SCHOOL OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES,

UNIVERSITY OF LAGOS,
AKOKA, LAGOS.

TERM PAPER

1. WHAT IS ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY?

2. HOW CAN THE STUDY OF ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY HELP FIND
SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM OF NATIONAL INTEGRATION?

BY

EHICHOYA, OMONO JOY.

MATRIC. NO.:139015077

TO

PROFESSOR R.T AKINYELE

BEING A TERM PAPER IN H.S.S 849: NIGERIAN ADMINISTRATIVE

HISTORY, SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY AND
STRATEGIC STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF LAGOS, IN PARTIAL
FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF A
MASTER OF ARTS DEGREE IN HISTORY AND STRATEGIC STUDIES.

11 AUGUST, 2014.
1. INTRODUCTION.

The term, “Administrative history”, has certain multi-dimensional exigencies: from politics to

economics and to socio-cultural dimension. This multi-dimensional outlook is partly due to the

fact that the academic field of history has been a battle ground between the traditionalists such as

Ranke Von Leopald, Marc Trachtenberg, Richard Evans and G.R Elton whose view on the

processes involving the generation of historical knowledge is anchored on the fact that

interpretation and selection of evidence should be done, strictly independent of the historian’s

preconceived emotion and the modernist cum post-modernists such as Keith Jenkins, E.H Carr,

and Carl Bercker whose ideal is anchored on the fact that selection of evidence should be sought

and interpreted dependent on the historian’s preconceived emotions. In view of this heated

debate between these scholars, any definition of administrative history that does take cognizance

of the ideal traditionalists would definitely spark off vituperative attacks from the post-

modernists and vice versa. [1] Attempts, however, shall be made to present a middle-of –the-road

approach, taken cognizance of the terms, “Administration” and “history” before apt definition of

administrative history will be made.

In presenting a middle-of-the-road approach, history, by definition, can be understood from the

spectrum of an umbrella term that relates to an inquiry into past events, recent or distant, as well

as the memory, discovery, collection, organisation, presentation and relative interpretation of

information about these events with a view to searching for the truth about these events and

finding probable grounds by which the truth sought and found can be used to solve societal

problems.[2] Intrinsic in this definition is the fact that history is an enquiry into past events as it

relates to interpretation of evidence and collation of information with a view to finding lasting

solution to societal problems. From this definition, therefore, one would see how the study of
history, not arguments about the study of texts, is always sacrosanct to finding probable solutions

to societal problems.

Looking at societal problems critically and objectively, without any subjective or personal

insight, one cannot but see the connection between them and phenomenal maladministration. The

nexus between these two contextual phenomena brings us to, first, make succinct definition of

what administration means, a definition which pitches one against the term “maladministration”,

a term which enables us to look insightfully and critically into how societal problems are

engendered, which then makes the study of history becomes relevant. What then is

administration? According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, administration refers to the

activities that are related to operating and administering public or private related organisations. [3]

This particular definition takes a swipe on administration being activities involving both human

rationalities and self-inflicted irrationalities. That is to say that administration viewed in this

form talks about the actions of people within certain specified limits: what people do, how they

do it and when they do it. Then, there is another aspect of the definition of administration which

also stresses the socio-cultural, economic and political system within which people carry out

certain specified tasks within certain specified limits, hence, such terms as, liberalism, realism,

democracy, parliamentary system, globalisation, capitalism, socialism to mention but a few. [4]

Given such terms above, therefore, what people do, how they do it and when they do it within

what limits becomes crystal.

2. WHAT IS ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY?

Having made the basis for the terms “history” and “administration”, it then becomes clear as to

the path the concept of administrative history should make recourse to. Although most scientists
believe that their field of study can be traced to a past, recent or distant, most administrative

scientists similarly believe that their field has a history, recent or distant. Be that as it may, there

is the need to understand that scholars only treat administrative history from the perspective of

public administration. This is intuitively propagated by Jos C.N Raadschelders who

demonstrated logically that public administrative has, in fact, had a long-standing tradition both

in practise and in writing. According to him, administration has been an issue ever since human

beings recognised the need to organise themselves in order to organise the environment in which

they lived. This history, in turn, underlines the need for administrators to be aware of the

importance and contemporary impact of past decisions and old traditions or systems of

governance. [5]

Considering this fact, however, the concept of administrative history should be seen within the

spectrum of an inquiry into the history of how people, information and resources are mobilised

and organised in order to achieve organisational and/or community-based objectives, taking

cognizance of the environment that such organisation or community resides. All entities or

states, confined to a particular geographical location, have one form of administrative system or

the other. With recourse to norms and age-long traditions, this form of administrative system is

derived to suit this particular geographical location and probably designed to solve certain

problems peculiar to that geographical location. As problem-solving this form of administrative

system may have been designed to be, it has certain historical settings which, overtime, has gone

through series of transformation. Take, for instance, Nigeria’s administrative system of the 1960s

which bore certain semblance with colonial and in fact British, administrative system. If one,

therefore, tries to make astute research on the Nigeria’s administrative system of the 1960s and

the problems thereon, problems which partly formed what overheated the politics of the 1960s
until the Civil War; one might need to understand the intricacies of Nigeria’s administrative

system of the colonial interregnum. This particular reasoning coincides with Raadschelders’

view that “knowledge of the past enlarges and sharpens our insights in the how and why of

contemporary administrative structures and processes and their origin” [6]

Intrinsic in the above assertion, and more, is the fact that administrative effectiveness and

exigencies must have existed elsewhere which may have positive or negative influence on other

entities or climes. This singularly points to the fact enunciated by Raadschelders that western

administrative system was influenced by the rediscovery of Greek’s administrative system. [7]

Notwithstanding, therefore, the difficulty involved in delving into the concept of administrative

history and the course to which historians or scholars may chart, it suffices to note that

administrative history is an enquiry into the past as regards how people, information and

resources are effectively mobilised and efficiently organised with a view to achieving

organisational (private) and/or community-based (public/government) objectives.

Basically, administrative history chronicles the history of an organisation, agency, company or

community. Specifically, administrative history examines:

1. How the organisation, agency, company or community originated within a historic

context.

2. How its administrative policies developed or evolved over time.

3. How the primary goals and objectives of the organisation, agency, company or

community are defined.

4. What successes and challenges has the organisation had in meeting its goals.
For these reasons, therefore both public and private organisations may seek to document their

administrative history. Retrospectively, the ‘why’ most scholars undertake the study of

administrative history are varied. For some entities, a significant anniversary or event may

prompt reflection on the origins of the organisation and the process by which it evolved over

time. Many government institutions undertake administrative history in order to document past

policy changes and procedures. Irrespective of whichever divide the argument falls, the truth still

remains that administrative history is an enquiry into the processes of evolution of administrative

exigencies.

3. HOW THE STUDY OF ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY CAN HELP FIND

SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEMS OF NATIONAL INTEGRATION.

There has been quite number of terms such as “national homogenisation”, “national orientation”,

“national consciousness”, “national identity” associated with the term, “national integration”.

These terms, as diverse as they are, preclude a common trend. However, beyond the general

understanding and conception of a perceived intensification of national interconnectedness, there

is a substantial causal dynamics and structural and cultural perspective which people who live

within a geographical entity are enjoined to coin. The term, “national integration”, irrespective of

similarity of meaning and trend, can also be viewed from “two ends of a spectrum of attitude”,

REALISM AND LIBERALISM. [8] Either seen from the continuum of a general understanding

and conception or from the perspective of realism or liberalism, it suffices to understand that

national integration is a response or panacea to the challenges being faced by most politically

destabilised, socio-culturally divisible and/or economically disadvantaged countries. [9]

What then is national integration? To integrate things is to put them together to form something

new. National integration, therefore, as defined and popularised by Kaufman J. Stuart, Cameron

Keith and Shona Khurana, is the awareness of a common identity and peaceful co-existence

among the citizens of a culturally, socially and religiously diverse entity. [10] [11] [12] Intrinsic in

this definition is the fact that what is often known as the consciousness of oneness in a multi-

cultural and religious entity is borne out of the realisation of the need to cultivate attitude, efforts

and state-centred policies which tend to give a sense of belonging to all irrespective of cultural,

social and religious differences.

Having made the above assertion, it is important at this juncture to concentrate, first, on the

usefulness of administrative history to the contemporary Nigerian situation and/or in solving

contemporary Nigerian challenges, and second, on the economic and political system within

which people carry out certain specific tasks within certain specified limits. In examining the

usefulness of administrative history to solving contemporary Nigeria’s challenges and the

economic and political system within which people carry out certain specific tasks within certain

specified limits, there is the need, on the one hand, to focus on the problems being faced in

Nigeria currently which seem to militate against her national development and on the other hand,

examine a type of administrative system to which scholars have accorded the best as being

plausible to solving contemporary Nigeria’s problems.

3.1 THE STUDY OF ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY AND NIGERIA’S

AMALGAMATION.

Be that as it may, it is important to note that the usefulness of administrative history can be seen

within the spectrum of understanding contemporary Nigeria’s problems, the understanding

which gives us more insights into how these problems came about and the most plausible ways

to solving these problems. Since the inception of the Nigerian nation, Nigerian governments, past

and present, have made serious efforts to propagate policies and programmes that are geared

towards national integration. Despite such well-intended and unity-oriented programmes and

policies, Nigeria’s unity has continued to be plagued and threatened by embedded socio-cultural,

religious and political dichotomies, more sharply divided than we were under the colonial

regimes. [13] Considering the multi-dimensional outlook of Nigeria’s problems, one cannot but

see the inter-connectedness between the issues revolving around Nigeria’s amalgamation and her

contemporary challenges, challenges ranging from environmental insecurity arising from the

spate of bombing across the Eastern part of the North, political insecurity arising from the

falsification of population figures which tended to give more political and economic advantage

to the North, the Niger-Delta question and fiscal federalism (resource control). [14]

Retrospectively, it is important to note that prior to the advent of British colonisation, the

geographical region now known as Nigeria comprised the homelands to several independent and

contiguous nationalities, each having its distinctive political systems, economic market and

communal diplomacy. Even though, it is generally agreed among Nigeria’s foremost Historians

such as Professor Ade Ajayi, Professor Kenneth Dike and a host of other Nigerian historians that

these independent and contiguous entities occasionally engaged in war and territorial conquests

fuelled mainly by the raging trade commoditised in human labour and merchants arming one

group to fight and enslave others, yet what characterised the nature of interplay among these

independent and contiguous entities was a relative peaceful co-existence founded on strict

communal diplomacy as against the European diplomacy of the nineteenth century. Towards the

end of the nineteenth century, therefore, the British occupied most of the region. By the
beginning of the twentieth century, they had divided up and fragmented the region into two

Protectorates: Northern and Southern Nigeria. In simple term, what the British colonialists had

done was disintegrate entities that were culturally and socio-politically at peace with one another

and integrate these entities with those that had different ideologies. The British colonialists

extorted trade agreements, subjugated diverse groups to forced relocation and deeply interfered

in territorial sovereignty. [15] The ripple effects of this forced relocation and British interference

in Nigeria’s territorial sovereignty are deeply rooted in some of the contemporary challenges that

are militating against her national homogeneity.

3.2 THE STUDY OF ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY AND FEDERALISM.

In examining the usefulness of administrative history to solving contemporary Nigeria’s

challenges and the economic and political system within which people carry out certain specific

tasks within certain specified limits, there is the need to look at a type of administrative system to

which scholars have accorded the best as being plausible to solving contemporary Nigeria’s

problems. Instance of this type of administrative system is one whose vocal point is on the

principles of decentralisation. It is often known as federalism.

That the origin of Nigerian federalism is traceable to British colonial rule is no longer new.

However, opinion varies on the basic reason for its introduction. Some scholars opine that

federalism was introduced in Nigeria by the British for administrative convenience. Some are of

the view that Britain imposed federalism on Nigeria in order to maintain some control on the

country after independence. Others believe that the British colonialists adopted federalism in

Nigeria to solve the problem of how to keep the large and ethnically diverse groups of people

together. Regardless of the status of each of these arguments, all of the viewpoints are useful in

tracing the origin of federalism in Nigeria. [16]

Retrospectively, the origin of federal system in Nigeria can be traced to the amalgamation of the

Southern and Northern Protectorates in 1914. The federal structure began to form in 1939 under

Sir Bernard Bourdillon who divided the Southern Protectorate into two. [17] The Richard and

Macpherson Constitution of 1946 and 1951 respectively only created a decentralised unitary

system. The practise of federalism in Nigeria was officially adopted through the Lyttleton

Constitution of 1954 as it was the first genuine federal constitution of the country. The

constitution was introduced due to the crisis generated by the Macpherson Constitution,

especially the motion of self-government, and the Kano Riots of 1953. [18] These events

convinced the colonial administration that considerable regional autonomy must be granted to

the regional governments and that only federalism could hold the Nigerian peoples together.

Nigerian federalism became consolidated at independence, and since then, it has been operating

in both political and fiscal context, although not in full consonance with basic principles of

federal practise elsewhere in the world. Historically, Nigeria’s federal system has oscillated

between the excessive regionalism that marked the First Republic (1960 -1966) and the

excessive centralisation of the military, and relatively, the post-military era. [19]

Federalism is often regarded as the appropriate governmental principle for countries with huge

and enormous ethno-cultural diversities. Nigeria, with over two hundred and fifty ethnic groups,

inherited a federal system from Britain in 1960, a federal system which was inherently flawed

with favouritism, more particularly when there is a new revelation that the 1963 Population

Census was inflated in favour of the North. [20] Even though successive administrative

governments in Nigeria, since independence, have attempted, with varying degrees of sincerity

and commitment, to operate federal institutions that can accommodate the country’s ethnic,

cultural, religious and linguistic diversities and nurture a sense of national unity, however, the
leaders of these governments, at all levels, have failed to fulfil their obligations o offer good

governance anchored on equitable political arrangements, transparent administrative practises

and accountable public conduct. Indeed, failure to encourage genuine power sharing has

triggered dangerous rivalries between the central government and the thirty six states

government over revenue from the country’s oil and other natural resources. [21] The defective

federal structure has also promoted bitter struggles between interest groups to capture the state

and its attendant wealth and facilitated the emergence of violent ethnic militias, while politicians

exploit and exacerbate inter-communal tensions for selfish reasons. Thus, communities

throughout the country increasingly feel marginalised and alienated from the Nigerian state, the

same feelings that permeated the entire country in1950s before the colonialist government

deemed it fit to introduce federalism as a panacea.

4. CONCLUSION.

The point being made here is simple: Nigeria’s problems of national integration , challenges

ranging from environmental insecurity arising from the spate of bombing across the Eastern part

of the North, political insecurity arising from the falsification of population figures which tended

to give more political and economic advantage to the North, the Niger-Delta question and fiscal

federalism (resource control), can be quarantined and eventually decapitated once the study of

administrative history is put in the perspective of insights into the past as to how and when

Nigeria encountered her problems and what policies used to resolve these problems. Nigeria’s

problems of national integration are problems of history, tested by history and resolved by

history, to which the study of administrative history is very relevant. Be that as it may, Nigeria’s
quest for national integration was given the impetus it needed by the military elite corps. This is

partly because the military has dominated Governance for many years. The basic structural

reorganization needed to foster national integration was instituted by the military. This also

includes steps taken to assuage the fears of the minorities enclosed within the hitherto three

major ethnic groups in Nigeria. The immobilize state of national integration in Nigeria is as a

result of the absence of normative standards and respected by all parties. The institutionalization

of such standard should transcend the federal, state, local governments and the ward levels. This

is the only way towards the birth of an organic Nigerian state. This problem has lingered because

national integration in Nigeria has not been a voluntary process. However given a purposeful

leadership and a ‘just administration’, national integration would produce a fairly organic

Nigerian state. However, it should be acknowledged that the journey towards that destination is

still a long distance away, which the study of administrative history can shorten. Nigeria is still

on that part, but a purposeful leadership which is inclining to inputs, would make national

integration attainable, possible with great attention to the study of administrative history.

From the standpoint of its usefulness, therefore, one can see that the study of administrative

history is crucial when examining the various problems plaguing Nigeria’s effort towards

national integration.
REFERENCES.

1. Trachtenberg, M. (1998). “The Past Under Siege: A Historian Ponders on the State of His

Profession.” Wall Street Journal. 17 July, 1998. Vo.10

2. ibid, vol.10

3. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary (1994). Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster, Inc.1994 Ed.

4. Etim, O.F (2013). “Administration of National Integration in Nigeria: The Challenges

and Prospects” MCSER Publishing, Vol 4, No. 14, p.487

5. Readschelders, C.J.N (2000) “Handbook of Administration History.”Transaction

Publishers, 2000. P.9

6. ibid, p.9

7. ibid, p.10

8. Rourke, J.T et al (2004). “International Politics on the World Stage.” New York:

McGraw Hill Companies, 2004. pp12-13

9. ibid, p.154

10. Kaufman, J.S (2001). “Modern Hatred: The Symbolic Politics of Ethnic War.” New

York: Cornell University Press, 2001. p.25

11. Cameron, Keith (1999). “National Identity.” Exter, England: Intellect, 1994. p.4

12. Khurana, Shona (2014). “National Integration: Complete Information on the Meaning,

Features and Promotion of National Integration in India.” A contribution submitted to

JoomlArt.com, free software released under the GNU/GNL Licence.

13. Etim, O.F (2013). “Administration of National Integration in Nigeria: The Challenges

and Prospects” MCSER Publishing, Vol 4, No. 14, pp.481

14. ibid, pp.481-487

15. Akanbi, T.O (2014). “Ten Decades after Amalgamation: Nigeria’s Lessons in

Governance, Challenges, and Prospects.” Co-Ed. by Pro. Olupona J. and Dr. T.O Akanbi.

Book Project on Amalgamation and Governance Challenges in Nigeria: Call for Papers.

Ife: OpenScholar, 2014.

16. Oyedele, S (1999). “Federalism in Nigeria.” in Hassan Saliu (ed), “Issues in

Contemporary Political Economy of Nigeria.” Ilorin: Sally and Associate Press, 1999.

p.58

17. ibid, pp.58-59

18. ibid, p.59

19. ibid, pp.59-60

20. Tell Magazine (2005) “How Britain rigged Elections.”

21. Oyedele, S (1999). “Federalism in Nigeria.” in Hassan Saliu (ed), “Issues in

Contemporary Political Economy of Nigeria.” Ilorin: Sally and Associate Press, 1999.

p.66