Thursday, October 30, 2014

PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEMS OF GOVT >>>>>(BRITAIN, FRANCE AND INDIA). READ AND SEE SIMILATITIES

BRITISH PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM

Form of government
                  Constitutional monarchy
Head of state
                  Monarch









                                                      Head of government
                  Prime minister
Legislature
                  Bicameral legislature:
                  House of Commons, 646 members
                  House of Lords, 713 members (595 life peers and 118 hereditary                       members)
Voting qualifications
                  Universal at age 18
Constitution
                  Unwritten; partly statutes, partly common law and practice
Highest court
        House of Lords, High Court of Justiciary, (Scottish criminal cases only)



The United Kingdom is a parliamentary monarchy—that is, the head of state is a monarch with limited powers. Britain’s democratic government is based on a constitution composed of various historical documents, laws, and formal customs adopted over the years. Parliament, the legislature, consists of the House of Lords, the House of Commons, and the monarch, also called the crown. The House of Commons is far more influential than the House of Lords, which in effect makes the British system unicameral, meaning the legislature has one chamber. The chief executive is the prime minister, who is a member of the House of Commons. The executive branch also includes Her Majesty’s Government, commonly referred to simply as “the government.” The government is composed of ministers in the Cabinet, most of whom are members of the House of Commons; government departments, each of which is responsible to a minister; local authorities; and public corporations. Because the House of Commons is involved in both the legislative and executive branches of the British government, there is no separation of powers between executive and legislature.
The British constitution comprises multiple documents. The written part consists of the Magna Carta, written in 1215; the Petition of Right, passed by Parliament in 1628; and the Bill of Rights of 1689. It also includes the entire body of laws enacted by Parliament, precedents established by decisions made in British courts of law, and various traditions and customs. The democratically elected House of Commons can alter these laws with a majority vote. The constitution continually evolves as new laws are passed and judicial decisions are handed down. All laws passed by Parliament are regarded as constitutional, and changes or amendments to the constitution occur whenever new legislation overrides existing law. Although the crown gives its royal assent to legislation, this is a mere formality. The British monarchy stands for the continuity of British history going back to Anglo-Saxon times, and today it serves as a figurehead for the state. In theory, the British monarch has enormous powers, but in reality those powers are limited and the crown follows the dictates and advice of the ministers in Parliament. The British monarchy has been a hereditary position since the 9th century, although Parliament has stepped in at times to alter the succession, for example, in 1701 when the House of Hanover was selected to replace the Stuart dynasty. Primogeniture, the passing of the throne to the eldest son when a monarch dies, has been the rule of succession, and when there are no sons, the eldest daughter ascends the throne. This was the case when Elizabeth II succeeded to the throne in February 1952 upon the death of her father, George VI. Her husband, Prince Philip, has the title of Prince Consort, but no rank or privileges. The current heir to the throne is Elizabeth II’s eldest son, Charles, Prince of Wales. According to the Act of Settlement of 1701, only Protestants are eligible to succeed to the throne. A regent may be appointed to rule for the sovereign if he or she is underage or incapacitated.

As the official head of state, the monarch formally summons and dismisses Parliament and the ministers of the Cabinet. The monarch also serves as head of the judiciary, commander in chief of the armed forces, and Supreme Governor of the Church of England and the Church of Scotland. In reality, the government carries out the duties associated with these functions. Theoretically, the monarch appoints all judges, military officers, diplomats, and archbishops, as well as other church officers. The monarch also bestows honors and awards, such as knighthoods and peerages. In reality, all of these appointments are made upon the advice of the prime minister. The prime minister declares war and peace and concludes treaties with foreign states in the name of the crown. The monarch serves as the ceremonial head of the Commonwealth of Nations and is the ceremonial head of state for 16 Commonwealth countries. The real work of the monarchy consists largely of signing papers. The monarch has the right, however, to be consulted on all aspects of national life and review all important government documents. The monarch may also meet with the Privy Council, a now largely ceremonial body made up of Cabinet members that serves in an advisory capacity to the monarch. Since Britain is a democracy, the monarchy could potentially be abolished if a majority of the population decides to do so. In the early 21st century the monarchy generally remained popular, despite unpleasant media coverage surrounding the marriages and relationships of the royal family. Only Scotland had a small majority that wanted to make the United Kingdom a republic.

The royal family endorses developments in Britain by performing such ceremonial functions as cutting ribbons, opening businesses, launching ships, and laying cornerstones. Many members of the royal family are involved in charity work and maintain a public presence by visiting shelters, hospitals, and clinics. Because foreigners are attracted to the pageantry of royalty, tourism related to the royal family brings a substantial amount of money into the country.


The chief executive of the government is the prime minister. He or she is the leader of the party that holds the most seats in the House of Commons. The monarch goes through the ceremony of selecting as prime minister the person from the House of Commons who is head of the majority party. The prime minister presides over the Cabinet and selects the other Cabinet members, who join him or her to form the government that is part of the functioning executive. Acting through the Cabinet and in the name of the monarch, the prime minister exercises all of the theoretical powers of the crown, including making appointments. In the past, prime ministers also came from the House of Lords. Today, in the unlikely circumstance that a peer (a member of the House of Lords) is sought as a prime minister by one of the parties, he or she must first resign from the House of Lords and gain election to the House of Commons. When legislation comes before the House of Commons, the prime minister can usually count on the support of a majority of the votes because his or her party has a majority of the seats, and party discipline tends to be strong in Britain. In some circumstances prime ministers must depend on a coalition of strong parties. This was the case during both world wars and during the worst of the Great Depression in the 1930s. At times a prime minister comes from a party that does not quite have a majority of seats in the House of Commons. In such a case, that party must rely on an alliance with smaller parties, the smaller parties voting with the party in power on necessary legislation. A government formed from a party without a majority in Parliament is called a minority government. Between 1974 and 1979, for example, a minority Labour Party government was able to stay in power because the Liberal Party generally voted with it.
The Cabinet developed during the 18th century out of informal meetings of key government ministers during the reigns of the Hanoverian monarchs, who took relatively little interest in politics. During the 19th century this committee of key ministers evolved into an effective body that wielded the monarch’s executive power.
The Cabinet has about 20 members, or ministers, all of whom must be members of Parliament (MPs). Members of the Cabinet are leaders of the majority party in the House of Commons or, more rarely, members of the House of Lords. Cabinet ministers who head a particular government department, such as the Ministry of Defense, are known as secretaries of state. The prime minister serves as the first lord of the treasury and as minister for the civil service. In addition to the various secretaries of state, the Cabinet includes nondepartmental ministers who hold traditional offices—such as the lord president of the council, the paymaster general, and the lord privy seal—and ministers without portfolio, who do not have specific responsibilities but are assigned to specific tasks as needed. The lord chancellor holds a unique position. The lord chancellor’s executive duties as a Cabinet member include being responsible for legal affairs in the United Kingdom, but he or she is also head of the judiciary, which is a separate part of the British government. The prime minister has the power to move members of the Cabinet from post to post, or to drop individuals from the Cabinet entirely. Former Cabinet ministers may retain their positions as members of Parliament.
Two key doctrines of Cabinet government are collective responsibility and ministerial responsibility. Collective responsibility means that the Cabinet acts unanimously, even when Cabinet ministers do not all agree upon a subject. If an important decision is unacceptable to a particular Cabinet member, it is expected that he or she will resign to signify dissent. Ministerial responsibility means that ministers are responsible for the work of their departments and answer to Parliament for the activities of their departments. The policy of departmental ministers must be consistent with that of the government as a whole. The ministers bear the responsibility for any failure of their department in terms of administration or policy.
The Privy Council is a large, and generally ceremonial, body of more than 450 members that developed out of the royal council that existed in the Middle Ages. By the 18th century the Privy Council had taken over all the powers of the royal council. The Privy Council comprises all current and former Cabinet members, as well as important public figures in Britain and the Commonwealth. The council advises the monarch and arranges for the formal handling of documents. It has a large number of committees, each with a specific task, such as dealing with outlying islands, universities, or legal matters. The most important committee is the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which is the highest court of appeal for certain nations in the Commonwealth, some church-related appeals, and for disciplinary committees of some professions.
Parliament comprises three parts: the crown, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons. Over the course of centuries, the seat of power has passed from the crown to the Lords to its final resting place in the House of Commons. Parliament originated in the great councils called by the crown during the Middle Ages. Through these meetings, medieval monarchs sought the advice of their subjects, exchanged information about the realm, and gathered petitions. In other words, Parliament originated with the royal wish to gain the approval and sanction of the realm for acts of state. Later, Parliament served to supplement royal revenues by making grants of taxation—that is, by granting the monarch’s request for extra subsidies to pay for wars. The crown invited all great nobles and church leaders to attend these councils. By the end of the 13th century representatives from the counties, called knights of the shire, and representatives of the towns, called burgesses, were also being summoned to attend regularly. The knights and the burgesses eventually came to sit separately from the nobles and church leaders, in what eventually became the House of Commons. The nobles and church leaders sat in what came to be called the House of Lords.
By the end of the Middle Ages Parliament had taken on a form that would be recognized today. It legislated and approved taxes and passed laws. Long, complicated struggles between the monarch and the two houses of Parliament resulted in the government gaining power, while the crown lost power. In the 20th century the House of Commons successfully struggled to curtail the power of the House of Lords. Today the House of Lords can only delay legislation. For the past 280 years the monarch’s royal assent to legislation has been given automatically. (For more information on the history of Parliament, see Parliament, British.)
Parliament is elected roughly every five years and is dissolved by the crown on the advice of the prime minister, who then calls a general election. Parliamentary sessions are held each year and begin in October or November. Parliament meets at the Houses of Parliament in London, officially called the New Palace of Westminster. The Parliament of the United Kingdom legislates for the entire nation and includes representatives from England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
The House of Lords today is more a place of discussion and debate than one of power, and it normally passes legislation already approved by the House of Commons. Its members are not elected. The House of Lords is made up of the lords temporal, the lords spiritual, and the law lords.
The lords temporal are either hereditary peers or life peers. The House of Lords long consisted primarily of hereditary peers, but the House of Lords Act passed by Parliament in 1999 abolished peers who inherit their position, with the exception of 90 interim members who will hold their power until the next stage of reform. These 90 members were chosen by committee in 2001. Today, the majority of members of the House of Lords—about 600—are life peers. Life peers are appointed by the monarch for the duration of the person’s lifetime. These appointments are usually made in recognition of outstanding careers or contributions to society. Famous people who have been made peers are former British prime ministers Winston Churchill and Harold Wilson. The lords spiritual include the archbishops of Canterbury and York; the bishops of London, Durham, and Winchester; and the 21 next most senior bishops. The law lords, or lords of appeal, assist in the judicial functions of the House of Lords.
The House of Lords has the power to introduce bills, although bills dealing with financial matters can only originate in the House of Commons. The Lords can also offer amendments to bills passed by the House of Commons, and Commons is obligated to consider these amendments before passing a bill into law. The Lords have the right to delay legislation, and may delay bills for up to about a year. Financial bills, however, may only be delayed for a month, and they become law in 30 days whether or not the House of Lords approves of them. The terms of the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 forbid the Lords from disapproving nonfinancial bills if the House of Commons has passed them in two successive sessions. The only exception is a bill to lengthen the life of a Parliament past five years, which requires the assent of both chambers.
These powers of the House of Lords are limited because most Britons believe that in a modern democracy a nonelected house should only act as a forum for opinion, one that is comparatively free from party politics and pressures. Although this house has relatively little power, many Britons would like to either abolish it completely or replace it with some form of elected second chamber.
The House of Commons is the source of real political power in the United Kingdom. Its members are democratically elected by universal suffrage of citizens over the age of 18. Certain groups that are denied the right to vote, however, include members of the House of Lords, some detained mental health patients, sentenced prisoners, and those convicted of corrupt or illegal election practices in the previous five years. In addition, certain persons are excluded from standing for election to the House of Commons. They include peers; clergy from the Church of England, the Church of Scotland, the Church of Ireland, or the Roman Catholic Church; people sentenced to more than a year in prison; and those with unpaid bankruptcy bills.
Members of the House of Commons are elected from geographical constituencies determined by population, and each MP generally represents a constituency of 60,000 to 70,000 people. Four permanent boundary commissions exist, one each for England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Their purpose is to keep the constituencies equal and the boundaries fair. The commissions review the constituencies every 8 to 12 years and recommend changes based on population shifts. Based on a review conducted in 1995, the elections of 1997 and 2001 were held for 659 constituencies in the United Kingdom: 529 in England, 72 in Scotland, 40 in Wales, and 18 in Northern Ireland. A subsequent review by the Boundary Commission for Scotland reduced the number of constituencies there to 59. Accordingly, the number of seats in the House of Commons was reduced to 646 as of the 2005 general elections.
British citizens living abroad may vote in British elections for up to 20 years after they have left Britain. Those temporarily living overseas as members of the military or other state service may vote in their home constituencies. In 1992 a record high of 78 percent of the electorate voted in the general election. In 1997 a reported 71 percent of the electorate voted. Voter turnout dropped to 59 percent in 2001 and then rose slightly in 2005 to 61 percent.
A session of Parliament lasts for five years unless the prime minister dissolves Parliament, which can happen for a number of reasons. Although the monarch officially dissolves Parliament, this happens only after the prime minister calls for it. The prime minister can dissolve Parliament over a major issue that he or she believes should be submitted to the voters. The prime minister also might dissolve Parliament if the tide of public opinion seems to be flowing strongly on the side of the party in office. Holding a general election when public opinion is highly supportive of the party in power enables that party to possibly gain more seats in the House of Commons, and so extend their stay in power with a stronger majority.
Parliament can also be dissolved if the government is defeated on an important piece of legislation. When a Parliamentary majority votes against the legislation it is treated as a vote of no confidence for the prime minister and his government. A specific vote by that name may be taken to indicate that the majority of MPs are against the legislation. This tradition is so deep that actual votes of no confidence are rarely taken. The government of Labour Prime Minister James Callaghan was dissolved in 1979 when a vote of no confidence was taken after union workers went on strike in reaction to the government’s attempt to limit wage increases. There had been no such vote of no confidence in Britain since 1924. When the prime minister dissolves Parliament, a general election is held for all the seats in the House of Commons.
The members of the majority party sit on one side of the house, directly facing the minority party members. Each side has a so-called front bench where its most important political leaders sit. The prime minister and his or her Cabinet colleagues sit in the majority party front bench. The opposition party front bench is occupied by what is called the Shadow Cabinet, which consists of the opposition party leader and those who would receive Cabinet posts if the opposition leader became prime minister. Debates in the House of Commons can be quite lively. C-SPAN television in America often broadcasts the raucous sessions when the prime minister answers questions from the house.
Most legislation is initiated by the Cabinet in the form of public bills, or legislation pertaining to the general law, which govern the population as a whole. Individual members of Parliament may introduce private bills to address specific or local concerns, such as the railways or local authorities. Ministers of departments initiate most of the public bills relating to their department; these kinds of public bills are called government bills. When a bill is passed into law, it then receives the royal assent. Much of the Cabinet’s work on legislation is accomplished in specialized committees, which debate and publish reports that help shape legislation.
Bills may be introduced into either the House of Commons or the House of Lords, except for financial bills, which may be introduced only in the House of Commons. Each bill is given three separate readings in each house. In the first reading, the bill is presented without debate. After the bill is read a second time, the house debates the bill’s general principles. The bill then goes to a committee for thorough study, discussion, and amendment. At the third reading, the bill is presented to the house in its final form and a vote is taken.
If the bill is passed on the third reading, it is sent to the other house, where it goes through the same procedure. If passed by the second house, the bill is sent to the monarch for the ceremonial formality of royal assent before becoming law. If amended by either house, the amendments must be resolved by both houses before the bill is sent to the monarch. The House of Lords can delay legislation for no more than one year (30 days for financial bills). A bill originating in the House of Lords can be tabled and not considered in the Commons, but a bill originating in the Commons will become law, even without the approval of the House of Lords, if it passes Commons again in the following year’s session.
Britain has a long judicial history. Its legal system has been emulated throughout the world and many of its key principles and rights are part of U.S. law. The principles derived from British law include the right to trial by jury; the right to due process of law; freedom from unlawful imprisonment, called the writ of habeas corpus; the trial system of prosecution and defense; and the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
The judicial system has its roots in the Anglo-Saxon period, when the monarch established local courts to provide justice for all subjects. Monarchs delegated the power to hear cases to royal justices, who presided over courts in the monarch’s name. The British legal system relies on common law, which is based on custom and on decisions in previous legal cases, called precedents. Common law originated in the 12th century, growing out of the rules and traditions that ordinary people had worked out over time. Through the centuries common law evolved as it incorporated legal decisions made in specific cases, and it remains the basis of British law except when superseded by legislation. Unlike the United States, Britain does not have a Supreme Court that reviews legislation to determine its constitutionality; that responsibility falls to Parliament.
Those who practice law in Britain are divided into solicitors and barristers. Solicitors perform the everyday work of the law, particularly legal matters that can be handled solely with paperwork. Barristers plead cases in court. In Scotland barristers are called advocates. Solicitors engage barristers when they believe a client needs to go to court. Eminent barristers and, since 1996, some solicitors, may become Queen’s Counselors, or QCs. When they do it is said that they “take silk,’ because they switch from wearing cotton gowns to silk gowns in court. Barristers with long and distinguished careers may be chosen to become crown judges by the lord chancellor, the head of the judicial system in England and Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own legal systems.
Britain has several layers of courts and two kinds of legal proceedings, criminal and civil. Criminal law is concerned with acts punishable by the state, such as murder. Civil law involves disputes between private parties, either individuals, organizations, or companies. The final court of appeal for both civil and criminal cases is the House of Lords, where appeals are heard by the law lords.
Criminal cases are handled in one of two ways. Petty offenses, such as simple theft or vandalism, are brought before a local magistrate, or justice of the peace (JP). These unpaid magistrates are appointed by the lord chancellor. They are members of the community who are assisted by legal experts. The vast majority of criminal cases in Britain are minor enough to be handled by JPs. More serious criminal offenses, such as murder, rape, and robbery, are sent to a Crown Court, where they are tried before a High Court or a circuit judge and a jury of local citizens. The Crown Court also hears appeals from the magistrate’s court. Convictions and sentences from the Crown Court may be taken to the Court of Appeals for the Criminal Division. The final court of appeals is the House of Lords.
Civil cases are heard in county courts before a single judge. County courts hear cases dealing with families, property, contracts, and torts (violations of a legal duty imposed by the state that cause injury to an individual). Above the county courts is the High Court, which hears more complicated civil cases. High Court cases are sent to one of three divisions: the Family Division, which handles complex divorce cases, adoptions, and matters relating to children; the Chancery Division, which handles business matters and estate cases; or the Queen’s Bench Division, which handles property matters and torts, as well as maritime and commercial cases. Appeals are heard by the Court of Appeals for the Civil Division, and ultimately by the House of Lords.
A more informal and less expensive alternative to civil and criminal courts is a tribunal, which handles minor cases outside of the official court system. Tribunals are made up of lay people and are regulated by the law. They settle disputes between private citizens, grievances between employers and employees, and complaints between citizens and public authorities.
British political parties date from the 17th century, when the Whig and the Tory parties appeared during the time of the Revolution of 1688 (see Glorious Revolution). Whigs believed in a strong Parliament and came from the landed classes who were allied with the merchants and Nonconformist or non-Anglican Protestants. Tory supporters came from the landed aristocracy and were defenders of the king and the Church of England. In the 1800s the Whigs merged with other parties interested in social reform to form the Liberal Party. The Tories took on the additional name of the Conservative Party in the 1830s in order to appeal to a broader electorate, and both names are used interchangeably. The Conservative Party is still a major party in the United Kingdom, but the Labour Party, founded around the turn of the 20th century, grew to become the primary opposition to the Conservatives, taking the place of the Liberals. The Liberal Party evolved into the Liberal Democrat Party, the third most popular party in Britain.
Since its founding days, the Labour Party has drawn traditional financial and electoral support from the trade unions. The Labour Party has a socialist element, supporting state control of important industries and a more equal distribution of wealth. After World War II (1939-1945), the Labour government nationalized a number of industries and established the welfare state, which provided people with social security, unemployment insurance, and the National Health Service. Subsequent Conservative governments denationalized industries but kept the National Health Service and the main provisions of the welfare state. In recent years, trade union membership has declined, as has union influence in the Labour Party. At the same time, the Labour Party has moved toward the political center; in 1995 it gave up its commitment to socialism and the nationalization of industries. The Labour Party won the May 1997 general elections by a landslide, taking 418 of the 659 seats in Parliament. Labor retained its majority-party status following the 2001 and 2005 general elections.
The Conservative Party favors private enterprise and minimal state regulation, and accepts the mixed economy, which involves private ownership of businesses with some government control. Although a mixed economy entails more public spending than conservatives in the United States would support, the British business community is a strong supporter of the Conservative Party because it has historically supported private enterprise and a free market. In the 1980s the Conservative government under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher sought to increase private enterprise and reduce public legislation by introducing more competition into the National Health Service and by selling off public housing. Thatcher’s domestic policies were highly controversial and eventually led to the downfall of the Conservative government in the mid-1990s. Subsequently, the Conservative Party became the largest opposition party in Parliament, as the Labour Party won three straight victories (in 1997, 2001, and 2005).
The most important of Britain’s minor parties is the Liberal Democrat Party, formed in 1988 from the remnants of the Liberal Party and a majority of the Social Democratic Party. The Liberal Democrats make up the third largest party in Parliament, after Labor and the Conservatives. Other parties include the Scottish Nationalist Party; Plaid Cymru, the Welsh nationalist party that seeks self-government for Wales; and parties in Northern Ireland—Sinn Fein, the Ulster Unionist Party, the Democratic Unionist Party, and the Social Democratic and Labour Party.
The current voting system is called “first past the post.” This means that the party and candidates receiving the most votes win the election and become the party in power even if they do not receive more than 50 percent of the vote. Under this system, smaller parties have proportionally less representation in Parliament than their share of the popular vote, as their candidates often do not garner enough votes in constituencies to send members to Parliament. As a result, some people support a system of proportional representation, which is used in a number of European countries. In such a system, which can take various forms, the number of seats a party receives in the legislature is proportional to the number of votes the party receives in the election. Critics of proportional representation assert that it produces too many political parties and leads to weak governments. A commission was set up in 1997 to review voting reform and consider switching to proportional representation.







Government of France

Form of government
                          Presidential republic
Head of state
                          President
Head of government

                          Prime minister (premier)
Legislature
                         Bicameral legislature:
                         National Assembly, 577 deputies
                         Senate, 321 senators
Voting qualifications
                         Universal at age 18
Constitution
                         28 September 1958; amended in 1962, 1992, 1993, and                               2000
Highest court
                         Court of Cassation
France is a presidential republic with a centralized national government. France’s current system of government, known as the Fifth Republic, is based on a constitution that was adopted by popular referendum in 1958. This constitution significantly enlarged presidential powers and curtailed the authority of parliament. The president, elected by direct popular vote, is head of state. This official appoints the prime minister, who is head of government. The French parliament consists of two chambers: the National Assembly and the Senate. The National Assembly is more powerful than the Senate, although both chambers share legislative authority. The Constitutional Council, established by the 1958 constitution, has authority to supervise elections and referenda and to decide constitutional questions.
Until the French Revolution of 1789, France was a monarchy, governed by famous kings such as Henry IV and Louis XIV. The revolution abolished the monarchy but failed to establish a durable democracy. Power fell to Napoleon Bonaparte, and he eventually created an empire. Upon Bonaparte’s military defeat in 1815, the countries arrayed against him restored the French monarchy. The revolution of 1848 abolished the monarchy once again, and in 1852 Napoleon III, the nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte, established a new empire. This regime crumbled in 1870 when Napoleon III was taken prisoner by Germany during the Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871).
Democracy returned to France under the Third Republic, a system of government formally established by the constitution of 1875. A president, elected by a two-chambered parliament, replaced the emperor, and a cabinet responsible to the parliament exercised legislative powers. Governing during the Third Republic often proved challenging: Parliamentary coalitions shifted continually between elections, and cabinets fell frequently. The Third Republic survived until 1940, when German troops occupied France during World War II and an authoritarian collaborationist regime was established at Vichy.
In 1946, after the war ended, French voters approved the constitution of the Fourth Republic. The new constitution included several revisions intended to ensure a stable government, but it did not resolve the nation’s recurrent cabinet crises. France had 26 different governments during the Fourth Republic’s 12-year existence. In 1958 an insurrection in Algeria, then under French control, created fear of a coup d'état in France itself. General Charles de Gaulle, a French resistance leader during World War II, was invited to form a new government and draft a new constitution. De Gaulle favored a presidential system with a strong, stable executive at the center of power. His constitution was overwhelmingly approved by popular referendum and established the legal basis of the Fifth Republic. De Gaulle took office as the first president of the Fifth Republic.
The constitution of the Fifth Republic took effect on October 4, 1958. It created a hybrid form of republican government based on elements of both presidential and parliamentary systems. The constitution trimmed the authority of parliament and vested the president with crucial powers, including the right to dissolve the National Assembly and to choose the prime minister. Yet the prime minister retained significant authority as head of the Council of Ministers (commonly called the government) and leader of the majority party or coalition of parties in the National Assembly.
According to the constitution, national sovereignty belongs to the people. Under the principle of universal suffrage, the constitution gives the people the right to exercise their political will in periodic elections and referenda. All French citizens who have reached the age of voting eligibility, and who have not been deprived of their civil rights, are entitled to vote. Citizens can be deprived of civil rights temporarily, or permanently, if they are convicted of certain crimes. Women gained the right to vote in 1944. The Fifth Republic’s age of voting eligibility, initially set at 21, was lowered to 18 in 1974.
As a requirement of its membership in the European Union (EU), the French parliament approved a constitutional amendment allowing citizens of EU member countries who are residents in France to vote in elections for seats on France’s municipal councils. The same group may also vote to fill France’s seats in the European Parliament, the representative assembly of the EU. Citizens of any EU country can be elected to a French municipal council or to a French seat in the European Parliament, but they may not serve as mayors or as assistant mayors.
Constitutional amendments may be proposed by the president, at the request of the government, or by the members of parliament. Amendments are adopted after they win approval by both chambers of parliament and by a subsequent popular referendum, or merely by approval of three-fifths of parliament.
The constitution gives executive authority to both the president and prime minister. The former is head of state; the latter, as leader of the Council of Ministers, is head of government. Under Charles de Gaulle’s leadership, the powers of the presidency completely overshadowed those of the government. The system forged by de Gaulle remains largely in place, although the government has gradually gained responsibility for a range of national policies, especially in the domestic sphere. Under a precedent set by de Gaulle, all presidents since 1958 have taken primary responsibility for foreign policy and for national defense.
The president of France is the official head of state and commander in chief of the armed forces. The president appoints the prime minister and Council of Ministers and presides over council meetings. One of the president’s most important powers is the right to dissolve the National Assembly and call new legislative elections. Article 16 of the constitution permits the president to assume special emergency powers during a national crisis. In doing so the president must consult the Constitutional Council and may not dissolve the National Assembly or prevent it from meeting. The president is also authorized to take certain policy matters to the people in national referenda, such as the referendum authorizing ratification of the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, also known as the Treaty on European Union.
The president is elected by direct popular vote for a term of five years. The president’s term of office was originally seven years, as established in the 1958 constitution, but voters approved a referendum in September 2000 to reduce the term of office to five years. The shorter term took effect with the presidential election in 2002. The constitutional revision was the most significant since 1962, when a referendum backed by de Gaulle established direct election of the president by popular vote. (Before 1962, presidents were elected by an electoral college of government bodies.) There is no limit to the number of terms a president can serve.
In general, the president works with the government to define policy goals and seeks to achieve these goals with the help of a parliamentary majority. The government is primarily responsible to parliament, which can check the actions of the government in several ways. Members of parliament can submit written and oral questions to the government and organize investigative committees. When the National Assembly adopts a motion of censure, or when the assembly refuses to approve the prime minister’s program, the prime minister must tender the government’s resignation to the president.
Presidential power is tied to the president’s support in the parliament. When the president has the strong support of a parliamentary majority, the prime minister tends to serve as a deputy of the president. When the president’s party is in the parliamentary minority, however, the president still appoints a prime minister from a party in the majority coalition. In this power-sharing arrangement, known as cohabitation, the prime minister and president may disagree about policy goals and work to limit each other’s influence. The first episode of cohabitation occurred from 1986 to 1988 under Socialist president François Mitterrand, after the Socialist Party lost its majority in the National Assembly. In 1997 President Jacques Chirac lost his conservative majority in the National Assembly, leading to a period of cohabitation with Socialist prime minister Lionel Jospin.
D.
The Legislature
The French parliament is divided into two houses, the National Assembly and the Senate. As the legislative branch of government, parliament is engaged primarily in the debate and adoption of laws. Legislation relating to government revenues and expenditures is especially important. The other principal duty of parliament is to oversee the government’s exercise of executive authority, although this oversight capacity was restricted somewhat by the 1958 constitution.
The 577 members of the National Assembly are directly elected for five-year terms. Candidates for the National Assembly are elected by majority vote in single-member electoral districts. Runoff elections are required if no candidate receives more than 50 percent of the vote. Candidates who win at least 12.5 percent of the first round vote are eligible to run in second round.
The 321 members of the Senate are elected indirectly by an electoral college. A law approved in July 2003 introduced a number of reforms in senatorial elections. The law specified that senators would henceforth be elected to six-year terms, with one-half of the Senate elected every three years. Previously, senators were elected for nine-year terms with one-third of the Senate elected every three years. In addition, the law increased the number of Senate seats from 321 to 346, to take effect in 2010.
In principle, the National Assembly and the Senate share equal legislative power. In practice, however, legislative authority is tilted to the National Assembly, since the Senate may delay, but not prevent, the passage of legislation. If the two chambers disagree on a bill, final decision rests with the National Assembly, which may either accept the Senate’s version or, after a specified period, readopt its own. The Economic and Social Council acts in an advisory capacity on economic and budgetary matters to the National Assembly and the government. It consists of representatives from groups of workers and employers and from professional and cultural organizations.
The constitution of the Fifth Republic introduced two distinctive measures intended to streamline the legislative process. The first measure granted the government the authority to demand an up-or-down vote on an entire bill or any portion of a bill, in either chamber. This reduces the opportunity for members of parliament to propose endless amendments to bills they oppose. The second measure authorizes the government to win adoption of a bill in the National Assembly without an actual vote. To do so, the government announces that it considers rejection of the bill to be tantamount to a vote of no confidence in the government. If opponents of the bill fail to submit and win a majority vote on a motion of no confidence, the bill is adopted.
Laws must be promulgated by the French president to take effect. The president may ask parliament to reconsider a law or any of its articles, and parliament must honor the request. The president may also request the Constitutional Council to rule on the law’s constitutionality. In such cases the law may not be implemented until the court has rendered its judgment. Prior to the Fifth Republic, laws adopted by parliament were not subject to judicial review.
The parliamentary year was traditionally restricted to two separate sessions that ran from October to December and from April to June. In 1995 the constitution was amended to provide a nine-month parliamentary session to run continuously from October to June. In addition, the constitution permits the National Assembly to censure the government in a motion passed by an absolute majority of assembly members. Sponsors of failed motions of censure are barred from introducing similar motions during the same session.
E.
The Judiciary
Prior to the French Revolution in 1789, judges in France exercised significant legislative and administrative powers. The revolution stripped judges of much of their power and independence. An extensive collection of laws drafted under the direction of Napoleon Bonaparte, known as the Code Napoléon, affirmed the importance of limiting judicial power. The code, based largely on Roman, or civil, law, directs judges to apply legal rules passed by legislative bodies to specific cases. This civil law tradition contrasts with the English common law tradition in which judges rely on precedents—customs and decisions in previous cases—to resolve cases. The succeeding French republics maintained the ideal of a subordinate judiciary with little independent authority.
The judiciary regained some of its independence and power under the constitution of 1958. The constitution established a new body, the nine-member Constitutional Council. The council is authorized to rule on the constitutional validity of national elections, referenda, legislation, and parliamentary procedures. Members of the council are appointed for staggered, nonrenewable, nine-year terms; the president, National Assembly, and Senate each appoint three members. All former presidents also have seats on the council.
The French judiciary has two main branches. One branch of courts hears administrative cases (cases involving disputes over government regulations); another branch hears civil and criminal cases. Jurisdictional disputes between the two judicial branches are resolved by the eight-member Tribunal of Conflicts. Sitting judges in the criminal, civil, and administrative courts cannot be reassigned or terminated without cause by the executive or legislative branches of government.
Most cases involving administrative law are heard initially by administrative tribunals. Decisions in these tribunals may, upon appeal, work their way up through a hierarchy of appellate courts. At the apex of this system is the Council of State, a tribunal founded by Napoleon Bonaparte. The Council of State has final appellate jurisdiction in administrative law and advises the government on the legality of decrees, regulations, and rulings issued by the executive.
Minor offenses, such as traffic violations, are usually heard first by a police tribunal. Other criminal cases, except felonies, are heard first by correctional courts. Felonies are heard by courts of assizes. Only the latter employs a jury. Most civil cases are heard first either by a Tribunal of Instance or by a Tribunal of Great Instance, depending on the amount of money at stake. The Court of Cassation has final appellate jurisdiction in all matters of criminal and civil law.
Several specialized courts exist to try crimes of a political nature, should they arise. Cases alleging high treason by the president of the republic are heard in the High Court of Justice, comprising 24 members of parliament. Cases alleging professional misconduct by members of the government are heard by the Court of Justice of the Republic.
Political factions have long competed for power in France. The origins of organized political parties in France can be traced back to the Third Republic. Today French parties span the full political spectrum, from far left to far right. During the Third and Fourth republics, numerous poorly organized political parties competed for power. Individual parties rarely succeeded in winning a parliamentary majority, and coalitions of parties were needed to form governments. Political alliances shifted continually, leading to weak, unstable governments.
The introduction of a strong presidential system during the Fifth Republic greatly reduced the number of political parties. Many parties merged or joined coalitions with other groups to enhance their political influence. Since the election of Charles de Gaulle, the Fifth Republic’s first president, most political parties have served mainly as organizations to mobilize support for particular presidential candidates. As the identities of the candidates change from one election to the next, so the parties change their names and alter their platforms. Party politics in the Fifth Republic are more stable and coherent than they were under earlier republics. Compared with political parties in other Western democracies, however, most French parties remain weakly organized with small, often passive, memberships.
There are several important political parties and coalitions in France. On the right is the Union for a Popular Movement (UMP), a coalition initially named the Union for the Presidential Majority, which had formed in 2002 to promote the reelection of President Jacques Chirac. The UMP was created by the merger of the Rally for the Republic (RPR) and by a bloc of leaders from the Union for French Democracy (UDF). Founded by Chirac in 1976, the RPR espoused a modern form of Gaullism, a political philosophy that, among other things, championed a strong national government and an aggressive foreign policy. The Union for French Democracy (UDF) was originally closely tied to former French president Valéry Giscard d’Estaing. The UDF, which continues as an independent political force, supports European integration and free-market policies. On the extreme right is the National Front (FN), led by Jean-Marie Le Pen, and the National Republican Movement (MNR), founded by Le Pen’s former deputy, Bruno Mégret. The FN and MNR espouse nationalist, anti-immigrant platforms.
On the left of the political spectrum is the Socialist Party, founded in the early 20th century and reformed by François Mitterrand. Under the leadership of Mitterrand, who held the presidency from 1981 to 1995, the Socialist Party pursued a moderate socialist program and promoted closer economic and political cooperation within the European Union (EU). The French Communist Party, once a powerful political bloc, has seen its share of the vote decline steadily in recent decades. In the 1950s and 1960s the French Communists typically won 25 percent of the vote in national elections; today the party receives less than 10 percent of the vote. Environmentalist parties, including the Green Party, have grown in importance, capturing about 5 percent of the vote in the 2002 elections to the National Assembly.
The French electoral system influences the behavior of political parties in legislative races. A candidate for a seat in the National Assembly must compete in two rounds of voting, unless the candidate claims more than 50 percent of the vote in the first round. Typically, the two leading candidates who meet in the second round represent parties on the left and right. Other parties on the left and right often withdraw their candidates from the second round to improve the chances of candidates on their side of the political divide. Agreements between parties often specify in advance which party will withdraw in favor of the other. Sometimes, such agreements between parties are concluded even before the first round of voting. These agreements can promote electoral alliances, and sometimes even shared platforms among parties.


  • Government of India


Form of government
                        Federal republic
Head of state
                        President
Head of government
                        Prime minister
Legislature
BICAMERAL                                                                                                                                                                 
                          
                          Lok Sabha (House of the People), 545 members
 Rajya Sabha (Council of States), 245 members
Voting qualifications
                         Universal at age 18
Constitution
                        26 January 1950; amended 1975, 1986, 1992, 2000, 2002
Highest court
                        Supreme Court

The Republic of India is a federal republic, governed under a constitution and incorporating various features of the constitutional systems of the United Kingdom. The power of the government is separated into three branches: executive, parliament, and a judiciary headed by a Supreme Court. India is a union of states, but its federalism is slightly different. The central government has power over the states, including the power to redraw state boundaries, but the states, many of which have large populations sharing a common language, culture, and history, have an identity that is in some ways more significant than that of the country as a whole.India’s constitution went into effect in 1950, providing civil liberties protected by a set of fundamental rights. These include not only rights to free speech, assembly, association, and the exercise of religion—echoing the United States Bill of Rights—but also rights such as that of citizens to conserve their culture and language and to establish schools to aid this endeavor. The constitution also lists principles of national policy, such as the duty of the government to secure equal pay for men and women, provision of free legal aid, and protection and improvement of the environment. India has universal voting rights for adults beginning at age 18.
The Indian parliament has amended the constitution many times since 1950. Most of these amendments were minor, but others were of major significance: For example, the 7th amendment (1956) provided for a major reorganization of the boundaries of the states, and the 73rd and 74th amendments (1993) gave constitutional permanence to units of local self-government (village and city councils).
EXECUTIVE: The head of state of India is the president. The role of president, modeled on the British constitutional monarch, is largely nominal and ceremonial. Most powers assigned to the president are exercised under direction of the cabinet. The president’s major political responsibility is to select the prime minister, although that choice is circumscribed by a constantly evolving set of conventions (for example, that the leader of the party with the largest number of seats in parliament should be given the first opportunity to form a government).
The president is elected for a five-year term by an electoral college consisting of the elected members of the national and state legislatures. The president is eligible for successive terms. The vice president is elected in the same manner as the president and assumes the role of the president if the president is incapacitated or otherwise unable to perform his or her duties.

A council of ministers, or cabinet, is headed by a prime minister and wields executive power at the national level. The council, which is responsible to parliament, is selected by the president upon the advice of the prime minister. Each council member heads an administrative department of the central government. In most important respects, the Indian cabinet system is identical to that of Britain. There is a constitutionally fixed division of responsibilities between national and state governments, so that the national government has exclusive powers over areas such as foreign affairs, while the states are responsible for health-care systems and agricultural development, among other areas. Some areas are the joint responsibility of both the national and state governments, such as education.
The actual administration is carried out by a many-tiered civil service, almost all of whom are recruited by a competitive, merit-based examination. At the top is the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), whose senior members serve as the administrative heads of departments, responsible only to their minister. All members of this service are assigned to particular states and spend most of their early career serving in those states. They typically start as district-level administrators and rapidly move to head state-level departments. Additional central government civil services include the Indian Foreign Service, the Indian Police Service, and services for audits and accounts, posts and telegraphs, customs and excise, and railroads.
LEGISLATURE: The constitution vests national legislative power in a parliament of two houses: the Lok Sabha (House of the People), the lower house, and the Rajya Sabha (Council of States), the upper house. The Lok Sabha consists of 545 members directly elected by universal adult suffrage, except for two members who are appointed by the president to represent the Anglo-Indian community. The number of seats allocated to each state and union territory is proportional to its population. The term of the Lok Sabha is limited to five years, but the president may dissolve the house upon the advice of the prime minister, or upon defeat of major legislation proposed by the government. A provision of the constitution that was intended to expire after ten years, but which has been consistently extended, allocates reserved seats to the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in proportion to their share of the population.
Members of the Rajya Sabha are elected by the members of the state legislative assemblies, except for 12 presidential appointees who have special knowledge or practical experience in literature, the arts, science, or social services. The elected members are chosen by a system of proportional representation for a six-year term; one-third of the Rajya Sabha is chosen every two years. A two-thirds majority is required for some constitutional amendments to pass; some amendments also require ratification by one-half of the states.
Judicial authority in India is exercised through a system of national courts administering the laws of the republic and the states. All senior judges are appointees of the executive branch of the government, with their independence guaranteed by a variety of safeguards. Noteworthy among these safeguards is a provision requiring a two-thirds vote of parliament to remove a judge from office. The highest court is the Supreme Court; all Supreme Court judges serve until a retirement age of 65. The top court at the state level is called the High Court; members of the Supreme Court are selected from among justices of the High Courts. Judges of the High Courts are in turn selected from subordinate courts operating at the district level. Important judicial posts at the district level are filled by members of the administrative service.

Political parties play an important role in India’s democracy. For many years a centrist national party known as the Congress Party was the most powerful political party in India. Established in 1885 as the Indian National Congress, it led India in the struggle for independence. Its members have included influential figures such as Mohandas Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru. With few exceptions, the Congress Party provided the country’s prime ministers until the mid-1990s. The Congress, also known after 1977 as the Congress (I) Party, significantly declined in popular support in the 1990s due to allegations of corruption.
A Hindu nationalist party, the Bharatiya Janata (Indian People’s) Party (BJP), became the largest single party in the Lok Sabha in 1996 and retained that position in the 1998 and 1999 elections. Unable to win an outright majority, it led a multiparty coalition called the National Democratic Alliance. The BJP found its base of support in the growing Hindu middle class. It continued policies of economic liberalization that had been initiated by the Congress Party. The reforms led to rapid and sustained economic growth, but much of India’s population remained in poverty. In the 2004 elections, the BJP lost control of the Lok Sabha to the Congress Party, which had campaigned on a platform that appealed to India’s rural poor.
Other important parties in India include the Janata Dal (People’s Party), a secular, socialist party appealing to lower caste and Muslim voters. The Janata Dal was a key member of the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance. The Janata Dal and the BJP are the primary successors to the Janata (People’s) Party, which was a coalition of opposition parties that formed in 1977 and defeated the Congress Party in that year’s elections. The coalition’s victory represented the first change in the ruling party of the national government after India gained independence. However, the coalition fractured in 1979 and its government collapsed, leading to the return to power of the Congress Party in 1980.
The far left of the political spectrum is dominated by the Communist Party of India (Marxist), which draws support from urban and rural laborers, and the more moderate Communist Party of India. Both parties have been significant participants in coalition politics.
Regional parties are of major importance in many states, including Tamil Nādu, Andhra Pradesh, Punjab, and several smaller states, particularly in the northeast. These regional parties deliberately focus on support of particular people of a particular state and thus have no ambition of extending their reach to other states. They elect a significant number of members of parliament, and many have been included in coalition governments by forming alliances with larger parties.


How to cite this article:
Adams, William James, Jordan–Bychkov, Terry G., and Kaiser, Thomas E. "Britain, France, India" Microsoft® Encarta® 2009 [DVD]. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Corporation, 2008.
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Wednesday, October 29, 2014

OIL BOOM YEARS: Nigerian History

OIL BOOM ERA (1971-77) Today:Wednesday, October 29, 2014


Email This Page
Print This Page




In 1971, the share of agriculture to GDP stood at 48.23 per cent. By 1977, it had declined to almost 21 per cent. Agricultural exports, as a percentage of total exports, which was 20.7 per cent in 1971, reduced to 5.71 percent in 1977. The discovery of oil in commercial quantity in the mid-1950s, coupled with the oil-boom resulting from the Arab oil embar go on the USA in 1973, affected the agricultural sector adversely. The economy became heavily dependent on oil. By this time, oil revenue repre sented almost 90 per cent of foreign exchange earnings and about 85 per cent of total exports. While the boom afforded the government much needed revenue, it also created serious structural problems in the economy.
The agricultural sector was most hit. Rural urban migration increased, as people attempted to reap or benefit from the windfall from oil. Produc tion of agricultural commodities for export declined. Food production became a problem. Starting from 1974, the economy became a net importer of basic foods. Huge foreign exchange earnings were utilised in importing food. Nonetheless, prices of foodstuff remained high. Policies like the govern ment's Operation Feed the Nation (OFN) pro gramme could not reverse the deteriorating food situation. Government was involved in direct food production, provided subsidies to peasant farmers and created more commodity boards for various agricultural and food products. The growth rate of GDP was quite high, such that a growth rate of 10.5 per cent in 1976 was considered unimpressive. Government expenditure fuelled the inflation rate. Between 1975 and 1976, the rate of inflation reached 23 per cent. It reduced to 16 per cent in 1976 and 1977. For the same periods, unemploy ment rate was 4.3 per cent and 2 per cent respec tively. The discomfort index in 1976 stood at 27.3 per cent.
The neo-Keynesian type management of the economy was glaring during this period. Policy makers advised the government not only to embark on ownership and control of the commanding heights of the economy like the petroleum and min ing sectors, but also to be directly involved in bank ing, insurance, clearing and forwarding, among oth ers. With the promulgation of the Nigerian Enterpri ses Promotion Decree in 1972, Government became directly involved in virtually all aspects of the econ omy, especially as foreign exchange was thought to be no longer a constraint to development.
This era had its problems. Primitive accumulation intensified. Corruption, theft, real estate specu lation, outright looting' of government treasury and other fraudulent practices prevailed. The State, on its own, intensified the creation of a business class that depended solely on government contracts rather than on production. The gap between the rich and the poor widened considerably. Ad-hoc and ill-conceived government policies exacerbated the problem. For example, the 100 per cent salary increase of 1975, tagged the Udoii Salary Award, was disastrous tor the economy as prices increased by more than 100 per cent. The payment of a year's arrears of the increase in salary, further worsened the situation.
The exchange rate regime encouraged imports. The economy was heavily dependent on imports; almost everything was imported, from toothpicks to toothpaste dispensers. There was no serious attempt to invest the windfall from oil in viable proj ects. Except for the huge expenditures on educa tion and construction of dual carriage highways in some parts of the country, Nigeria would have had nothing to show from the oil boom era. The industrial sector also depended on import ed inputs, machinery and raw materials. Hence, the so-called manufacturing and mining industries (using 1972 as the base year), which indicate remarkable increases, appear misleading. The manufacturing sector increased by 82.2 per cent between 1972 and 1976 and by almost 94 per cent between 1972 and 1977.
The increases must be interpreted with caution, if industrialisation is seen to imply the process of developing the capacity of that country to master and locate, within its borders, the whole industrial production process, namely production of raw materi als, production of intermediate products for other industries; fabrication of the machines and tools required for the man ufacture of the desired products and of other machines and tools, skills to man age factories and to organise production processes. Declining oil revenues, disequilibrium in the balance of payments, growing unemployment, increasing rate of inflation and political instability, all confirmed that demand-induced policies were no longer effective. By 1978, a country which had thought that foreign exchange was not a constraint on development went borrowing on the Euro-dollar market.
Despite the oil boom, the private sector remained weak. The existing macroeconomic poli cies continued to encourage consumption rather than production. The economy was consuming what she was not producing. The austerity measures introduced by the mili tary administration under General Olusegun Obasanjo were short-lived because structural prob lems were not addressed. GDP, which grew at 10.5 per cent in 1976 declined by 5.7 per cent in 1978 and grew by only 5.9 per cent in 1979. Conse quently, the economy entered the recessionary phase, requiring further stabilisation measures to reverse the gloomy situation.



Read more: http://www.onlinenigeria.com/economics/?blurb=490#ixzz3HWXqFDAg

THE HISTORY:CAUSES AND POST CONFLICT RECONSTRUCTION EFFORTS OF THE NIGERIAN CIVIL WAR


THE HISTORY, CAUSES AND POST CONFLICT RECONSTRUCTION EFFORTS OF THE NIGERIAN CIVIL WAR

ABSTRACT
This study unearths the causes of the Nigerian civil war, the course and the post-conflict reconstruction efforts of the Nigerian government.  The conflict partly caused by the 1966 coup d’état, the Aguiyi agreement/commission and a host of other minor causes.

There are many studies that have been done in the area of Nigerian civil war but this particular study will dwell on the causes, courses, post-conflict reconstruction efforts.

This study will make use of secondary sources. Books, journals, internet sources will be extensively used.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
The Nigeria civil war can be regarded as a war that was fought out of necessity because the factors and causes that led to the war was sowed in the political structures and institutions in colonial times and also in emergence of the nation called Nigeria.  It carried along with it the seed.  According to Madiebo (1980, pg 3-14) “On the seed of destruction the federation of Nigeria  has never really been one homogeneous country due to the divergence of the people in terms of culture, ethnicity, religion, historical and political antecedent”. Despite these obvious facts that exist, the former colonial masters for selfish economic interest decided to forcefully amalgamate the various ethnic groups together in 1914 and for administrative convenience decided to adopt a policy of divide and rule between the various regions.

It is worthy of note that it was in this pattern of rule that Nigeria’s political institution developed which was to have a bearing effect later after independence which eventually led to the civil war.  The growth of nationalism in the society and subsequent emergence of political parties were based on ethnic/tribal rather than national interest, and therefore had no unifying effect on the people against the colonial master, Abubakar, (1992). Rather than being the victim (colonial master), it was the people themselves who were the victim of the political struggles which were supposed to be directed at removing foreign dominance.  Soon after independence the battle to consolidate political and military power and dominance by one section of the country became very intense among the ethnic group. This led to the January coup of 1966 and the counter coup that followed and eventually a bloody civil war.

The devastating effect of the war was of high impact on the populace as an estimated 1 million people died and equally the refugees’ crisis that followed with infrastructural damage cannot be quantified. The major impact was felt in the eastern of Nigeria which tried to break away to form the Republic of Biafra under a leader called Odumegwu Ojukwu. With the fall of Biafra to Federal troops and the surrendering of her troops, the next phase was a post-war peace building effort to reconcile, rehabilitate and reconstruct as a result of the declaration of the Federal Government of “no victor, no vanquished”.

BACKGROUND HISTORY OF NIGERIA BEFORE THE WAR
The land mass known today as Nigeria existed as a number of independent and sometimes hostile national states with linguistic and cultural differences until 1900. The Governor General of Nigeria between 1920-31, Sir Hugh Clifford, described Nigeria as “a collection of independent Native States, separated from one another by great distances, by differences of history and traditions and by ethnological, racial, tribal, political, social and religious barriers." (Nigeria Council Debate, Lagos,1920). The building of Nigeria as a multi - national state began in 1900 with the creation of Northern and Southern Protectorates along with the colony of Lagos by the British government. Further effort at unification and integration was made in May 1906 when the colony of Lagos and the Protectorate of Southern Nigeria, which had existed separately, were amalgamated to become the Colony and Protectorate of Southern Nigeria.

Even then the Northern and the Southern Administration were separate and distinct. Both were independent of one another and each was directly responsible to the Colonial Office. The first momentous act of the British in the political evolution of Nigeria as a modern state was the amalgamation of the administration of the two sections of Nigeria on 1 January 1914 by Lord Lugard. For ease of governing and in the economic interest of the British, indirect rule and separate development policy were maintained in the two sections of the country, with the amalgamated administration based in Lagos. This, in effect produced two Nigeria, each with different social, political, economic, and cultural backgrounds and development within the country.  
No further constitutional development took place until 1922. The 1922 constitution made provision, for the first time, for elected members to sit on a Nigerian legislative council, but did not empower them to make laws for the North. Nigeria was divided into four administrative units in 1940; the colony of Lagos, the Northern, Eastern and Western provinces. This administrative division, with increased power for the colony and the provinces, was not only maintained but separateness was also strengthened and deepened by Sir Arthur Richardson's constitution of 1946 which inaugurated Nigeria's regionalism. It however achieved a half - hearted political breakthrough by integrating the North with the South at the legislative level for the first time.

The post Second World War political awareness and upsurge of nationalism in Africa brought about the Richardson's constitution of 1950.  Political parties were formed on regional and ethnic basis. The outcome of this was obvious: full scale regionalism. With the Macpherson's constitution of 1951, a greater measure of autonomy was granted the regions with stronger regional legislatures. With only residual powers left to the central government, Nigeria politically took a turn for the worse, and there was a possibility of three countries emerging out of Nigeria.

In 1953, the central cabinet was split over the acceptance of a target date for securing self - government with the end result of the Kano riot.  The gap between the regions widened.  For the first time the North talked openly of the possibility of secession rather than endure what they saw as humiliation and ill - treatment. The West also threatened to secede over the non - inclusion of Lagos in the West in the new constitution.  The 1954 constitution confirmed and formalized the wishes of Nigerian leaders to move and remain as far apart as they possibly could.  The choice between Unitary and Federal options in the form of government had been irrevocably made.  The leaders settled for Federal option.  Thereafter things happened fast in the political arena.  There were constitutional conferences in 1957, 1958, and 1959 and in 1960 culminating in the granting of independence to Nigeria on October 1, 1960.

It should be noted that from 1954 onwards, the political direction was constantly away from a strong center towards a formidable, almost insulation of the regional base of each major political party.  The failure of the Willink commission to recommend the creation of more states in 1958 for the Nigerian type of federalism planted the most potent seed of instability into the evolution of Nigeria as a nation in the 1950s.  All the political leaders who had strong and firm political bases in the regions fought hard for maximum powers for the regions which weakened the center.  At the same time, the ugly embers of tribalism and sectionalism had been fanned into a deadly flame by all the political leaders.  These leaders rode on the crest of this cancerous tribalism and ignorance of the people to power, at the expense of national unity and the nation.

Instead of regionalism ensuring and preserving national unity, it became its bane. There was diffusion instead of fusion of the three units.  According to Gen. Obasanjo:  "The only point on which Nigerian political leaders spoke with one voice was the granting by the British of political independence - and even then they did not agree on the timing."  (1980:3). With the granting of independence in 1960 all the dirt that have been swept under the carpet surfaced. Nigeria was now beset by strings of political problems which stemmed from the lop-sided nature of the political divisions of the country, the type of the existing federal constitution, and the spirit in which it operated.   
The first post independence disturbance was over the defense agreement between Great Britain and Nigeria, which was seen as "an attempt (by Britain) to swindle Nigeria out of her sovereignty", by contracting with Nigeria to offer each other such assistance as may be necessary for mutual defense and to consult together on measures to be taken jointly or separately to ensure the fullest cooperation between them for this purpose.  It was viewed as an unequal treaty. Through student demonstrations and vehement opposition by the general public and members of the Federal House of Representatives, the agreement was abrogated in December 1962.

This episode was nothing compared with later developments in the country's turbulent political history.  The general census conducted in 1962 was alleged to be riddled with malpractices and inflation of figures of such astronomical proportions that the Eastern Region refused to accept the result. A second census was carried out in 1963, and even then the figures were accepted with some reservations. Meanwhile the people of the Middle Belt area of the North had grown increasingly intolerant of the NPC rule of the North.  The Tiv, one of the major tribes in the Middle Belt, openly rioted for almost three years (1962 - 1965).  Then came the biggest crisis of them all - the general election of 1964.  The election was alleged to be neither free nor fair. All devices imaginable were said to have been used by the ruling parties in the regions to eliminate opponents.

The Chairman of the Electoral Commission himself admitted there were proven irregularities.  The President, Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe refused to appoint a Prime Minister in the light of these allegations.  The President and the incumbent Prime Minister, Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, were each seeking the support of the Armed Forces.  This marked the first involvement of the Armed Forces in partisan politics. For four anxious days, the nation waited until the President announced that he had appointed the incumbent Prime Minister, Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, to form a broad based government.  The same could not be said of the Western Region election of 1965.  The rigging and irregularities in the election were alleged to be more brazen and more shameful.  Law and order broke down completely leading to an almost complete state of anarchy.  Arson and indiscriminate killings were committed by a private army of thugs of political parties.  Law abiding citizens lived in constant fear of their lives and properties.  

This was the state of affairs when the coup of 15 January 1966 took place.   "As an immediate cause, it might be claimed that the explosion of that day could be traced back along the powder trail to the fuse lit at the time of the Western Region election of October 1965."(Obasanjo 1980). The aim of the coup was to establish a strong, unified and prosperous nation, free from corruption and internal strife. The outcome of the half-hearted and ill-fated coup was a change of political balance in the country. Major Nzeogwu’s (the leader of the coup) aim for the coup was not borne out of its method, style and results. All the politicians and senior military officers killed were from the North and Western Region except a political leader and a senior Army officer from the Mid - West and the East respectively.

The coup hastened the collapse of Nigeria. From independence to January 1966, the country had been in a serious turmoil; but the coup put her in an even greater situation. Most of the coup planners were of Eastern origin, thus the Northerners in particular saw it as a deliberate plan to eliminate the political heavy weights in the North in order to pave way for the Easterners to take over the leadership role from them.  The sky high praises of the coup and apparent relief given by it in the south came to a sudden end when the succeeding Military Government of Maj. Gen. J.T.U. Aguiyi Ironsi, an Easterner, unfolded its plans.  If Ironsi had displayed a greater sensitivity to the thinking of the Northerners, he could have capitalized on the relief that immediately followed the coup.

But in addition to his failure to take advantage of the initial favorable reaction to the coup, he did not know what to do with the ring leaders who had been arrested. He did not know whether to treat them as heroes of the revolution or send them before a court martial as mutineers and murderers.  Military Governors were appointed to oversee the administration of the regions.  In the North the numbed favorable reaction in certain quarters turned to studied silence and a "wait and see" attitude. This gradually changed to resentment, culminating in the May 1966 riots throughout the North during which most Easterners residing in the North were attacked and killed.
A counter coup was staged by the Northern military officers on 29 July 1966 with two aims:  revenge on the East, and a breakup of the country. But the wise counsel of dedicated Nigerians, interested and well-disposed foreigners prevailed. The Head of State, Maj. Gen Aguiyi Ironsi and many other senior officers of Eastern origin were killed. After three anxious days of fear, doubts and non-government, Lt. Col. Yakubu Gowon, at the time the most senior officer of Northern origin and the then Chief of Staff, Nigerian Army, emerged as the new Nigerian political leader.  The lack of planning and the revengeful intentions of the second coup manifested itself in the chaos, confusion and the scale of unnecessary killings of the Easterners throughout the country.   Even the authors of the coup could not stem the general lawlessness and disorder, the senseless looting and killing which spread through the North like wild fire on 29 September 1966.

Lt. Col. Yakubu Gowon, the then Head of State, in a broadcast to the people of the North in September said;  "I receive complaints daily that up till now Easterners living in  the North are being killed and molested and their property looted.  It appears that it is going beyond reason and is now at a point of recklessness and irresponsibility." (Atofarati,1992). Before then, in an effort to stop the killings and to preserve the nation in one form or the other, an ad hoc conference of the representatives of the regions was called on 9th August, 1966 in Lagos.  The meeting made the following recommendations:
1.            Immediate steps should be taken to post military personnel to barracks within their respective regions of origin.
2.            A meeting of this committee or an enlarged body should take place to recommend in      a broad outline the form of political  association which the country should adopt in the future  
3.            Immediate steps should be taken to nullify or modify any provisions of any decree which assumes extreme centralization. 
4.            The Supreme Commander should make conditions suitable for a meeting of the Supreme Military Council urgently as a further means of lowering tension.

The first recommendation was implemented on August 13 1966.  Troops of Eastern Nigeria origin serving elsewhere in the country were officially and formally released and posted to Enugu, the capital of Eastern Region, while troops of non-Eastern origin in Enugu moved to Kaduna and Lagos. This marked the beginning of division and disunity within the rank and file of the Nigerian Armed Forces.  "This simple and seemingly innocuous action broke the last thread and split the last institution symbolizing Nigeria's nationhood and cohesion which had been regularly tampered with by the politicians since 1962. The rift between the Eastern Region and the rest of the country was total." (Obasanjo, 1980). Most of the  civilian of Eastern Region origin who had never lived in the East and would have continued to live elsewhere in the country lost confidence and moved to the East. Some of them when they arrived at their destination became refugees in their own country.

None of the other recommendations was fully implemented except nullification of the unification decree. The implementation of the recommendation with regards to the posting of troops to barracks within their region of origin was relentlessly pursued by the political leaders of Western Region after the exercise had been completed in the Eastern Region.  They were afraid of the so - called Northern troop’s domination and probably of the safety of the troops of Western Region origin.

With the troops of Eastern Region back in Enugu and the non-Eastern troops withdrawn from there, with Nigerians of non-Eastern origin driven out of the East in their own interest, and with Easterners at home and abroad returning home with news of Nigeria's brutality against them, and with the oil flowing in the Eastern Region, the way was now open for the implementation of the secession. The East and the North began a virulent of words through their radios and newspapers. Early in 1967, a peace negotiating meeting of the Supreme Military Council of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Eastern Region Military Governor, Lt. Col. Ojukwu was called under the auspices of Gen. Ankrah of Ghana in Aburi, Ghana.  As it turned out, all the other members of the council except Ojukwu were too trusting, too naive or too ill - prepared for the meeting.  Therefore Ojukwu scored a vital goal in his ambition.

Ojukwu got his way with little effort, by being the cleverest.  He was the only one who understood the issue. Step by step the others came to acquiesce in the logic of Ojukwu's basic thesis - that to stay together at all, the regions had first to draw apart. Only Ojukwu understood that this meant, in effect, a sovereign Biafra (Eastern Region) and the end of the Federation.Different versions of what happened in Aburi were released by Ojukwu in the East and by the Federal Military Government in Lagos. Ojukwu accused the Federal Government of bad faith and going back on promises. The Federal Government accused Ojukwu of distortion and half truths. After several meetings amongst the Federal and Regional officials, what amounted to the demise of the Federation was promulgated in decree No. 8 of 17 March 1967 in a desperate effort to implement the Aburi decisions and to avoid further stalemate and possible civil war. Not surprisingly, Ojukwu completely rejected Decree No. 8 as falling short of full implementation of Aburi decisions. The die was cast. All efforts to intervene by eminent Nigerians and well - wishers to Nigeria like Gen. Ankrah,  late Emperor Hallie Selassie of Ethiopia and the late Dr Martin Luther King proved abortive. 

The flurry of conciliatory meetings achieved nothing.  Gen. Obasanjo remarked:  "Ojukwu was adamant, obstinate and obdurate.  He refused to attend the Supreme Military Government meeting called in March in Benin City, Nigeria to discuss outstanding issues and deliberate on the budget for the coming fiscal year.  If he could not achieve his long cherished ambition of ruling an independent Nigeria, he could break it up and rule an independent and sovereign "Biafra."  Nothing could stop him." (1980:10).  As early as 7 June 1966, after the May incident in the North, Ojukwu was quoted as saying:   We are finished with the Federation.  It is all a question of time."  (1980:11).

Ojukwu seized the Federal Government property and funds in the East.  He planned the hijacking of a National commercial aircraft Fokker 27 on a schedule flight from Benin to Lagos.  All these and other signs and reports convinced the Federal Military Government of Ojukwu's intention to secede. Lt Col. Yakubu Gowon, the Head of Federal Government, imposed a total blockade of the East. It was realized that more stringent action had to be taken to weaken support for Ojukwu and to forestall his secession bid. Short of military action at that time, creation of States by decree was the only weapon ready to hand. The initial plan was to create States in the Eastern Region only. Such action was considered impolitic and fraught with danger. Eventually 12 States were created throughout the country on 27 May 1967.

The Eastern Region was divided into three states. The reaction from Enugu was sharp and quick:  the declaration of Eastern Nigeria as the independent sovereign state of "Biafra" on 30 May 1967.  The month of June was used by both sides to prepare for war. Each side increased its military arsenal and moved troops to the border watching and waiting until the crack of the first bullet at the dawn of 6 July 1967 from the Federal side. The war had started and the dawn of a new history of Nigeria.

CAUSES AND COURSE OF NIGERIA CIVIL WAR
The Nigerian Civil War broke out on 6 July 1967. The war was the culmination of an uneasy peace and stability that had plagued the Nation from independence in 1960. This situation had its genesis in the geography, history, culture and demography of Nigeria.  

The immediate cause of the civil war itself may be identified as the coup and the counter coup of 1966 which altered the political equation and destroyed the fragile trust existing among the major ethnic groups.  As a means of holding the country together in the last result, the country was divided into twelve states from the original four regions in May 1967.  The former Eastern Region under Lt. Col. Ojukwu saw the act of the creation of states by decree "without consultation" as the last straw, and declared the Region an independent state of "Biafra".  The Federal Government in Lagos saw this as an act of secession and illegal.  Several meetings were held to resolve the issue peacefully without success.  To avoid disintegration of the country, the central government was left with only one choice of bringing back the region to the main fold by force.

The Federal sides expected a quick victory while the Biafran saw the war as that of survival and were ready to fight to the last man. By August 1967, the war had been extended to the Mid - Western Region by the Biafran with the aim to relief pressure on the northern front and to threaten the Federal Capital, Lagos. Both sides employed Political, Diplomatic, Psychological and Military strategies to prosecute the war.

By the end of April 1969, after almost two years of bloody and destructive war, the envisioned quick victory had eluded the Federal side, the rebel enclave had been drastically reduced in size but the Biafran were still holding on.  More peace conferences were held but none achieved a cease - fire and an end to the war. The Federals embarked on a strategic envelopment of the remaining Biafran enclave.  By the Christmas of 1969, it was obvious that the end of the civil war was near.

The self - acclaimed Head of State of Biafra, Lt. Col. Ojukwu, realizing the hopelessness of the situation fled the enclave with his immediate family members on the 10th of January 1970.  The Commander of the Biafran Army who took over the administration of the remaining enclave surrendered to the Federal Government on 14th January 1970 bringing an end to the war, secessionist attempt and bloodshed.

Several lessons were learnt from the war and these have helped in the unification, political, military and economical progress of the country.

PEACE EFFORTS TO DEESCALATE THE NIGERIAN CIVILWAR
After the civil war started, the organization of African Unity tried on its own to deescalate the conflict.  At its Kinshasa summit of 1967, a consultative omission of six heads of states headed by Emperor Haile Sellasie 1 of Ethiopia was appointed. This committee visited the Federal Government on 22 and 23 November 1967 and agreed that the secessionist should renounce secession and accepts the structure of Federal Nigeria as in Decree NO 14 of 1967, (Elaigwu J.I 1986:123).  This incensed Ojukwu and his fellow secessionists and they made it clear that Biafra’s sovereignty was not negotiable.
Further efforts were made by the Commonwealth Secretary, Mr. Arnold Smith to deescalate the conflict.  Two attempts were made to get both parties together in London failed.  He, that is Mr. Arnold Smith finally succeeded in bringing the two sides to meet in London on May 6, 1968.  This meeting eventually set the stage for the Kampala peace folks later.  The peace folks in Kampala started on 23 May, 1968 and it finally packed up and broke down at the end of May.  The Biafran side staged a walk out due to some reasons, (Elaigwu J.I. 1986:123)
(1)   That Nigeria dictates rather than negotiates terms
(2)   Nigeria attempt to take advantage of the military situation at home
(3)   Nigeria’s refusal to call for a cease fire before negotiations could continue and
(4)   Nigeria’s refusal to withdraw federal troops to their positions before the civil war
The OAU consultative committee arranged separate meetings between the two belligerents in Niamey, Niger in July.  General Gowon addressed the meetings on July 16, while colonel Ojukwu addressed I ton July 18, 1968.  Both then sides agreed to meet in Addis Ababa for move peace talks.  On August 5, Chief Anthony Enakhoro led the Nigeria delegation while Ojukwu led the Biafran delegation to Addis Ababa.  Ojukwu later withdrew for Dr. Eni Njoku to act as the leader of the Biafran side.  This talk was deadlocked and had to pack up on September 9, 1968.
A number of peace talks were undertaken by individuals and groups.  Among there were attempts by Lord Shepherd in December 1968, Mr. Marice Foley (under secretary in the foreign and commonwealth office), Lord Fenner Brockway (A British Labour Peer) and James Griffiths (A labour MP).  In January, 1969, Chief Obafemi Awolowo led a Nigerian delegation to London to hold discussions with the secessionists, again this failed.  There was another major attempt in April, 1969 at Monrovia where the OAU mission again met but failed to resolve the issue.
There was the OAU Assembly of states in Addis Ababa on 6 September, 1969.  Eliagwu J.I. 1986:125 “The assembly resolved that both sides of the Nigerian conflict should negotiate for a united Nigeria so as to restore peace and stability to the country”.  Gowon stated categorically at this meeting that, there could be no peace unless the secessionists.
(1)   Renounced secession; and
(2)   Accepted the twelve states structure as the basis for the future existence of Nigeria groups.
The conflict finally deescalated by the formal surrender of the Biafran troops led by Major General Philip Effiiong.  General Ojukwu having fled the country to Abidjan on the 11th of January, 1970 handed the reins of power to Gen. Effiong. On Monday 12 January 1970, General Effiong announced the surrender of Biafra and formerly submitted and surrendered to Gen. Gowon in Lagos at the Dodan Barracks on the 15th January, 1970.  A former document stating the terms of surrender as quoted in Obasanjo O. (1980:134), Eliagwu J.I. (1986:135).

I, Major General Philip Effiong, officer administering the government of the Republic of Biafra now wish to make the following declaration:
(a)   That the Republic of “Biafra” hereby renounces secession and ceases to exist;
(b)   That we affirm we are loyal Nigerian citizens and accept the authority of the Federal Military Government of Nigeria;
(c)   That we accept the existing twelve-state structure of the federation of Nigeria;
(d)   That any future constitutional arrangement will be worked out by the representative of the people of Nigeria.

THE POST CONFLICT RECONSTRUCTION EFFORT
The Federal Military Government set up the National Commission for Rehabilitation in March 1968 mainly to take care of post-war reconstruction and rehabilitation, Obasanjo (1980:164).  This commission performed useful supplementary functions in the administration of the liberated areas in form of social reconstruction, intensive vocational training co-operative society, and liaison with employers, fostering of children and mining of health rehabilitation centers.
Rehabilitation and reconstruction of war damages commenced simultaneously as per the orders of Gen. Gowon.  General Gowon proclaimed that there was no victor, no vanquished in order to rehabilitate the Igbos back into the Nigerian fold, former civil servants were incorporated into the relevant public services of the Federation (Eliagwu J.I., 1986:137), and former Biafra officers were reabsorbed back into the Nigerian army (Obasanjo 1980:143).  The Nigerian officers that participated in the January 1966 coup and those that helped the secessionist forces to invade the former Midwest were detained for a further period (Balogun O. 1973:113).  There was also the urgent need to resettle farms, reopen factories and facilitate the resumption of normal economic life.
Under the three “Rs”, Reconciliation, Reconstruction and Rehabilitation there was the need to restore electricity, water, transport and communication.  General Gowon called for volunteers, doctors, nurses, engineers, technicians, builders, plumbers, mechanics, administrators and skilled hands (Eliagwu 1986:141) to assist in the reconstruction process.  Federal government troops went about carrying food to where it was most needed and to refugees wherever possible.
There was also the problems rehabilitation and resettlement.  The Igbo’s that left their homes and businesses had these returned to them, and rent that was collected was given to them, helping them to resettle.  The federal government spent quite an appreciable amount of money with regards to rehabilitation, reconstruction and resettlement.  Between 1970 – 1971, about N120 million worth of cash and materials had been expended (Ibid pg 144).  There was also a post-war Nation Reconstruction and development plan for 1970 – 1974 which was launched on 1970 with definite objectives and priorities.  Various government buildings received funds for its reconstruction.  The University of Nsukka received N12 million for its reconstruction, N6 million was spent on rehabilitation of industries.  The African Continental Bank (ACB) was granted N5 million for its reopening (Ibid pg 145).
Through massive federal aid, external assistance and efforts of the war affected areas in self-help, Nigeria recovered faster than could have been expected in reconciliation, reconstruction and rehabilitation.




CONCLUSION
The Nigeria civil war may have come and gone but the legacy of the war and the lessons learnt should enable the nation to be able to maintain a balance and focus both politically and socio-cultural, religious and ethnic integration, tolerance and understand.
As we have seen in the course of the study, the amalgamation of the nation was born out of economic and political interest of the colonial master and not to promote socio-cultural, religious, ethnic and political integration or unity of the heterogeneous societies.  Even after the amalgamation, the policy of divide and rule system adopted in the governing of the southern and northern protectorate did not do the nation any good but further created a dichotomy between the north and south in terms of religious and ethnic divergence.  This obvious situation led to political suspicious and rivalry during the colonial era and in turn heated up the politics at the time which brought about unhealthy competitions in political participations by various ethnic groups during and after colonialism.  With tribal sentiment at its height immediate after independence and corruption wide spread among political office holders, it became clear that the demise of the first Republic was inevitable.
The 15th January 1966 coup with some other events that followed were just the catalyst needed to create a volcanic eruption of ethnic clashes laying in wait to happen which was to lead to the civil war of 1967 in Nigeria.  But in all, it would be right to say that the civil war was inevitable because the seeds that led to the war was sown in the colonial policies which were inherited at independence by the founding fathers and which they failed to see or understood or deliberately ignored due to the quest for political dominance by various major ethnic group.  In all we can say that they were the losers and the nation was to suffer for it in the long run.



REFERENCES
Major Alexander A. Madiebo, (1980).  The Nigerian Revolution and the Biafran War, Enugu, Fourth Dimension Publishing Co. Ltd.

Major Abubakar A. Atofarati (1992).  The Nigeria Civil War, causes strategies and lessons learnt, student: US Marine Command and Staff College (Academic for 1991/1992.

Microsoft Encerta Premium (2007) Archive Article, 1968; Nigeria: Civil War Background.

Eliagwu J.I. (1956), “Gowon” Ibadan, West Books Publishers Limited.

Balogun O. (1975), “The Tragic Years:  Nigeria in Crisis 1966 – 1970; Benin City, Ethiope Publishing Corporation.

Obasanjo O. (1980), “My Command:  An Account of the Nigerian Civil War, 1967-1970”, Ibadan, Heinemman Books.

Friday, October 24, 2014

Have you ever Imagine these Interesting and Fun Facts....... from History?

History is quite boring topic for many and even as a part of curriculum, very few considered History an interesting one. However, history is quite fascinating and interesting. Read out the very interesting and fun facts from History. 
Shortest War Ever
England and Zanzibar holds the title of shortest war in the world of history. They fought in the year 1896 and the war lasted only for 38 minutes, where Zanzibar surrendered to England.
Pepi II
Longest Reign 
Pepi II is the only monarch who ruled Egypt for 90 years and it is the longest reigning in the history ever until now.  The period of his reign was from 2566 BC to 2476 BC.

China Wall

Guards of Great Wall of China
Many of you may aware that one of the Seven Wonders of the World - the Great Wall of China is protected by special guards. However, during the middle ages, the wall was protected by special group of men. This group of men not just guarded the Great Wall of China, but also dedicated their lives. The group lived there from birth to death. They grew up, worked as guards, get married, had children, and died there. In fact, the dead guards were buried in the wall itself. 
Weird Fact
Romans had some unique practices and traditions. One such weird and funny practice is they mixed the human urine in the process of making toothpaste! How weird it is!! 
Women in the Ancient Ages
Women were not provided equal freedom or independence like men in the ancient ages. In ancient days, in Greece, women were sentenced to death if they watch the Olympic Games.  
Funny Fact 
This is totally funny. Romans considered a child with a crooked nose carry the powers of leadership. 
The Flu Power
While women are not given equal power or freedom as men, a small flu over powered men! Yes, in Spain, more than 20 million were killed in a year by flu! 
Unknown Last Words 
Albert Einstein was seriously ill in his last days. He was looked after by a nurse and he uttered a few words just before he had his last breath. Unfortunately, since his nurse could not understand German, the last words were buried with him.Spectacle
Spectacles 

We wear eye glasses, called spectacles for many reasons, from poor vision to fashion statement. This isn’t a new fashion, but has been used for more than 700 years.