TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page – – – – – – – i
Approval Page- – – – – – – ii
Dedication – – – – – – – iii
Acknowledgement – – – – – – – iv
Table of Contents – – – – – – vi
Abstract – – – – – – – – viii
Chapter One: Introduction
1.1 Background of the Study – – – – – – 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem – – – – – – 5
1.3 Objective of the Study – – – – – – 7
1.4 Significance of the Study – – – – – – 7
2.1 Literature Review – – – – – – 27
Chapter Three: Methodology
3.1 Theoretical Framework – – – – – – 31
3.2 Hypotheses – – – – – – – 33
3.3 Method of Data Collection – – – – – 33
3.4 Method of Data Analysis – – – – – 34
Chapter Four: Governance and Boko-Haram Insurgency
4.1 Political Background of Nigeria – – – – – – 36
4.2 Poor Governance in Nigeria – – – – 47
4.3 Ethnic identity and Politics in Nigeria – – – – 57
4.4 The Boko-Haram Insurgency – – – – 60
4.5 Ethno-Political and Religious Violence – – – 68
Chapter Five: Civil Society, Non-Governmental Organization Strategies and Responses to Boko-Haram
5.1 Government Response to Boko-Haram – – – 73
5.2 Efforts of Civil Society and Non Governmental Organization – 82
5.4 Religious Leaders – – – – – – 84
5.5 Traditional Rurers – – – – – – 90
5.6 Non-Affiliated Community Organization – – 93
5.7 Regional and International Efforts – – – – 95
Chapter Six: Summary, Conclusions and Recommendation
6.1 Summary – – – – – – – – 97
6.2 Conclusion – – – – – – 99
6.3 Recommendations – – – – – – – 100
study examined the state of knowledge on international terrorism and National
Security in Nigeria, with focus on Boko-Haram, specifically, the study
investigated how international terrorism and National Security explores the
origins and future trajectory of Boko-Haram and especially why its ideology of
violence has found resonance
among a small number of young Nigerian’s,
and also provide guide to policy makers, government officials and the
general public in dealing with the Boko
Haram insurgency. Utilizing the Relative deprivation theory, qualitative research method, qualitative
descriptive research and content analysis, these are crucial instrument of
understanding terrorism and Boko Haram sect. accordingly, the study maintained
that Boko Haram movement is to make Nigeria an Islamic state as they are in the
habit of spreading particular interpretation of Islam beyond Western oriented secular Status
claiming that Islam as a religion has not been fulfilling its mandate on the
1.1 Background of the Study
Terrorism is a highly contextual phenomenon. Indeed, the old maxim that “all politics is local” holds true for political violence as well. We sometimes hear a lot of talk about terrorism as if it were a monolithic, easily understood term, but it is really the opposite. Terrorism is a complex issue that has been studied and debated for several decades. In fact, there are dozens of competing definitions of the term, not only among scholars but among policymakers and government agencies as well. But one thing holds constant – terrorist attacks do not occur in a vacuum, but are instead a product of complex interactions between individuals, organizations, and environments.
Further, there are many different kinds of terrorism, defined primarily by ideological orientations like ethno-nationalism, left-wing, religious, and so forth. And just like there are many different kinds of terrorism, there are many different kinds of contexts in which terrorism occurs. Within each context, we find a variety of grievances that motivate the terrorist group and its supporters, along with things that facilitate terrorist activities.
The word terrorism was first used in France to describe a new system of government adopted during the French Revolution (1789-1799) (Encarta, 2009). The regime de la terreur (Reign of Terror) was intended to promote democracy and popular rule by ridding the revolution of its enemies and thereby purifying it. However, the oppression and violent excesses of the terreur transformed it into a feared instrument of the state. From that time on, terrorism has had a decidedly negative connotation. The word, however, did not gain wider popularity until the late 19th century when it was adopted by a group of Russian revolutionaries to describe their violent struggle against tsarist rule. Terrorism then assumed the more familiar antigovernment associations it has today.
According to Encarta (2009) Terrorism is the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear for bringing about political change. All terrorist acts involve violence or-equally important-the threat of violence. These violent acts are committed by nongovernmental groups or individuals-that is, by those who are neither part of nor officially serving in the military forces, law enforcement agencies, intelligence services, or other governmental agencies of an established nation-state.
Terrorists attempt not only to sow panic but also to undermine confidence in the government and political leadership of their target country. Terrorism is therefore designed to have psychological effects that reach far beyond its impact on the immediate victims or object of an attack. Terrorists mean to frighten and thereby intimidate a wider audience, such as a rival ethnic or religious group, an entire country and its political leadership, or the international community as a whole.
Terrorism is a highly contextual phenomenon. Indeed, the old maxim that “all politics is local” holds true for political violence as well. We sometimes hear a lot of talk about terrorism as if it were a monolithic, easily understood term, but it is really the opposite. Terrorism is a complex issue that has been studied and debated for several decades. In fact, there are dozens of competing definitions of the term, not only among scholars but among policymakers and government agencies as well. But one thing holds constant-terrorist attacks do not occur in a vacuum, but are instead a product of complex interactions between individuals, organizations, and environments.
Forest (2012) argues that terrorism is seen as a violent product of an unequal distribution of power on local, national, or global levels. The unequal distribution of power feeds a perception of “us versus them,” a perception found in all ideologies associated with politically violent groups and movements. The hardships and challenges “we” face can be framed in terms of what “they” are or what “they” have done to us. From this perspective, “we” desire a redistribution of power in order to have more control over our destiny, and one could argue that many terrorist groups use violence as the way to bring this about. As Bruce (2006:40-41) notes, terrorism is “the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear through violence or the threat of violence in the pursuit of political change . . .
to create power where there is none or to consolidate power where there is very little.”
According to Forest (2010), there are many different kinds of terrorism, defined primarily by ideological orientations like ethno-nationalism, left-wing, religious, and so forth. And just like there are many different kinds of terrorism, there are many different kinds of contexts in which terrorism occurs. Within each context, we find a variety of grievances that motivate the terrorist group and its supporters, along with things that facilitate terrorist activities. From decades of research on these grievances and facilitators, two primary themes appear most salient for this research on Boko Haram: preconditions, or “things that exist,” and triggers, or “things that happen.
Mark (2003) observed that grievances are structural reasons for why the ideology resonates among a particular community, and can include a broad range of political issues like incompetent, authoritarian, or corrupt governments, as well as economic issues like widespread poverty, unemployment, or an overall lack of political or socioeconomic opportunities. Terrorism is most often fueled by individuals and groups who are very dissatisfied with the status quo, and have come to believe in the need to use violence because they see no other way to facilitate change. In essence, they draw on Mack (2003:13) described as “a reservoir of misery, hurt, helplessness, and rage from which the foot soldiers of terrorism can be recruited.” Clearly, one can find such a reservoir in many parts of Nigeria, and indeed throughout much of sub-Saharan Africa. This seems the reason for the development of the Boko Haram sect in Nigeria.
Government corruption and absence of good governance are also cited by many researchers as a frequent motivator behind collective political violence. In states where such corruption is endemic, resources, privileges, and advantages are reserved for a select group of the people or ruling elite. According to Khalil (2007), corruption encumbers the fair distribution of social services and adds another layer to the resentment caused by the lack of political participation. The rest of society, because they have no voice, is ignored or placated. This corruption erodes the government’s legitimacy in the eyes of its citizens. In Nigeria a combination of statist economic policies (building on the early post-independence nationalization of former colonial private industries) combined with patronage systems to create an environment in which the state became seen as a means of access to wealth, rather than a means to serve the people. When a government fails to adhere to the conventional social contract between governments and the governed, its citizens become disenchanted and seek the power to force change. This, in turn, has resulted in a variety of militant movements throughout the coutry, including the Boko Haram set.
In recent years, Nigeria has come under attack by a radical Islamic sect known as Boko Haram. It officially calls itself “Jama’atul Alhul Sunnah Lidda’wati wal Jihad” which means “people committed to the propagation of the Prophet’s teachings and jihad.” As its name suggests, the group is adamantly opposed to what it sees as a Western-based incursion that threatens traditional values, beliefs, and customs among Muslim communities in northern Nigeria. Oboh (2012) reported that in an audiotape posted on the Internet in January 2012, a spokesman for the group, Abubakar Shekau, even accused the U.S. of waging war on Islam. Forest (2012) contends that the group is largely a product of widespread socioeconomic and religious insecurities, and its ideology echoes among certain communities because of both historical narratives and modern grievances.
It is against this backdrop that this research examines international terrorism and national security in Nigeria, with a focus on the Boko Haram sect in Nigeria.
1.2 Statement of the Problem