AN APPRAISAL OF THE EFFECT OF DOMESTIC POLICIES ON NIGERIA’S SHUTTLE DIPLOMACY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, 1999-2007

ABSTRACT

The foreign policy of a nation is a reflection of its domestic demands, needs and aspirations. Much as there is a relationship between a state domestic policy and  those foreign to it,  the outcomes in the course of their implementation could turn  out to be complementary or simply contradictory. In the case of the Federal Republic of Nigeria  in this fourth republic heralding the transition  from  military dictatorship  to  civilian rule  in  1999, paved  the  way  for  democratic  dispensation  with the  leadership endeavouring to steer  the nation’s foreign policy  in accordance with democratic ethos. This became expedient in order to re-integrate  the  country  into  the  international  community  from  a  pariah  state  and  to  embark  on  economic  growth,  social infrastructure and development, also the challenge of combating sectional militia and insurgent groups among others are key issues of domestic policies which must be balanced by equally robust external policies. The focus of this paper is to interrogate on  whether  there  was  a  synergy between  domestic and  foreign  policies  or  contradictions  during the  period  in  question.  The methodology is basically qualitative.  At the end, it was discovered that the leaders have maintained to a large extent the status quo  in  the pursuance  of the  nation’s  foreign  policy  in which  case,  the  domestic  policy  has  dictated  the  external course  of actions

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1  BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

National governments of States around the world are known for implementing of programmes and to set agendas for their administration.  Driven  by  such  motives,  the  day-to-day dealings  of  incumbent  administrations  are  targeted  at actualizing  their  goals  and  objectives  in  the  process  of governing  their  countries.  While  some  of  the  goals  can  be attained by the States on their own, (Nwankwo, 2013: 212) in most cases,  they  seek  the active  cooperation and  sometimes assistance  of  other States in  order  to  achieve their national objectives.  Because  of  this, a  State necessarily  has  to be  in communication  with  its external  environment  (Ojo  & Sesay, 2002:113). Theoretically,  a  State’s  domestic  and  foreign  policy  are complementary. Though,  the  former  is  to  be  implemented  in the domestic environment, that  is, within the territory of that State while the latter is designed for  the international milieu. Though  both  policies  often  enjoy  a  smooth  relationship,  a State  domestic  policy  can  sometimes  run  contrary  to  those that  are  foreign  oriented.  It  is  on  these  premises  that  this paper would  be analyzing the  domestic and foreign policy of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in the fourth republic Writing on  Nigeria’s international  relations, Alao (2011: 21) remarked that since the return of democracy in 1999, Nigeria has  focused  on  developing  strategic  partnerships  with traditional,  and  emerging  global  powers,  to  support  its domestic  priorities.  It  has  strengthened  old  relations  and developed  new  ones,  and  has  tried to  balance  its  role  as a regional  and  continental  power,  which  addresses  domestic concerns.  No  wonder  as  commented  by  Okerafor  (2011), Chief  Obasanjo’s  foreign  policy  objectives  were  easily identifiable.  For  instance,  his  number  one  priority  was  to restore  or  repair  where  necessary  so that  Nigeria  can regain its position  as  a key  player  in the  committee  of nations.  An image  of  gross  irresponsibility,  inherited  through  General Sani  Abacha’s five  years  of totalitarianism,  had  to be  fixed. Most  of  the  country’s  economic  partners,  especially  the prominent  ones  like  the  United  States,  European  Union, Commonwealth  of  Nations,  World Bank and  the  I.M.F  had to be brought back. On the part of his  successor,  Yar’ Adua, he  moved  swiftly after  taking  office  to  engage the  rebels in the  Niger  Delta,  who  had led  violent  campaign  of  sabotage against  the  oil  industry  since  2006…  The  unrest  in  that region had reduced Nigeria’s oil  output by a  fifth and helped drive  up  world  oil  price  (Arizona-Ogwu,  2008).  But following the death  of  President Umar Yar’Adua, Jonathan’s administration  was  caught  in  between  a  domestic environment  of  sectional  centrifugal  forces.  Unfortunately for  him,  combating  the  insurgent  terrorist  group,  the  Boko Haram  was  a  serious distraction  to  the pursuit  of  his vision 20:2020, a repackaged economic initiative of President Umar Yar’Adua  with  the  goal  of  moving  Nigeria  from  the disadvantaged  third  world  status  to  the  league  of  the  top twenty  leading  economies  in  the  world  by  the  year  2020.

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

 Conceptual Clarifications

There  are  three  concepts  which  not only  capture  the  whole essence  of  this  paper  but  have  been  repeatedly  used  in  its analysis.  The  three are:  domestic  policy,  foreign  policy and national interest.

 i) Domestic Policy

Beginning  with  the  concept  of  policy,

 Akinboye  &  Ottoh (2005:  115)  viewed  policy  as  a  course  of  action  or  a reasoned  choice  emerging  from  the  consideration  of competing  options. Looking  at  domestic  policy  in  this context,  domestic  policy  can  be  said  to  be  the  course  of action  which  a  state’s  government  not  only  formulates  but also  implements  within  its  territory.  Policy  in  this  respect becomes public policy. Several Political Scientists have given scholarly  definitions  to  the concept.  According to  Friedrich (1963:79),  public  policy  is  a proposed course of  action  of  a person,  group,  or  government  within  a  given  environment providing  obstacles  and opportunities  which  the  policy was proposed to utilize and overcome in an effort to reach a goal or realize the objective or a purpose. Anderson (1975: 3) also shared  similar  view  with  Friedrich, perceiving  public  policy to be a purposive course of action followed by an actor or set of actors in dealing with problem or matter of concern. In all, domestic or  public policy is whatever governments choose to door not to do (Dye, 1978: 3).

ii) Foreign Policy

 According to  Aluko  (1981), nobody  has  really  formulated  a universally  acceptable  definition  of  the  concept  of  foreign policy  and probably  nobody  will succeed  in  doing  so. This notwithstanding, quite a number of scholars  in the discipline of  International  Relations  has  over  the  years  formulated definitions  which  are  adjudged  to  represent  the  concept  of foreign policy. For  instance,  Modelski  (1962:  6)  explained  that  a  State’s foreign  policy  is  the  system  of  activities  evolved  by communities  for  changing the  behaviour of other  states  and for  adjusting  their  own  activities  to  the  international environment. While Frankel (1963, 9), defined foreign policy as referring to  those decisions and actions, which  involve, to an appreciable extent, relations between one state and others. Unlike the above intellectuals, Northedge, (1968:15)opted for a more simplified definition.  Accordingly, he defined foreign policy  as  interplay  between  the  outside  and  the  inside. Therefore,  it  can be concluded  that  the decisions  in  form of actions  or  reactions,  dealing  with  such  matters  requiring cooperation and or active support of others across the borders of a given  State  for  their attainment,  fall  within the ambit of foreign policy (Nwankwo, 2013: 212). Domestic  and  foreign  policy when placed  side  by  side  are set  of  policies interconnected  and flowing  one  to  the other.