good or ill, the availability....of adequate capital and credit and their eventual direction"

All these government officials and their agency including Tafawa Balewa, were all pointing to the problem of Nigeria in 1960 through 62, that the Nigeria was economically still in the hands of Britain. Everything from civil finances and transport services were in their hands. The rate of unemployment in Nigeria and the showing of corruption of a national level, the interception of judicial authority and the repeal of legislated laws by Sarduna of Sokoto may have altogether given wings to Nigerian military coup in 1966 and perhaps the civil war shortly after. In my opinion, the Nigerian civil war may have put an end to the English financial network and control of Nigeria in 1966. From this view of probable losses and need to win something back, Britain couldn't have sided the Biafrans.