Elite Perceptions and Nigeria's Foreign Policy Process

N. O. Mimiko, K. Mbada
{"title":"Elite Perceptions and Nigeria's Foreign Policy Process","authors":"N. O. Mimiko, K. Mbada","doi":"10.21599/ATJIR.14421","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The study examined the perception of Nigerian elites on the role of the Nigerian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) in foreign policy formulation and implementation. It investigated how the nature and structure of the Nigerian State shaped the nation's foreign policy bureaucracy as represented by the MFA. The study employed primary and secondary data. Primary data were collected through unstructured interview. Respondents were purposively selected from the academia as well as from among the senior officers of the MFA, the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs (NIIA) and the Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies (IPCS) totaling 25 altogether. The eligibility criteria included knowledge of and contribution to the subject matter, as well as expertise and active participation in Nigeria's foreign policy process. Secondary data were sourced from official documents, books, journals, newspapers, news magazines, and Internet-based materials. Data were analyzed using thematic content analysis. From the result, 75% of respondents perceived the MFA as simply a rubber-stamp for the desires and preferences of the President and their kitchen cabinet. 65% of respondents held the view that the Federal Cabinet, National Assembly, think-tanks, and research-based institutions that should be decision units alongside the MFA, appeared to be for the most part, sidelined in foreign policy making. About 60% of respondents submitted that the political, socio-economic, religious, linguistic and ethnical configuration of the Nigerian state and its characteristic differences, impinged on foreign policy decisions and pursuits. The study concluded that the role of Nigeria's Ministry of Foreign Affairs in many cases was undermined. It was seen to be more visible in foreign policy implementation than in decision-making; allowed only marginal roles in decision making or simply used as mere administrative machinery to implement the desires and preferences of the political head and their kitchen cabinet.","PeriodicalId":7411,"journal":{"name":"Alternatives: Turkish Journal of International Relations","volume":"662 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Alternatives: Turkish Journal of International Relations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21599/ATJIR.14421","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

The study examined the perception of Nigerian elites on the role of the Nigerian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) in foreign policy formulation and implementation. It investigated how the nature and structure of the Nigerian State shaped the nation's foreign policy bureaucracy as represented by the MFA. The study employed primary and secondary data. Primary data were collected through unstructured interview. Respondents were purposively selected from the academia as well as from among the senior officers of the MFA, the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs (NIIA) and the Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies (IPCS) totaling 25 altogether. The eligibility criteria included knowledge of and contribution to the subject matter, as well as expertise and active participation in Nigeria's foreign policy process. Secondary data were sourced from official documents, books, journals, newspapers, news magazines, and Internet-based materials. Data were analyzed using thematic content analysis. From the result, 75% of respondents perceived the MFA as simply a rubber-stamp for the desires and preferences of the President and their kitchen cabinet. 65% of respondents held the view that the Federal Cabinet, National Assembly, think-tanks, and research-based institutions that should be decision units alongside the MFA, appeared to be for the most part, sidelined in foreign policy making. About 60% of respondents submitted that the political, socio-economic, religious, linguistic and ethnical configuration of the Nigerian state and its characteristic differences, impinged on foreign policy decisions and pursuits. The study concluded that the role of Nigeria's Ministry of Foreign Affairs in many cases was undermined. It was seen to be more visible in foreign policy implementation than in decision-making; allowed only marginal roles in decision making or simply used as mere administrative machinery to implement the desires and preferences of the political head and their kitchen cabinet.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
精英观念与尼日利亚外交政策进程
该研究调查了尼日利亚精英对尼日利亚外交部(MFA)在外交政策制定和实施中的作用的看法。它调查了尼日利亚政府的性质和结构如何影响以外交部为代表的国家外交政策官僚机构。本研究采用了第一手和第二手资料。主要资料采用非结构化访谈法收集。有目的地从学术界以及外交部、尼日利亚国际事务研究所和和平与冲突研究所的高级官员中挑选了回答者,共计25人。资格标准包括对该主题的知识和贡献,以及专门知识和积极参与尼日利亚外交政策进程。辅助数据来源于官方文件、书籍、期刊、报纸、新闻杂志和基于互联网的材料。数据采用主题内容分析法进行分析。从结果来看,75%的受访者认为外交部只是总统及其内阁的愿望和偏好的橡皮图章。65%的受访者认为,联邦内阁、国民议会、智库和研究机构应该与外交部一起成为决策单位,但在外交政策制定中,它们似乎在很大程度上被边缘化了。约60%的答复者认为,尼日利亚国家的政治、社会经济、宗教、语言和种族结构及其特征差异影响了外交政策的决定和追求。该研究的结论是,尼日利亚外交部在许多情况下的作用被削弱了。它被认为在外交政策的执行中比在决策中更为明显;只允许在决策中发挥边缘作用,或者仅仅被用作执行政治首脑及其内阁的愿望和偏好的行政机器。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The ILO’s Safety and Health in Mines Convention: Reframing the Scope of Obligations for a Sustainable World The EU-Turkey refugee deal of autumn 2015 as a two-level game Trading Places: How Turkey Can Join the Rich, Using Trade Policy U.S.-Turkey Relationship and Syrian Crisis Samtskhe-Javakheti Region: A Neglected Keypoint for European Security of Energy Supply?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1