The Impact of Neocolonialism on the Social, Economic and Political Life of Nigeria - Essay Example

? HISTORY AND POLITICAL SCIENCE    The Difference Between Colonialism And Neocolonialism, and Assessment of the Impact of Neocolonialism on the Social, Economic and Political Life of Nigeria Student’s Name Name of University/ Institution Class: Professor: Submission Date: THE IMPACT OF NEOCOLONIALISM ON THE SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL LIFE OF NIGERIA Introduction British colonial rule in Nigeria from the second half of the nineteenth century to the early 1950s is associated with intense violence by the colonisers, with “the use of force to damage people and objects; the use of force to maintain control; and the use of humiliating words to generate violence reactions” (Falola 2009, p.ix). “Nigeria was a creation of British colonialism” states Wright (1998, p.9), to fulfill British self-interest and political calculations. The country came into being only at the end of the nineteenth century, with British imperial policy drawing together different groups of people and ecological zones over the duration of several decades to form the country. In the first half of the twentieth century, imperial arrogance formulated and implemented policies promoting British rather than African advantage. These policies developed the social and political identities of the colony, and produced long-term problems which Nigeria struggled with after 1960 when the country gained independence from colonialism. Neocolonialism, the last stage of imperialism is defined as “control of the economic and development destiny by a former colonial area such as Africa by outside powers after independence” (Falola 2009, p.57). Neocolonialism is illustrated by the British giving independence to Nigeria with one hand, while taking it away with the other. Thesis Statement: The purpose of this paper is to distinguish between Colonialism and Neocolonialism in Nigeria, and to assess the impact of neocolonialism on the social, economic and political life of the country. The Difference Between Colonialism and Neocolonialism in Nigeria Colonialism formed the root cause for political crisis by replacing pre-colonial political systems that worked for Africans with alien models. Ethnic conflicts that now destablise the continent were created by changing the geographical outlines in the map of Africa, bringing diverse people together without taking into consideration established borders. “The new nation states were artificial and many were too small to be viable” (Obadina 2000, p.1). Not even one-thirds of the countries in Africa have populations larger than 10 million, with Nigeria being a significant exception. African societies were divided into separate groups on the basis of western multi-party democracy imposed by colonial powers. The introduction of party politics by colonial administration fuelled the blaze of ethnic conflicts in Nigeria. The imposition of alien rule makes colonialism a dictatorial regime that did not allow people their right of self determination. Colonialism “brought death, pain and humiliation to millions of its victims” (Obadina 2000, p.2). Colonialism as a civilizing mission is only a myth, because Europe’s economic and political selfinterest drove the system. However, some useful acts carried out by colonial powers for fulfilling their economic and administrative needs were the buidling of infrastructure such as railway for carrying export commodities, and undertaking the education of a few Africans to assist them in running the colonies. At the same time, beneficial contributions were not made by colonialism to any part of Africa. Significantly, economically stronger countries like Nigeria and Ghana were depleted of their infrastructure, leaving only a few railway lines, rudimentary communication and commuting systems and limited numbers of graduates. Although colonialism did not help Africa’s poor, the elites flourished as a result of the creation of opportunities by the linking of the continent to the western world. The emergence of neocolonialism with the end of British colonialism initially brought several changes. After achieving independence from British colonial rule on 1st October, 1960, Nigerians developed a sense of national consciousness, unity and a strong bond of common identity. This was an important trend also caused by post-World War II nationalist movements, pro-Nigerian sentiments and anti-colonial approaches caused by the struggle towards nation building and the development of foreign policy. Contrastingly, the indirect rule of Nigeria by the British, and the division into distinct regional governments and economies “fragmented the embryonic Nigerial unity and established rivalries between ethnic and religious groups that undermined the fragile consensus” (Wright 1998, p.2). These built-in tensions present from the pre-independence era increased in a radical manner, playing a significant part in the collapse of the First Republic in 1966 and to the bloody civil war over Biafran secession. Thus, it is evident that as a result of indirect rule by the British on Nigeria even after it had given the country independence, there was very little difference between the colonial era and the ongoing neocolonial period, with respect to inter-group tensions leading to conflicts between ethnic and religious groups. Hence, the process of nation building and the development of strong bonds of national unity are destroyed. Neocolonialism’s Impact on Nigeria’s Economy, Society and Politics Nigeria is Africa’s largest country, economically one of the strongest, and with almost half of West Africa’s total population. Successive neocolonial Nigerian governments have attempted to depict it as the leader among African countries, implementing high-profile foreign policies both nationally and internationally (Wright 1998). However, Salami (2009) observes that the end of coloniasm in Nigeria as in most other African countries, has resulted in mere ‘flag independence’, and had not automatically led to its government’s complete control over Nigerian economic or political affairs. The reason for Nigeria’s dependence on its former colonial powers is explained by Boateng (1978, p.77) that the developed nations with their “greatly superior economic and technological advantages” continue to dictate the economic conditions of the developing nations which depend on them for Capital goods, technical know-how and entrepreneurial skills required for modernization and upgradation of their fragile economies. Neocolonialism has a strangle-hold on Nigeria’s economic and social conditions. This is because “the bourgeoisie in the Nigerian neocolonial politico-economic structure” (Salami 2009, p.135) with low creativity and intellectual productivity are unable to catalyse progress in the country’s economy, to achieve social and material development of the nation. Therefore, they undertake fractionalisation and ethnicisation of the Nigerian state. Their dependent quality limits them to competing among themselves for the limited resources available with the neocolonial political economy. The Nigerian bourgeoisie resort to a zero-sum game lacking cooperation among themselves, through cartel-type arrangements seeking to protect their own areas of activity, exploiting the different regional and ethnic groups in Nigeria to their own advantage. This results in ethnicism as a serious social and political problem. The lack of unity resulting from Nigerians perceiving each other only as members of different ethnic nationalities and not as fellow countrymen laid the neocolonial country of Nigeria open to “exploitation from outside through the connivance of opportunistic members of the national bourgeoisie” (Salami 2009, p.135). The outcome is a regression to old tribal attitudes requiring the distribution of resources on ethnic bases. Emerging from this economic unproductivity and unnecessary focus on ethnicity, the Nigerian people are compelled to live in squalor and abject poverty, despite its assumed high ranking in the economy levels of African countries. The incompetent national bourgeoisie, who cannot harness the resources of the neoconial state resort to seeking Aids and Assistance from foreign imperialists and institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and others who impose certain conditions. This leads to further weakening of the indebted neocolonial countries such as Nigeria. However, this leads to the Nigerian national bourgeoisie becoming wealthier due to misappropriation of funds meant for national progress. Another serious characteristic distinctive of Nigerian rulers is the creating of a sense of insecurity among the impoverished people, “by fanning the embers of differences in regions or ethnic nationalities” (Salami 2009, p.136). The emphasis on differences by Nigerian rulers is also found in the domains of religion and party affiliations, thus using the masses as cannon fodder, towards the rulers’ personal accumulation of wealth. The Marxist approach of economic power leading to political power, is also true for knowledge production. This is reiterated by Foucault that truth, knowledge and power are highly interconnected. Hence, Nigeria’s neocolonial politico-economic structure is dependent on the knowledge production of the western and other foreign nations (Salami 2009). The political progress of Nigeria has also been adversely impacted similar to its economic and social conditions. Neocolonialism with continued British influence over national issues such as military operations of the Nigerian army, and the fluctuating rise and fall of political and economic forces in the country have been detrimental to Nigeria’s political progress. Except for the four years of the Second Republic between 1979 and 1983, the military has controlled the Nigerian government. Although military governments have not impacted the formulation or prioritization of Nigerian foreign policy, they have had a definite influence on domestic political stability, democracy and accountability. This was particularly true during the 1990s when the country’s military governments under two different Generals “thwarted the transition to civilian rule and governed society in an increasingly repressive manner” (Wright 1998, p.1). Additionally, political frustrations intensified by worsening economic conditions have fuelled ethnic and religious tensions. Similarly, several of the social problems affecting Nigeria can be traced back to its colonial past under British rule. The political impacts of neocolonialism are far-reaching. On the one hand, in the post-Independence era of nation building and foreign policy construction, Nigerians developed a national identity, cohesive unity and national consciousness. On the other hand, the fragile consensus between ethnic and religious groups declined because of fragmentation of the new Nigerian unity as a result of indirect rule by the British creating different regional governments and economies. According to Wright (1998), the policy of ‘indirect rule’ offered a limited form of autonomy for each region specifically in the north; however, it was within the overriding limitations imposed by colonial rule. By the end of the twentieth century, with memory growing fainter about the harsh lessons of the civil war, there is an increasing demand for an alternative political structure. However, the continued tight control exerted by the military has curtailed such possibilities. At the same time, some scholars believe that it is not the failure of institutions or structures that is responsible for Nigeria’ woeful performance, but instead the country’s “individual political and military leaders who have successively and successfully undermined the confidence and character of the nation” (Wright 1998, p.2). Nigerians often condemn the legacies of colonialism and the ongoing neocolonialism. However, from a critical perspective it is important to examine the extent to which Nigerian authorities have themselves been promoting earlier colonial policies and approaches in significant spheres such as education, language, chieftancy and religion. Miles (1994) suggests that stakeholders find it more convenient to place responsibility on external economic relations for neocolonialism’s inter-group disputes and conflicts for the breakdown of Nigeria’s institutions, and for the country’s poor functioning. However, “internal tendencies that prolong colonial patterns are arguably more prevalent than external economic relations that do the same” (Miles 1994, p.311). True decolonization can take place only through awareness as a prerequisite to action, along with a candid identification of the colonial mentalities that continue to prevail. Conclusion This paper has compared Colonialism and Neocolonialism in Nigeria, and analysed the impact of neocolonialism on the social, economic and political conditions of the country. It was found that neocolonialism is similar to the earlier British colonial era in Nigeria, with a continued, indirect control by the colonial power in all the areas of governance, institutional functioning, and knowledge development. The present imperialist and dominating neocolonial structure and practice in Nigeria can be attributed to the country’s history of colonialism and its continued dependence on assistance from foreign Aid and Assistance. Further, it is evident that corruption and lack of competence among the Nigerian bourgeoisie responsible for governing the country, and their divisive strategies of maintaining ethnically different and competing groups are also detrimental to the country’s social unity and economic progress. From Nigeria’s economic dependence has emerged its political dependence; and both together have resulted also in knowledge dependence on more advanced countries. The Nigerian rulers who have taken upon themselves the responsibility of governing the country depend on foreign nations and organisations for providing recognition and recommendation to Nigerian academic fields such as science and culture. Hence, knowledge development in the country which is not supported by foreign authorities is considered invalid. This is supported by Salami (2009) who adds that from knowledge development arises economic empowerment, and consequent political and social progress. Therefore, Nigeria should focus intensively on knowledge production, to help free its present economic-socio-political condition from neocolonial dependence. Bibliography Boateng, EA, 1978, A political geography of Africa, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Falola, T 2009, Colonialism and violence in Nigeria, Indiana University Press, The United States of America. Miles, WF 1994, Hausaland divided: Colonialism and independence in Nigeria and Niger, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York. Obadina, T 2000, The myth of Neo-colonialism, Africa Economic Analysis, Africa Business Information Services, viewed 6 April 2012, http://www.discharges.org/s/The%20myth%20of%20neo-colonialism.pdf Salami, YK, 2009, ‘The political economy of Nigeria and the continuing agenda of recolonization: A challenge for critical knowledge production’, The Journal of Pan African Studies, vol.3, no.3, pp.131-141. Wright, S 1998, Nigeria: Struggle for stability and status, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. Read More