Suchergebnisse

The study is an attempt to explain the theoretical underpinnings of military involvement in Third World politics. It raised such pertinent questions as to why military rule occurred more in Less Developed Countries than in developed ones and why is direct military involvement in politics condemned globally even when some appeared to have fared better than the prevailing corrupt civilian administrations. These questions were clarified in a study that is basically qualitative in nature using various theories of military intervention in politics to argue that so long as Third World politicians remain intransigent to their societal problems, military involvement in politics will continue to be a phenomenon to be reckoned with notwithstanding that the involvement of the Armed Forces in political life of the people has not reflected any improvement in governance. The work concludes that it would be difficult for any military rule to perform better than civilian-led administrations being a body taught to fight and kill than to govern. DOI:10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n20p2047

The thrust of the survival of any nation is embedded on its security situation. Insecurity is a threat to development because it produces economic stagnation. However, the situation is not absolutely, if at all so in Nigeria given the insurgency of Boko Haram and its attendant negative consequences on the economy of the country. The work utilized the theory of Good Governance and National Security in analyzing Boko Haram insurgence and the Nigerian economic development. Deriving from the above, it was discovered that there is a close relationship between and among good governance, national security and economic development through the study of Boko Haram insurgence. The study therefore argued that the only thing that can sustain development and curb insurgencies in Nigeria is good governance, as what we are witnessing presently is the resultant implication of contrapuntal maladministration that had hitherto characterized the Nigerian state. DOI:10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n17p31

Abstract
This study examined the interface between separatist agitations and national integration under Buhari's Administration in Nigeria. The study investigated the various separatist groups operating in Nigeria, particularly the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) that emerged as an outcome of unbearable incidence of marginalisation by Buhari's administration. The study leveraged on the propositional trappings of relative deprivation theory to explain and bear witness to the argument that when marginalization consistently goes beyond its bearable height against groups to favour others, it would amount to relative deprivation. This becomes a breeding ground for various forms of agitation like self-determination. The study relied on documentary method for data gathering and adopted content analysis for analysing the materials generated. It firmly upheld that marginalisation, as obviously witnessed in Buhari-led administration, not only resulted in the revitalisation of the various separatist groups, but also undermined national integration in Nigeria. It recommended, amongst other things, for an inclusive national policy of integration and unity.