Idoko Alison
Department of History and International Studies
Federal University Lokoja
&
Gerald Ezirim (PhD)
Department of Political Science
University of Nigeria, Nsukka
Abstract
It is the primary responsibility of a state to provide security to life and property within a sovereign domain. However in Nigeria, this mandate seems to be inefficiently and inadequately provided thereby creating an experience of a weakening of the exclusive right over the use of force; this inadequacy in the provision of the state mandate under the constitution created a new phenomenon – ‘ungoverned spaces and non-state actors’. This circumstance has aggravated and degenerated to national security threat. This paper interrogates the question as to the nexus between the ungoverned spaces, non- state actors and national security in Nigeria and to further ascertain the extent to which the ungoverned space and non-state actors pose threat to the state: Using the social contract theory therefore the author tries to analyze data collected through secondary sources to arrive at findings and the basis for recommendation. Findings did show that there exists a zone (ungoverned spaces) beyond the reach of government which has become breeding ground for non-state actors to strive with the consequential threat to peace and national security.
Keywords: Ungoverned Spaces, National Security, Insecurity, Conflicts, Non-State Actors
Introduction
Non-state actors have over the years exerted an increased influence on the management and decision making policy frame work in political sphere of states in the international system. It is important to note that for the purpose of this paper the scope and meaning of non state actors is limited to the militant, violent political or criminal categories as the Boko Haram, Indigenous People of Biafra, Niger Delta militants, cattle rustlers, kidnappers and so on. Studies have shown that colossal sum of money has been appropriated, in pursuance to the mandate contained in the fundamental objectives and directive principles of state policy, in its Chapter II, Sections 13-14 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended) (Akande, 2010). About 241 billion Naira has been alleged to have been spent on security votes (Waliyullah, 2022)with 4.68 trillion allocated to education sector in the six years administration of President MuhammaduBuhari. According to Olufemi (2020) his administration’s 2021 budget share for education is Nigeria’s lowest in ten years. According to the report, education received 5.6 percent of the total budget, much below the recommended benchmark.In the same vein, the sum of about 724 billion was appropriated for the health care for 2022 (Olufemi, 2022). In spite of this, there seems to have been proliferation of ungoverned spaces and non-state actors across Nigeria territories. This paper therefore, investigates why there exists this situation in the face of these efforts by the government to meet its constitutional mandate. The questions we may put across for examination are: Are the proliferation of ungoverned spaces and non-state actors in Nigeria a result of lack of the capacity of the state or lack of its political will to adequately administer its territories? Are the national security questions directly linked to ungoverned spaces and non-state actors?
There exists a symbiotic relationship between a citizen and the state in a framework of nationhood, with the citizens having certain rights and corresponding obligation towards the state. The state too has its obligations of providing security to lives and property to its citizens. In Nigeria for instance, these rights and obligations are contained variously in Chapters IV, Sections 33-45 and Chapters II, Sections 13-23 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) which spell out the fundamental objectives and directive principles of state policy.
The question we may ask is what seem to be the challenge to the realization of these objectives by the citizen and the state to warrant the proliferation of ungoverned spaces and non-state actors. Investigation into the proliferation of ungoverned spaces and non-state actors would not be thorough or complete without inquiry into the impact of corruption, lack of political will and the failure of the state to its obligation in the constitution. At independence, Nigeria was looked upon as the giant of Africa in global affairs. Several years on, the country remains a sitting giant. Corruption has turned, one of its strongest assets, which has turned its vast oil wealth into a curse. Rather than improvement in lives of the citizen oil revenue have fueled political violence, fraudulent election, police brutality and abuse, and other forms of human rights violations; with living standards going down and the public institutions collapse. It is further argued that corruption is so pervasive in Nigeria that it has turned public service for many into a kind of criminal enterprise. Graft has fueled political violence, denied millions of Nigerians access to even the most basic health and education services and other wide spread pattern of human rights violation (Biodun, 2021).
Studies have shown that about 40% of Nigerian population lives below poverty level (Otaru, 2022). This situation has limited the government authority over certain spaces known as Ungoverned Spaces. Nigeria unfortunately has several ungoverned spaces across its territories, the likes of the dreaded Sambisa forest in Borno fringes, inhabited by the Boko Haram sect or groups, bandits hideout in Kwiambana and Aijah forests in Zamfara, herdsmen camps in BirninKazo forest in Katsina, Gama forest between Benue and Nasarawa states, militants camps in the Niger Delta regions (Igwe 2021).
The bulk of the territories of the Nigeria state is gradually acquiring the status of ungoverned spaces, since it has found expression and meaning within the lexicon of the phenomenon of categorization of failed, fragile contested or crisis state, which thus gives leverage and opportunity where non state actors hold sway. Due to the subjective nature of the adjective as above in relation to the state, it is difficult to ascribe a definition to the terms. However, a state is considered failed where it is no longer able to consistently and legitimately enforce its laws or provide its citizens with basic goods and services. Indices of a failed state includes: insurgency, high crime rate, ineffective and impenetrable bureaucracy, corruption, judicial incompetence and military interference in politics (Langley, 2021).
It is pertinent to note that a distinction exist between the categorization of failure, viz: fragile, crisis and failed states. According to the World Bank, fragile states are characterized by weak policies and institutions making them vulnerable in their capacity to control corruption, or to provide sufficiently and accountability. They face the risk of conflict and political instability (Mailafia, 2021). On the other hand, a failed state is typically unable to perform the essential functions of a state as internationally understood. That is, unable to ensure good governance, control borders and performs basic social and economic development functions, unable to safeguard the lives and properties of its citizens. From the foregoing, this paper dares to say that Nigeria has fallen into the categorization of a ‘fragile state’. According to the 2021 Global Peace Index, Nigeria ranked 146th least peaceful countries in the world. Statistics published that Nigeria is amongst countries of the world with the largest number of terror related deaths (Ajumoke, 2021).Records have shown that Nigeria’s share of defense budget in relation to GDP was the highest in 2020 because the rate of civilian killing by Boko Haram sky-rocketed which made the federal government take action by endeavoring to strengthen its security. Military expenditure in Nigeria increased to 2403 million US dollars in 2020 from 1860 in 2019 (Zouzou, 2021).
The effect of terrorism on agriculture has negative and significant effects on the country’s agricultural output (Okaforet al, 2021). The farmers/herders crisis has posed a new threat to food security. A study has revealed that Nigeria loses an estimated 13.7 billion in revenue annually in Benue, Kaduna, Nasarawa and Plateau States, due to farmers/herders conflict (Abdulsalem 2017). This in addition to the consequences of insurgency in the South Eastern Nigeria by IPOB (Indigenous People of Biafra) and the agitation and restiveness in the South West by Oduduwa Peoples Congress and not forgetting the security challenge from the Niger Delta Region by MEND (Movement for the Emancipation of Niger Delta).
Theoretical Discourse
The essence of citizenship in relation to statehood is embedded in the principle of sovereignty where the state authority is supreme and the principles enshrined in the social contract theory as the guiding principles. The social contract presupposes that there is only one way to erect a common power that may be able to defend the people from invasion of foreigners and injury of each other and thereby to secure them in such sort as that by their own industry and by the fruits of the earth they may nourish themselves and live contentedly that way is to confer all their power and strength upon one man or assembly of men that may reduce all their wills which is as much as to say to appoint one man or assembly of men to bear their person and everyone to own and acknowledge himself to be author of whatsoever he that so bear their person shall act or cause to be acted, in those things which concern the common peace and safety and therein to submit their wills, everyone to his will and their judgment to him. This is more than consent or concord. It is real unity of them all in one and the same person made by covenant of every man with every man I authorize and give up my right to governing myself to this man or to these assembly of men on this condition; that thou give up thy right to him and authorize all his actions in like manner. This done, the multitude so united in one person is called common wealth.
Common wealth, he has the use of so much power and strength conferred on him that by terror thereof, he is enabled to form the wills of them all, to peace at home and mutual aid against their enemies abroad. And in him consists the essence of the common wealth, which to defend it is, one person, of whose act a great multitude by mutual covenant one with another have made themselves everyone the author, to the end he may use the strength and means of them all as he shall think expedient for their peace and common defense and he that carries this person is called sovereign and said to have sovereign power and everyone besides, his subjects (Hobbes, 1588-1679).
The central theme of the social contract theory therefore is predicated on the idea that an individual (citizen) would completely agree to live under the authority of the state in return for protection and security. This includes also transferring to the state certain natural rights like the use of force to make justice (Schwartz, 2021).
Conceptual Clarification
It will be pertinent to examine and give definition, scope and extent of some concepts used in this article before a proper appreciation of the framework as used in these work is understood. Some of the concepts include:
Ungoverned Spaces
The question as to what ungoverned spaces means, its scope and nature, has been an issue of controversy in the political science discourse. Whereas some argue that if the term is agreed to connote its name, it comes in contradiction to the question of sovereignty which is the basis of nation or statehood. They further posit that rather than ungoverned spaces the spaces are at best be described as contested spaces. Sometimes the scopes of the definition ascribed to ungoverned spaces are misconstrued. For instance, Boko Haram’s reference to a caliphate shows that it wants an exclusive rule based on Islamic identity. This was clearly indicated by their hoisting of their flag in Mubi town in Adamawa State, thereby changing the scope and meaning of the term ungoverned space to a contested one (Igboin, 2010).
Ungoverned spaces also refer to both physical territories and non-physical policy space in which there is an absence of effective state sovereignty and control (Piombo 2007). Igwe (2021) defines ungoverned spaces as zones that lie beyond the reach of government and thus pose a significant threat to security and stability. According to him, these spaces are perceived as fertile grounds within which terrorist organizations incubate and thrive.
From the above position therefore, there are no ungoverned spaces in a strict sense of the word, rather what we have are spaces of contested governance where the state perform its normal governance function but contest with non-state actors on performance of governance function (Igboin, 2010).
National Security
National security or defence is the protection of a sovereign state’s content including citizens, economy and institution which are the core duty of government. The scope and true essence of the definition of this concept has engaged the discourse in the field of social science and so many have attempted though correctly to ascribe a definition to the term.
Asiwaju (1990)posits that realizing the strategic position of border to security explained that the defense and security significance of border population has been clearly indicated in all the six-volume report of the “National Institute of Border Research Project” and reaffirmed in the communiqué on the Nigerian-Benin Trans-border Co-operation Workshop. As graphically put by MetohoMehunnu in a preview of the Trans-border Co-operation workshop, at the Administrative Staff College of Nigeria (ASCON), Topo, Badagry in May 1988:
The need to accord the border citizens a special place in the scheme of affairs should be emphasized, since as gate-keepers of the (national) territory, they make the first sacrifice in the event of external aggression; and depending on their patriotism, they could effectively mobilize mass resistance against the aggressor before other citizens get to the scene. They could also reduce or expand the country’s land space through their activities.
Analysts from the economic perspective, on the other hand, are prone to see national security as primarily concerned with the maintenance and protection of vital economic resources as well as non-military aspects of the nation-state functions. This includes the so-called defence “our way of life”. For them, national security involves the protection of strategically high-ranked resources and economic functions of the nation-state as well as the elimination of poverty through economic development.
Thus, a one-time World Bank President, Robert McNamara (1968) insists that national security means development. Security, he writes, is not military force, though it may involve it; security is not traditional military activity, though it may encompass it, security is development and without development there can be no security. Indeed, McNamara is right in arguing that the security of any nation or entity lies not solely on its military preparedness, but also in developing relatively stable patterns of economic and political growth at home and overseas. Therefore, there can be no dispute that when a society is able to develop and satisfy more the well-being and welfare needs of its citizens, increases the legitimacy of the regime in power and promotes the loyalty, patriotisms and obedience from citizenry. In this context, all mass oriented and economic adjustment programmes specifically designed to promote rapid development have positive national security implications.
In buttressing their point, they went ahead to state some of the problems that should compete for attention with military security. They listed, demographic pressures, uncertain access to important national resources and adverse environmental conditions. Buzan (1983, p.20) called for a wider definition of national security, encompassing more than just military concerns. Buzan (1983) further states that:
The self-help image of the state as an actor trying to use its own resources reduce its vulnerabilities in the face of threats provides only a narrow view of the national security problem.
He therefore, recommends the conceptualization of a national security problem, not only at the level of nation-state, but both at the level of the international system and the individual. Within this view point other sources of threat such as under-development, poverty, disease, are seen as potentially as destructive as weapons, in their physical capacity to eliminate populations.
Adedeji (1997) holds that while man continues to be threatened by guns and bullets, the non-availability of bread and butter is also a very potent threat. It goes that a nation ravaged by disease, and afflicted with poverty and a degraded environment will succumb to defeat as easily as it will be enemy weapons.
For Bassey (1998), any meaningful analysis of national security in developing countries like Nigeria, must identify the source, nature and type of threats, as well as the management capability and policy alternatives available to deal with them. To him national security policy should be conditioned by decision context, regime type and civil-military relationship. His analysis is greatly influenced by the Marxist standpoint which stresses that the nature of a state is derived from the historical antecedents of the nation’s development and modes of production. Therefore, he argues, that the machinery and resources available for states like Nigeria, to deter threats by the structure of the state, regime type and decision-making process.
It is further argued that the bottom line of the need for security of a nation is national preservation. Therefore, the quest for security dialectically entails a relatively permanent possibility of insecurity. To Synder (1977),security involves the twin imperatives of deterrence and defense. He said, among other things:
Deterrence means discouraging the enemy from taking military action by posing for him a prospect of costs and risks which outweighs his prospective gains. Defense, means reducing our prospective cost, and risks in the event that deterrence fails…
As could be seen from the above quotation, deterrence and defense are ways through which we achieve security. Thus the capability is the capacity of a state to effect changes on the global environment in its own interest. By such capability, a state does what it can and suffers what it must. It can therefore, be argued that capability in military terms alone is not enough and should be located within the unconventional security matrix.
In effect therefore, one can rightly say that national security refers to those measures that are taken for the protection of a given nation-state core value and sovereignty against external and internal threats. These threats could be military, political, economic, social, cultural, or otherwise. Therefore, security means building up resolve. Resolve has deterrent value because it is capable of immobilizing the will of the enemy to resist or attack.
Non-State Actors
Unlike the state actors, the non-state actors are in contradiction of the state actors. They are not legally accepted players in the international or global system. Non-state actors are therefore seen as organized political actors, connected to state but pursuing a parallel objective to that of a state’s interest. It will be interesting to note that these non state actors could be individuals who exert influence due to their capacity in economic, political and social status both nationally and globally or they could be organizations, also national, transnational or global organization. These categories of non state actors could be violent political groups who employ the use of force to exert influence. Examples of such groups are the terrorist organizations or groups, militias or insurgent groups. Others include criminal groups who are engaged in criminal activities for personal financial gains rather than politics. Here we have drug cartels, human traffickers, kidnappers and so on.
Non-State Actors, Ungoverned Spaces and National Security
Ungoverned spaces are spaces or areas where there is a political vacuum and an absence of state governance structures. This spaces or borders have made it possible for undocumented migrants to access territories on both divide, facilitating a contest between various terrorists and militant groups or non-state actors over control.
These areas experience a proliferation of small arms and light weapon which easily moved across the borders without restriction and sold at cheap rates. This is a major threat to security and increasingly undermines peace and development. It is estimated that about the eight million small arms circulating in West Africa, Nigeria has approximately 70% thereof (Toochi, 2021). In the same vein, Nyadera (2000) argues that years of systematic marginalization and ineffective administration alone create pockets of ungoverned spaces or territories that are being exploited by armed groups of non-state actors.
It is worthy of note that cattle rustling and banditry activities are on the increase, this uprising in cattle rustling is attributable to poor forest governance and the question of ungoverned space (Onwuzurigbo 2020).
The concept of ungoverned spaces pervades discussion of global security threats and dominate analysis and policy approaches in the Sahel region particularly Nigeria. In 2003, the Director of Central Intelligence’s worldwide threat briefing mentioned that the threat posed by vast stretches of ungoverned areas-lawless zones; “veritable” no man’s land demand a constant level of scrutiny since they are directly now linked to terrorism, terrorists ‘safe heavens’ and multiple emerging security threat (Mitchel, 2010). This is the extent of the implication of ungoverned spaces, non-state actors and national security.
Conclusion
The deliberate and systematic marginalization, ineffective administration and lack of political will has carved out areas so designated as ungoverned spaces and exploited by non-state actors threatening national security.
States have the legal obligation to protect human rights including the rights to social security and ensure that people can realize their rights without discrimination. The overall responsibility of the state includes ensuring the due provision of benefits according to clear or transparent eligibility criteria and entitlement and proper administration of the institutions and services whose benefits and services are not provided directly by public institution; the effective enforcement of legislative framework is particularly important for the provision of benefits and services.
It is important to draw the attention of the government and the policy makers to the emergence of a potential new threat that has the capacity to threaten national security – the pastoralist groups or herdsmen (nomadic Fulani), and the internally displaced communities (IDPs). The pastoralist or herders predominantly inhabit our forest areas where government presence, services are most of the time absent. Services such as education, health care, various empowerment programmes of the government to its citizen, do not get to these groups. The second group in the emergent potential security threat is the internally displaced persons. These groups are gradually living in circumstances that can likely be termed lawless communities in fragmented camps. It is important that the government prioritize these groups and see this development as an emergency and national threat and treat as such, to avoid further proliferation of ungoverned spaces and non state actors.
It is imperative therefore that a multidimensional approach that combines both the kinetic and non kinetic, that is, the military, social and economic reforms as well as inclusivity in proportional means be applied to achieve peace and stability and containment to national security threats in the region.
It is important to stress that the government would have to review and strengthen its policy of policing our forests especially the practice policy of accommodating a new security architecture that is hunters’ organization, which would complement the community policing architecture or framework.
It is important to accord our various state border citizens a special place in the scheme of affairs, since they are the gate keepers of the state/national territories and make the first sacrifices in event of external aggression and effectively mobilize mass resistance against aggressors. They could reduce or expand the country’s land spaces/ungoverned spaces through their activities.
Our territories must be effectively occupied. This can be done through building of gateway infrastructure, hospitals, airports (local), seaports, military formation, roads and industrial farming.
References
Abdulsalam, A. (2017). https://guardian/news/nigerialosses/13.7bnanually-tofarmer-herders- conflict-says-abdulsalam
Adedeji, E. (1997). Food and natural security in Nigeria. Defense Studies, Vol 7 July.
Ajumoke, B. et al. https://www.businessday.ng/research-post-/article-increasingnigerias- defense-budget-to-improve-security
Asiwaju, A.I. (1990). Borders and national defense: An analysis. In A.F. Ekoko& M.A. Vogt (ed.) Nigeria defense policy: Issues and problems, Lagos: Malthouse Ltd.
Bassey, C. (1998). Some critical observations on Western perspective of peace and security in Africa, Peace Review NWC Abuja, Vol. 2, No 1.
Bebe, O. (2018). Social Protections. https://www.socialprotection-humanrights.org.
Biodun, J. (2021). https://hrw.org/report/2011/08/25/Corruption-Trial/Record-Nigeria- Economic-And-Financial-Crimes-Commission
Buzan, B. (1983). People, states and fear, Brighton: Wheat Sheaf Books.
Hobbes, T. (1588-1679). Political Philosophy.https://www.britanica.com
Igboin, B. (2010). https://doi.org/10.1163/97890044355
Igwe, U. Nigeria’s conflict and insecurity makes us rethink authority in “ungoverned” spaces. https://blogs./sc.ac.uk/Africa/sc/2021/03/12/nigeria-policy-Works-Ungoverned- Governance-Spaces.
Kimberly, Margaret https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-States-Actors- and-Non-State-Actors.
Longley, R.https://www.thoughtco.com./what-is-a-failed-state-definition-and-examples 5092546
Mailafia, O.https://www.vanguardngr.com/2021/08/is-Nigeria-a-failed-state-21
Mitchel, K. (2010).Ungoverned space: Global security and geopolitics of broken windows. Political Geography 29(2) 289-297.
Namaru, M.C. (1968). The President’s Choice, Journal of Foreign Affairs, 63(2), pp. 265-278.
Nyadera, I.N. &Massoud, H. (2003). Elusive peace and impact of ungoverned spaces in the Sahel Conflict, The Journal of Security Sciences, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 271-288. https://doi.org/10.28956/gbd.646327
Okafor, G. et al. https://www.researchgate-act/publication/355979990-estimating-the-effect- of-terrorism-on-agricultural-production-in-Nigeria.
Olufemi A. (2020). https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/headlines/422829-Buharis-2021- budget-share-for-education-is-nigerias-lowest-in-10years.html
Olufemi, A. (2022). https://healthwise.punch.ng.com
Onwuzurigbo I. https://www.Cambrigde.org.article-Ungoverned-Spaces-And-Cattle-Rustling
Otaru, A. https://guardian.ng/business-source-40-of-Nigerian-population-live-says-Report
Piombo, J. (2007).Terrorism and counter-terrorism programmes in Africa: An overview. Strategic Insight 6(1), pp. 45-59.
Schwartz, J. What is the difference between Hobbes’ Social Contract and Locke.
Synder, B. &Sapin, F. (1977). Foreign policy decision making, New York: Free Press.
Toochi, E. et al. Borderland in West Africa.
Waliyullah, T. (2021).
Zouzou, W. (2021).https://www.Africacentre.org/spotlight-priotitiesfor-the-new-nigeria- government