GODFATHERISM AND OFFICIAL CORRUPTION IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

GODFATHERISM AND OFFICIAL CORRUPTION IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

The concept of godfatherism is firmly establishing itself as a guiding principle in contemporary Nigeria politics. Godfathers are generally defined as men who have the power personally to determine both who gets nominated to contest elections and who wins in the election. In the past, Nigerian society had fewer criminals that the judicial systems attempted to contend with in recent times, our judicial systems cannot contend with such because Nigerian society is building criminals at rapid pales in the late 20th and early 21st centuries through democratization and militarization practices, when the governing systems failed to deliver the other takes over. In democracy one way that regime is breeding criminals is through godfather’s, godfatherims is old fashion enterprise that circulates around nation with different names or headings for centuries. Godfathers in Nigeria is a topic that has not been given enough attention until recent coup that exposed Chief Chris Uba, estranged political Godfather of Chief Dr. Chris Ngige among political criminals that is behind elections or selection of most of our state governors and other law makers. Apparently it appears majority of our state governors are financed by such caliber of person and for those financed by their godfathers get into offices now have huge power in respective states. They assigned civil services and or political positions to who are not of the people but people of the privates.

The role of education in politics cannot be over emphasized. To be effective, civil education must be realistic, it must address the central truth about political life. The American Political Science Association (A.P.S.A) recently formed a task force on Civil Education. Its statement of purpose calls for more realistic teaching about the nature of political life and a better understanding of “the complex elements of the art of the possible”. The A.P.S.A. reports faults existing civil education because all too often it seems unable to counter the belief that in politics, one either wins or loses, and to win; means getting everything at once, now. The sense that politics can always bring another chance to be heard to persuade and perhaps to gain part of what one wants, is lost, political education today seems unable to teach the civil engagement the slow patient building of first coalitions and then majorities can generate social change (Carter & Elshtan, 1997).

A message of importance therefore is not politics need not, indeed must not, be a zero, sum game. The idea that “winner takes all” has no place in a democracy because if losers lose all they will opt out of the democratic game. Sharing is essential in a democratic society, the sharing of power, of resources and of responsibilities. Those skills and the will or necessary trait of private and public characters are the products of a good civil election.