African Journal of Political Science and International RelationsVol.

3 (9)
, pp. 354-359, September, 2009 Available online
at http://www.academicjournals.org/ajpsir
ISSN 1996-0832 © 2009 Academic Journals

Full Length Research Paper

Understanding the crisis of development in Africa: Reflections
on Bedford Umez’s analysis
M. Alumona Ikenna
Department of Political Science, Anambra State University, Igbariam
Campus, Anambra State, Nigeria. E-mail: alum_ike@yahoo.com. Tel:
+2348039241300.
Accepted 19 August, 2009

Despite the presence of huge mineral and human resourcesfound i

n Africa, the continent has remained a victim of
underdevelopment. This has prompted several efforts by scholars,
African leaders and the international development agencies to
understand and solve the development crisis. This paper is a
review of Bedford Umez’s analysis of the development crisis in
Nigeria. The paper exposed the implications of Umez’s analysis
bearing in mind the realities of the Nigerian environment. The
paper concludes that simple as they could appear to be, the policy
prescriptions suggested by Umez are worthy of attention since
they will help in solving the crisis of development in Nigeria.
Key words: Development, underdevelopment, politics, Umez,Nigeria and
Africa.

INTRODUCTION

Presently, the crisis of development is the most serious problem facing Africa.
This is because the continent has
remained largelyunderdeveloped despite the presence of huge mineral and
human resources. Several decades after the end of colonialism, most parts of
Africa is still fighting with problems such as high poverty rate, lack of basic
infrastructural facilities in all sectors of the economy, unemployment, high
mortality rate, political in-
stability and insecurity oflives and property. For example, Nigeria the most
populous African country, according to the United Nations human
development report (2005), out of 177 countries, ranked 158 in human
development index,165 in life expectancy at birth,121 in combined primary,
secondary and tertiary gross enrolment and 155 in GDP per capital. Recently,
Suberu (2007: 96) also had said of Nigeria that “it earned around US$500
billion in oil revenues since the 1970s, yet remains mired in poverty,
unemployment, a bourgeoning domestic debt, infrastruc- tural squalor,
abysmal health and educational services, and attendant social frustration and
unrest’’. Nigeria reflects most parts of Africa in that it inherited arbitrary state
boundaries from its colonial age and was under military authoritarianism
for most part of its existence asa nation.
Against the background of Africa’s development crisis, emanated the debate
on how to solve the crisis of development in Africa. This debate has been a
hot one and is dominated by two major related themes, namely: the
controversy over the actual meaning of the concept of development and the
appropriate path to development. However, despite the disagreement among
scholars, global policy makers and institutions over these issues, numerous
attempts have been made to understand and solve the crisis of development
in Africa.
In the early 1960’s, shortly after most African nations got their
independence, western bourgeois scholars popularized the modernization
theory which was designed to assist Africa nations in the course of deve-
lopment. The summary of the modernization theory is that if Africa must
develop, then it must follow some sort of procedure already adopted by the
west. It is within this frame of thought that we can locate the views of Rostow
(1960), Almond and Coleman (1960), Almond and Powell (1966), and Pye
(1966). At the level of policy making, African leaders, their western
counterparts, and the international development agencies have all for a long
time struggled with different strategies and plans that are aimed at solving
the development crisis.
Among African scholars, different schools of thought
have emergedto proffer suggestions aimed at solving the problem. In the
early 1970s and 80s, scholars like Walter
Rodney (1972), Claude Ake (1982),Okwudiba Nnoli (1981),and Daniel Offiong
(1981) used the Marxian perspective to explain the cause of under
development in Africa. For these scholars, the problem of under
development in Africa cannot be explained outside the impactof colonia-
lism, neo-colonialism and dependency. As Claude Ake pointed out:
 “The present conditions of the third world countries are not in the least
analogous to the conditions of the industrialized countries in the earlier
stages of their economic development. The present condition of the third
world is the effect of the slave trade, pillage, colonialism and unequal
exchange (Ake 1982: 153)”.
In a similar manner, Walter Rodney after a thorough examination of the origin
and trends of underdevelop- ment in Africa bluntly asserts that:
“African development is possible only on the basis of a radical break with
the international capitalist system, which has been the principal agency of
the under development of Africa over the last seven centuries (Rodney
1972: 7)”.
In the present era of globalization, another school of thought strongly argues
that globalization constitutes the major obstacle facing Africa’s effort to
develop. This is because of the fact that the benefits of globalization are not
equal and just for all the regions of the world (Asobie, 2001; Olukoshi, 2004).
It is therefore suggested that since amajor feature of the globalization
process is that it cannot be halted or ignored, the success of the develop-
ment enterprise in Africa nowdepends on the mode of its integration into the
global capitalist economic system (Ajayi, 2004: 2). Yet, there are scholars
who believe that Africans should be held responsible for the present pathetic
state of underdevelopment in the continent. Recently, it has been said that
Africans through the instruments of inept leadership, corruption, authoritaria-
nism, endless political crises, military rule, civil wars and lack of concern for
the poor, have contributed more than any other people to the cause of
underdevelopment in the continent (Falola, 2005: 3).
The views expressed above are appreciated, which in summary imply that
no adequate understanding of the crisis of development in Africa could be
achieved without taking into cognizance the effects of three major factors.
First, colonialism, neo-colonialism and dependency.
Secondly, contemporary globalization and thirdly, the role of the African ruling
elite. It is also worthy to note that more suggestions are still offered on how to
solve the crisis of development in Africa. It is in acknowledgement of the
contemporary challenges and realities confronting the African continent, that
Bedford Umez (2000) in an
insightful and captivating work provides useful insights for understanding the
crisis of development in Africa using Nigeria as acase study. Umez argues
that Nigerians have

contributed more to her problem of under development than any other

people. Further, he also presents four perspectives which he believes offers
more fundamental and comprehensive explanations of the problems of
development in Nigeria. The four perspectives, which will be discussed later
in, this paper, are: the prevalent value system, inferiority complex, language
and collective igno- rance. Profound and insightful as they appear, Umez’s
analysis has its strengths and weaknesses hence it needs to be reviewed.
This study seeks to review Bedford Umez’s analysis of the crisis of
development in Nigeria. The paper intends to bring to fore the implications of
Umez’s analysis bearing in mind the realities of his analysis and conclusions.
The paper is structured into four parts. After the introduction presented in this
section, the study proceeds in section two to highlight Umez’s core
arguments. Section three provides a critique of Umez’s analysis, and the
brief conclusions of the study are presented in section four.

UMEZ’S CORE ARGUMENTS

Nigeria: Real Problems, Real Solutions (2000) is Bedford Umez’s
contribution to the discourse on the crisis of development in Nigeria. In his
analysis, Umez begins by providing a review of what he calls the three
long standing perspectives that have been used by scholars in the past to
explain Nigeria’s problem of underdevelop- ment. The three perspectives
namely are: colonial legacy, corrupt leadership and democracy leads to
economic growth. The colonial legacy perspectiveargues that the problem of
underdevelopment is traceable to the
originof the Nigerian state by the British colonial authority and the
exploitative nature of Nigeria’s colonial and post- colonial experience. The
corrupt leadership perspective believes that corruption and mismanagement
on the part of the leadership has been the bane of development in Nigeria.
Chinua Achebe’s (1983) analysis of the leader- ship problem in Nigeria is
located within this framework. The democracy leads to economic growth
perspective which links the cause of underdevelopment to the long absence
of democracy caused by military rule (Umez, 2000: 29 - 39). After a careful
examination of these long standing perspectives and their impact in
explaining the problem of underdevelopment in Nigeria, Umez concludes
that:
“They do not offer a fundamental explanation of the current development
problems in Nigeria; they explain little of the country’s internal
contradictions. Consequently, they provide an inadequate guide to
formulating appropriate and lasting policies and sound strategies to
address those problems and internal contradictions in Nigeria (Umez,
2000: 25).”

It is from the above premise and conviction that Umez

proceeds topresent his understanding and explanation of
 Alumona
355

the development problem, which are contained in the four perspectives

mentioned earlier. His central argument is that the current problems of
development in Nigeria are fundamentally linked to the issues presented
under these perspectives. Before his exposition of the issues contained in
these perspectives, Umez authoritatively claims that they are “the most
effective solutions to move Nigeria forward” (Umez, 2000: 22). The four
perspectives could be summarized thus:
The prevalent value system: The central argument of this perspective is
that since the values of a given society provide insights into how the attitudes
and actions of individuals within that society affect development endeavors, it
is necessary to understand the prevalent Nigerian value system as a guide to
solving the problems of development in Nigeria. This perspective links
the crisis of development in Nigeria to the dominant value system which is
defined as ‘one that glorifies and en- dorses corrupt and illegal means as
necessary, normal, and sufficient means to ends’ (Umez, 2000: 53). The
prevalent value system perspective identifies the fol- lowing factors as the
consequences of the Nigerian value system which in turn have created
problems for development:

1. Embezzlement of public (and company) funds.

2. A free-rider mentality.
3. Dishonesty.

4. Disobedience to laws.

5. Disregard for the opinion of experts.

In summary, all these issues discussed under the prevalent value system in
the words of Umez, “produces, at the general level, a corruptand inept
leadership, which ultimately misappropriate public funds, thereby creating
problems of development” (Umez, 2000: 58)
The inferiority complex perspective: This perspective argues that at the
root cause of corruption and the embezzlement of public funds only for such
looted funds to be sent abroad, lies the issue of inferioritycomplex. The
perspective views as abnormal the practice where Nigerians who are entrusted with
public funds do steal such funds and then stack them in foreign banks where it will
be of no benefit to Nigeria. The irony of this practice as the author points out
 is that leaders of these foreign countries in return see Nigerian leaders as
corrupt, uncivilized, and nasty thugs (Umez, 2000: 61).
The language perspective: The language perspective seeks to demonstrate
how the power of language has affected the mentality of Nigerians. According
to the author, the use of such phrases like paintsomeone black; black
sheep of the family; black book; black market;black devil; black death; black
magic; black widow etc has succeeded in demeaning, desecrating and
dehumanizing especially black Africans. The implications of this, which

in the words of the author are ‘’damaging, terrifying and enormous (Umez,
2000: 66) are as follows;
1. At the macro level, it has created a situation where Africans consciously or

unconsciously have come to accept that black people are of no good that is,
the word black is used to describe anything that is bad.
2. It has tarnished the image of Africa. Because of this even Africans in the

Diaspora do not have regard for Africa.

3. It has also created a sort of distrust and disrespect among Africans.

The collective ignorance perspective: Within this per- spective, collective

ignorance is conceived as a situation where a set of misguided Nigerian
leaders out of sheer ignorance believe that they are the only ones who are
capable of ruling the country. The problem of collective ignorance, as the
perspective argues is responsible for a lot of contradictions and problems in
Nigeria. Some of these problems include:
1. Lack of conscience among ‘chosen’ Nigeria leaders/elite

2. Starvation of the ‘masses’ by the leaders

3. Accepting bribery and corruption as normal

4. The embezzlement of public funds with impunity.

5. The shameless trips to foreign countries for routine medical check-ups and

treatment by the leaders without any attempt to provide such hospitals in

Nigeria.
After his exposition of the four perspectives, Umez went further to highlight
some illusions held by Nigerians, which to a great extent have compounded
the crisis of development. These illusions could be seen from two basic
angles, namely:
1. That Nigerian is still a young country; after all, it took the United States over

200 years to be where it is today.

2. There is corruption everywhere.

Umez concludes his analysis by providing suggestions on how to address

the problems of development. These suggestions that are in form of policy
recommendations are listed below;
1. The need for citizenship education and a centre for the study of ethnics.
 The taming of destructive arrogance and class consciousness among
2.

Nigerians.
3. The involvement of parents in the campaign for real education.

4. The involvement of the media and other agents of socialization in the

crusade to reeducate Nigerian children and the public at large on better ways
of life.
5. The elimination of illegal and fraudulent acts.

6. The need to urgently address the ‘brain drain’ problem.

7. The investment of Nigerian resources in Nigeria curing the disease of

ignorance and inferiority complex.

Alumona
355

8. Teaching leadership qualities

9. A weekly address by the President of Nigeria.

A CRITIQUE OF UMEZ’S ANALYSIS

Umez’s work is a reexamination of the crisis of develop- ment in Nigeria. The
work importantly points to the fact that the crisis of development in Nigeria
still remains unresolved after several decades of the pioneering works of
African scholars like Rodney (1972), Ake (1982,1995), Nnoli (1981), Offiong
(1981) and Achebe (1983) and the efforts of international development
agencies such as the world bank,united nations
and the international monetary fund .
It is necessary to begin with an attempt to debunk Umez’s claim that the
previous efforts made by scholars to understand the crisis of development in
Nigeria have failed to offer a fundamental explanation of the current
development problems. This claim is not only incorrectbut also unfair. The
reason is that even the new perspectives provided by Umez still cannot be
properly understood without making reference to the three perspectives that
he had already criticized and dismissed. This will be demonstrated with only
one of the old three perspectives: that is the colonial legacy pers- pective. It
is not possible to completely ignore the impact of colonialism on the current
crisis of development as Umez would want us to do. The past we all know
always has important lessons for the present and the future. In this sense,
the prevalent value system perspective that Umez used in his explanation still
has a link with colonialism. Disobedience to laws, dishonesty, embezzle-
ment of public and company funds that characterized our prevalent value
system are all social vices that came up
as a result ofcolonialism. Scholars like Peter Ekeh (1975, 1983) had tried to
demonstrate how colonialism in Africa affected the social structure and in the
process created two publics instead of one (Ekeh’s theory of colonialism and
two publics). It is the existence of these two publics that account for
disobedience to laws, embezzlement of public funds and dishonesty in our
national life. This is because Nigerians believe that the state (which equates
to what Ekeh calls the civic public) exists not for their interest hence its laws
are not to be obeyed. It is also this kind of feeling and orientation that
explains why elected and appointed leaders do embezzle public funds.
Umez’s inferiority complex perspective also has a link with
colonialism. Scholars have demonstrated how colonial policies subjugated,
humiliated and intimidated Africans during the colonial era. It could be,
therefore, argued that the present situation of inferiority complex among
Nigerians, which Umez rightly believes, is a problem for development had its
foundation laid by the colonialist. What is required now is the type of
leadership that will re-orientate Nigerians on values that will make them
believe in themselves. Such a leadership as Asobie
(2008: 1) has recently pointed out must not be preoccupied

with winning and retaining power and then using the power to serve
themselves and deal with their enemies.
The point is that the four perspectives presented by Umez cannot be
properly understood without recognizing the role colonialism played in
bringing them up. Some other scholars have always appreciated the fact
that while Africans cannot be exonerated from fueling the crisis of
development in the continent, the colonial legacy
factor had strongconsequences that it cannot be ignored. As Falola (2005: 6)
puts it “To understand contemporary Africa, we must turn to the colonial past
and see the stamp of the legacy of that era on the present.”
The place of corruption in Umez analysis draws atten- tion in this study
because as Lawal (2007: 4) has rightly pointed out, ‘’ African presents a
typical case of the countries(sic) in the world whose development has been
undermined and retarded by the menace of corrupt
practices’’. Recently, the African union is reported to have
saidthat corruption drains the region of some $140 billion a year which is
about 25% of the continent’s official GDP (Ribadu, 2009).The consequence
of this has manifested in the absence of basic infrastructures such as
schools, roads, hospitals and a myriad of other problems which invariably
leads to political instability. In the Nigerian context, where 75% of the citizens
live on less than US$1 per day while US$300 billion has disappeared from
the country, Nigeria presents a classical example of how people in a
resources rich country could wallow in abject poverty (Adeniyi and
Fagbadebo, 2007: 7).The impact of corruption on the totality of the
developmental and governmental processes in Nigeria cannot be overem-
phasized. Underscoring the impact of corruption on the practice of
democracy, Nwabueze (2007: 96) makes a painful revelation ‘’that the most
tragic consequence of corruption in Nigeria is its effects upon the attitudes
and mentality of the people. It has created a widespread feeling of
frustration, of disgust and cynicism, which has in its turn undermined
enthusiasm for and faith in the state.’’
An important point about the corruption problem in Nigeria is that the
problem seems to be insurmountable even in the light of anti-corruption
initiatives. Umez wrote in 2000(that is at the dawn of Nigeria’s present
democra- tic dispensation), yet close to a decade after the practice of
democracy, the situation still remains the same and alarming. In a recent
testimony before the US House financial services committee, Ribadu who is
the imme- diate Chairman of one of the anti-corruption agencies in Nigeria
revealed how Mr. Joshua Dariye, a former Governor of Plateau State was
found by the London Metropolitan police to operate 25 bank accounts and
had acquired 10 million pounds in benefit from criminal con- duct in London.
This is outside the $34 million retrieved domestically from his crimes in
Nigeria. Also revealed was the case of Mr. D.S.P Alamieyeseigha, a former
governor of oil rich Bayelsa State who was found to have
acquired four properties in London valued at 10 million

Alumona
355

pounds. This is in addition to another property in Cape Town valued at $1.2

million and the sum of 1 million pounds found in his bedroom at his apartment
in London. Another interesting aspect of Umez’s analysis is his attempt to
dispel the illusions, which have contributed to the crisis of development in
Nigeria. Two issues arise at this point. One is that these illusions are at the
heart of the development crisis in Nigeria. Nigerians have conti- nued to live
under the illusion that things will get better without taking the right steps.
While it must be appre- ciated that Nigerian has its own peculiar history, the
point has to be made that Nigerians must take the decision to
do the right things at the right timein order to get out from the development
crisis. The attitude of trying to defend unwholesome and corrupt practices
with the excuse that it is obtainable everywhere must be discouraged. The
case of recent elections in Nigeria provides a good example. During the 2003
elections a lot of irregularities were observed but were not condemned in
strong terms by the relevant authorities in Nigeria. This singular actdid not
only exacerbate the level of irregularities in the 2007 elections, but was
instrumental to the belief held among Nigerians before the election that
‘elections are not effective mechanism for selecting leaders’ (Afrobarometer,
2006: 9). The Second issue relates to the place of the human mind in the
process of develop-ment. It could be deduced that Umez placed high value
on the human mind in the entire process of development. This must have
informed the choice of the issues he exposed under the four perspectives
discussed in his work. This is a viewpoint that will help to put to an end to
the dependency syndrome in Africa. Because if Nigerians can change their
value system and then discard the sense of feeling inferior to the west then
there is hope for development. The idea of seeing the West (particularly the
United States of America) as our road map to development has contributed to
the crisis of develop- ment. At this point, it is necessary to remember Nnoli’s
warning about seeing the West as the Alpha and Omega of development.
According to Nnoli (1982: 21) such a notion of development commits us to a
wholesale imita- tion of others and, therefore to a wholesale repudiation of
our state of being.
Finally, it is necessary to look at the four perspectives discussed in the book.
The issues raised under each of these perspectives are simple and practical
issues that have adversely affected Nigerian’s effort to develop. Nigerians are
aware of the millions of stolen money kept abroad by their leaders. We have
seen public officials embezzle public funds with impunity. Because of the
prevalent value system characterized with all sorts of ills, Nigerians have also
seen people with questionable character parading themselves as leaders.
We have witnessed warfare during elections because people want to win at
all cost. All these and more have happened and will continue until we reflect
on the issues raised in Umez’s analysis. The beauty of Umez’s analysis also
lies

in his bringing his personal experiences to bear on the

discussion. Theact has helped in making his readers feel the reality of the
problem. Also, the policy prescriptions given by Umez are also worthy
suggestions that will to a great extent help in solving the problems in Nigeria

Conclusion
The essence of this study as already pointed out is to bring to fore Umez’s
arguments. The study has highlighted Umez’s
core argumentabout how the crisis of development in Nigeria could be
resolved. The study found out that the issues presented under the four
perspectives by Umez are critical issues that need to be addressed. For
illustration, is the collective ignorance perspective which has led to the belief
among a set of Nigerians that they are the only people capable of ruling the
country. This notion is behind the crisis in Nigeria’s electoral system and as
evidenced by the 2007 elections can lead to the breakdown of democratic
process. The study also found out that there is need for attention to be given
to the findings of research as contained in books, journals, monographs and
reports. Research holds the key to development. Umez as pointed out earlier
wrote in 2000 which imply that the events of military rule in Nigeria must
have informed his arguments. Yet a decade after the return of democracy the
state of the development crisis still remains the same because enough
attention has not be given to the findings of research. The study concludes
that Umez has addressed a contemporary problem and in doing so has
contributed his quota to solving the problem and to the acquisition and
expansion of knowledge. His shortcomings not withstanding, this study
recommends that his policy prescription should be taken seriously by
Nigerian leaders and those who are interested in the future of Nigeria as a
developed nation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author is grateful to an inspiring teacher, friend and mentor Prof.
Elochukwu Amucheazi, for his wise counsels and constant encouragement.

REFERENCES

Achebe C (1983). The Trouble With Nigeria. Fourth Dimension Publishing Co Ltd, Enugu.
Afrobarometer (2006). Performance and Legitimacy in Nigeria’s New Democracy. Briefing Paper No
46 July.
Ake C (1979, 1982). Social Science as Imperialism. Ibadan University Press, Ibadan
Ake C (1995) Democracy and Development in Africa, Spectrum Books Limited; Ibadan.
Almond G, James C (1960). (eds.) The Politics Of Developing Area, Princeton University Press,
Princeton
Almond G, Powell B Jr. (1966). Comparative Politics: A Development Approach, Little, Brown & Co.
Boston
Asobie HA (2008). Africans and the Science of power: of vultures and
Peacocks PaperPresented at a valedictory lecture organized by

Alumona
355

ASUU – UNN and the Faculty of the Social Science, UNN.

Ekeh P (1983). Colonialism and Social Structure. Inaugural Lecture, University of Ibadan.
Falola T (2005). (ed), The Dark Webs: Perspectives on Colonialism in Africa. Carolina Academic
Press.
Nnoli O (1981). “Development/ Underdevelopment: Is Nigeria Deve- loping?” in Okwudiba Nnoli (ed)
Path to Nigerian Development. CODERSIA, Senegal.
Nwabueze B (2007) How President Obasanjo Subverted Nigeria’s Federal System. Gold Press Ltd,
Ibadan.
Offiong D (1981). Imperialism and Dependency. Fourth Dimension Publishing Co Ltd, Enugu.
Olukoshi A (2004). “Globalization, Equity and Development: Some Reflections on the African
Experience” Ibadan J. Soc. Sci. (2)1.
Pye L (1966). Aspects of Political Development. Little, Brown & Co. Boston.

Rodney W (1972). How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Bogle – L’ Ouverture, London.

Rostow WW (1960). The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non – Communist Manifesto. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Suberu R (2007). ‘’Nigeria’s Muddled Elections ‘’ J. Democracy 18(4).
Umez B (2000).Nigeria: Real Problems, Real Solutions. Morris
Publishing, Kearney, United State.
United Nations Development Programme (2005). International Cooperation at a Crossroads: Aid,
trade and security in an equal world (Human Development Report) New York.