Complete Material Cost #3,000
Order for Complete Material now
ABSTRACT
The study examined in this research posits that the chieftaincy tussle in Asarama (Andoni L.G.A) is impacting negatively on socio, economic and political growth of Asarama and by extension Andoni Local Government Area at large. The research was done within the period of 1999 to 2015. The study made use of the “Relative Deprivation Theory. Data for the study was collected from both primary and secondary sources. The primary sources include data and information sourced from respondents from the community, that included elders and chiefs, discussion groups, etc. Data and information from the secondary sources were gotten from published works and journals, newspapers and magazines, government bulletins, etc. Conclusively, the study examined the causes of chieftaincy tussle in Asarama, the impacts of the crises on the people and development of Asarama. Also, the study was able to explain some of the location, origin, migration and settlement of Asarama people. Finally the study made some recommendations among which are: Emphasize should be made more on prevention of conflict in order to promote harmony, dignity, unity, peace and cordial relationship among the people of Asarama, Andoni, Rivers State and Nigeria at large. Also, government at all levels: local, state and federal and politicians should not politicize the chieftaincy stool, etc.
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
Andoni communities appear to be a heaven of an unstable sub-region in the Niger Delta. The communities have a reputation as a peaceful, stable and democratic nation in Andoni Local Government Area of Rivers State. However, beneath this recognition, there are many internal conflicts around chieftaincy, festivals, land disputes and politics in Andoni communities.
These conflicts have left Andoni communities polarized by grief, hatred, and mutual mistrust leading to a cycle of violence and revenge. According to Ekprikpo (2004)
In Andoni, the struggle to become a “chief” or the “paramount ruler” may turn violent: when the historical, political, economic and social circumstances around the establishment of the chieftaincy institution in a traditional state becomes contested; when the rubs of succession become unclear; when successive governments and political parties support one group against the other in a bid to serve their own parochial political interest; and when there are small and light weapons available to the factions in the dispute.
While Ekporikpo (2004) was alluding to a fact and conditions that could lead to conflict in a political community like Andoni, Ubulom gained energy and impetus to posit that chieftaincy stool in Asarama, had been rotated between two family units; the Asuk Royal House and the Ewaye Royal House.
The rotational system of succession has been used in the ascension of the stool within the family (Egwe). However, this system has been subject to abuse to the extent that among the family unit of Asuk and Ewaye, there is no trust, hence the mutual suspicion that had given rise to conflict in Asarama.
The mutual suspicion played out in the annual festival (Okekpe) in which the chiefs and elders play prominent roles in its celebration. The suspicion resulted to (chieftaincy) a dispute during the celebration of the festival due to a disagreement over whom to perform the rituals as prescribed by the custom of Asarama people. The annual festival of Asarama communities had therefore, been marred with conflicts as a result of the disagreement between the leading houses. The disagreement between the two houses is progressively growing into a full blown conflict and crisis.
The ongoing chieftaincy tussle in Asarama stem from a contention by the two houses over who occupies the stool. The contention has resulted to loss of lives and property. Generally, the chieftaincy tussle and contention has caused people to migrate away from the community, the commercial activities is at the lowest ebb. It is gradually turning the town to a ghost yard. This has turned Asarama into a war zone, even though one of the key functions of the chieftaincy institution is to serve as a unifier against divisive tendencies, years of rivalry have rather divide the people in Asarama communities. This study will consider the causes and effects of chieftaincy tussle in Asarama and its imperative on development and how to provide solution to it (Uraka, 2002).
1.2 Statement of the Problem
Chieftaincy tussle is said to be one of major problems affecting human and economic development of any nation. It is often said by the elders, that conflicts and war does not promote peace, unity and better living of any community. The chieftaincy tussle that had engulfed Asarama Community from 1999 – 2015 had caused great hardship for the citizenry. Life had suddenly turned short, brutish and nasty, thus the study deeming it fit to raise the following:
- What are the causes of chieftaincy tussle in Asarama community?
- What are the consequences of chieftaincy tussle in Asarama community?
- Does the chieftaincy tussle affect development in Asarama community?
- What are the possible solutions to the chieftaincy tussle in Asarama community?
1.3 Objectives of the Study
The objectives of this study include the following:
- To help identify and bring forth the causes of chieftaincy tussle in Asarama community.
- To bring forth the impact of the conflict on the development of Asarama community.
- To examine the traditional methodology of conflict resolution in Asarama community.
- To examine the effects of chieftaincy tussle and its imperative on development in Asarama community.
1.4 Significance of the Study
The study will:
- help policy makers fashion out solutions to the people of Asarama community and other Obolo speaking communities of the Eastern Niger Delta to identify the causes of chieftaincy tussle in their various communities.
- help to enhance grassroot development as the local communities lives harmoniously in peace and unity.
- fill the breach in the literature of Asarama chieftaincy tussle.
- serve as a resource material to other researchers who may work on similar topic.
1.5 Methodology
The methodology of any study is a critical part of that study as it lays out the method of sourcing data and information for the study. Thus the study relied on the combination of primary and secondary sources. The primary sources include data and information sourced from respondents from the community, that included elders and chiefs, discussion groups, etc. Data and information from the secondary sources were gotten from published works and journals, newspapers and magazines, government bulletins, etc.
1.6 Scope and Limitation of the Study
This scope of the work spans from 1999 – 2015, it lays emphasis on chieftaincy tussle in Asarama (Andoni), as it affect development in Asarama. The nature of the conflict and the effective use of propaganda had made sieving and interpretation of data and information difficult, thus a great limitation.
1.7 Definition of Terms
- Tussle: Depict war, fighting, misunderstanding, argument, anarchy, stress, crisis, aggression between individuals, groups, communities, states or nations, which could lead to destruction of property, interest, lives and peace.
- Chieftaincy: The institution of the chiefs, in Obolo (Andoni), chief is a leader of household or war canoe house, tribe or community.
- Development: The process of developing, growth, directed change or the application of new ideas to practical problems.
- Chieftaincy tussle: An informal way of scrabbling or fighting for leadership over a family, paramount stool of a community or a war canoe house.
- Ubong: Chief, a traditional title or stool in Obolo (Andoni) land.
- Okan-Ama: The king of a community or town in Andoni.
1.8 Conceptual and Theoretical Framework
A theory is a set of ideas which provides an explanation for something or human society, it is also regarded as an attempt to explain events, forces, materials, ideas or behaviours in a comprehensive manner.
However, the acceptable theoretical window and explanation of conflict in this work is the “Relative Deprivation Theory.” Relative deprivation theory is of the view that interface with goal-directed behaviour creates frustration which in turns, lead to aggressive response usually directed against those reputed to be causing the frustration (Gurr, 1968; Dowse and Hughes, 1972). He sees tussle as starting when one feels that what he gets relative to others he identifies as his peers or equals are getting from the same situation is small. He feels deprived and then reacts. This condition is derived from scarcity and usually, the competition for scarce socio-economic resources remains the basic causative factor for tussle (Nwanegbo, 1995). The suitability of the “relative deprivation theory” is borne out of the fact that it helps us to understand that the numerous problems in the Niger Delta that are predominantly premised on contention(s) over the scarce resources.
Tussle in this context arises from individual or groups assertion of positions on issues that appeal to their belief or sentiments. The consoling aspect of this is that while tussle may result in a “Winlose” character, the resolution, transformation and management of the tussle may produce a “Win-win” situation (Otite, 1999).
In conclusion, relative deprivation is used in the study, because it throws more light in understanding the causes and effects of chieftaincy tussle and how to resolves this conflict in Andoni Local Government Area of Rivers State and in other developing societies in Niger Delta.
1.9 Literature Review
This part of the study is designed to provide an insight to the views of scholars and to use the views in positing and situating the topic of this project. Every political society is characterised by conflicts. But it is the management and resolution of such conflicts that marked the difference in society. In other words, conflicts are inherent part of all societies (Aja, 1980), Ake (1980), Roney (1980) and Ejituwu (1982). This viewpoint gave impetus for Nweke (2003) to argue thus that it is the degree of response to tussle that determines how it turns out. He added that, one’s background, attribute, perceptions and environment, among other things, influence the degree of response to tussle. Following through on the logic of Nweke (2003), Wockel (2003) argued and imputed that the incessant tussles and confrontations which characterize the relationship between the Ijaw, Urhobo and Itsekiri caused an inestimable loss on human and material resources; though mention was not made of the Andoni people of the Niger Delta in the analysis of Nweke and Wockel (2003). However, inasmuch as conflict is not peculiar to any particular community, this statement was of immense help to this research work, as it effectively helped in situating the work and also provides Ejituwu (2002) the leverage to join in on the debate. Ejituwu brought in the Obolo trajectory into the debate by positing that though the Obolo were peaceful with their neighbours, in the face of any adversaries, the Obolo’s never brake the “bond” that binded them, thus there was unity (societal unity) to confront any adversaries.
Again, Ejituwu (1991) in what appears to be an oversight relying on oral tradition of the coastal city states and did not espouse on the chieftaincy tussle in Asarama of Andoni, parse but he did give a pointer on how the Obolos dealt with issues of chieftaincy tussle and subversion of constituted authority. Leveraging on the logic of Ejituwu (1991) Eneyo (2005) in his analysis argued that the Obolos (Andonis) indeed do have processes in dealing with serious chieftaincy tussle, thus banishment being recommended in time past. With the passage of time especially in post-independence Nigeria, the traditional way had been relegate to the background.
Uriah (1992) reveals categorically that the causes of the problems that beset the chieftaincy institution in Obolo nation were chain reactions from the tribal units (individual, towns and villages) which finally deflected the central state unit. It started at Ngo Town and later spread into other Obolo communities as a “whirlwind.” This eventually polarized and balkanized every Obolo community into two opposing forces and finally weakened the bond of unity in Obolo nation. Asarama is a victim and a case in point. In summation, the summary of the thoughts of the various scholars revealed that conflicts are inherent in every society, but the approaches to resolving these conflicts varies from locality to locality. Again, it is pertinent to note that from the reviews of literature, for any conflict to linger on like the one in Asarama, it means such conflict had not been subjected to effective adjudication.