Struggle for leadership relevance in the African continent : a study of Nigeria and South Africa (1994-2012)

Abstract

In chapter one, the research began with an introductory background to the study. This brief introduction summarily captured a general overview of what the research intends to study. It was an introduction that presented the leadership struggle between South Africa and Nigeria in the African continent and specifically stated the issue the research analysed. This was preceded by the statement of the problem, research objective, and significance of the study, research methodology, and scope of the study, definition of terms, limitations to the study, ethical consideration and organization of the chapters. Chapter two contains the theoretical framework and the literature review. The theoretical framework introduced the theory that the researcher used in his analysis. This researcher chose and used the realist theory to analyse his position in this work. Most precisely and specifically, the researcher relied on John J Mearsheimer's offensive realism for a better elucidation of the research analysis and for proper understanding of the work. The chosen theory, offensive realism clearly brought relevance to the analysis because it provided the basic behavioral patterns of hegemons which was adequately utilized in analysing the leadership struggle between South Africa and Nigeria. The literature review considered varied opinions, perceptions and arguments generated among scholars in trying to analyse the hegemonic contest between South Africa and Nigeria. The review dictated the failure of Okumu in his literature to assert the proposed UNSC reform, which he argued had created rivalries within Africa, as central to the struggle between South Africa and Nigeria. Furthermore, Souare on his part argued that South Africa and Nigeria are regional hegemons who in carrying out leadership responsibilities, engage each other in a 51 leadership struggle within their regions to assert their leadership positions. However, Souare failed to recognise such attributes to behavioral pattern of hegemons globally. This as well offered a gap which this exercise tried to fill. Chapter three appeared only abstract and not purely connected or relevant to the study. However it was intended to analyse and highlight South Africa's and Nigeria's involvement in peacekeeping operations as a covert national interest which was born out of the desire to meet the UN prescribed requisites for qualification to be considered during the proposed UNSC reform inwhich both countries are jostling fore a seat. In lieu of this, the research only analysed both countries peacekeeping involvements in specifically selected crisis ridden countries which were relevant to the study to buttress this position. Instances of countries such as South Africa's involvement in Lesotho and Democratic Republic of Congo and Nigeria's involvement in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Cote d'Ivoire, were cited. Although the research acknowledged there are other reasons for the involvement of both countries in peacekeeping operations in chapter four, it however maintained its position that such peacekeeping operation involvements were prompted by their desire to fulfill requisites for the UNSC seat in which South Africa and Nigeria are both interested. Chapter four went further to assert that in furtherance of their ambitions, South Africa and Nigeria had laid claims to African leadership. They attributed this to their hitherto unrivalled socioeconomic and political contributions to the development of the continent, which had earned them great infl uence and acceptance as regional leaders. However, the research posited further that because of the lack of distinctive African leadership, in laying such claims to African leadership, both countries intended to attract more support and influence themselves, both continentally and globally, resulting in the leadership struggle and division between them. The research stressed the leadership struggle further in the Libyan and Cote d'Ivoire crises which were cited as examples of instances of a deeper leadership struggle between South Africa and Nigeri a. In both crisis-ridden countries, the research tried to relate the adoption of different positions and views by South 52 Africa and Nigeria on the resolution of these cnses as a clear depiction of a leadership struggle. The · research asserted that the result was a division among African states and a test of continental influence as well. Finally, the research examined the influence of the propose UNSC reform and its effects as central to the leadership struggle between these major and distichously qualified contenders to this position in Africa. It asserted the reasoning that whichever is chosen to represent Africa on the UNSC automatically becomes Africa's distinctive leader. Therefore the research insisted that such struggle was inevitable as both countries would always view each other as rivals as long as the race for the UNSC is on.