Today Nigeria is divided into six Geo-political zones, with every state of the nation falling into these categories. This idea emanated and crept into the dictionary of the country from the Late Gen. Sani Abacha, the former Military ruler of Nigeria (1993-1998) Although, the categorization of the entire nation into Geo-political zones did not come as an official pronouncement from the government, by 1997 this classification had gained prevalence in the political language of the nation. It was extremely doubtful if Gen Abacha intended to achieve democratic administrative purposes with its usage, since he made no noticeable moves to hand-over to the democratically elected Chief M. K. O. Abiola believed to have won the 1993 presidential election in the country.

 

The Geo-political zones set up by the Late Nigerian leader also did not certify ethnical homogeneity as certain of the zones had ethnic uniformity while others did not, although the people and states forming each of the zones have accepted it as a near perfect political and administrative exercise.

 

The Geo-political zones so created are thus:

 

South-West Geo-political zone

 

South-East Geo-political zone

 

South-South Geo-political zone

 

North-East Geo-political zone

 

North-West Geo-political zone, and

 

North Central Geo-political zone

 

The South-south zone which I shall be focusing on comprises of Delta State, Akwa-Ibom State, Cross-River State, Bayalsa State, Rivers State and Edo State, and is geographically located within the Delta region of the nation. This zone is not grouped along ethnical line but mainly the old Bendel State, Old Rivers State, and old Cross-River State. The perfect name for this category is “Niger Delta region” and has been so known in recent times, the zone is arguably the most famous among the existing geo-political zones of the country because of the militant agitations currently taking place in that part of the country, triggered first by non-increase in the allocation formula to the oil producing states of this region, second, neglect of the communities within the region, now in absolute deplorable conditions. It is for this reason that the government of President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua created a federal Ministry for the region now headed by Ufot Ekaete.

 

The creation of this region was considered very controversial by political observers in the country who believe that the Federal Government of Nigeria should have taken other necessary steps to ameliorate the lives of the people, and force the oil firms in that region to stop gas flaring, increase the employment of indigenes of that very region many of who are indigent. It has been widely reported that the region is facing increasing environmental degradation which in some cases denies the people of this region the acts of fishing on waters and farming. As we have known, the Niger-Delta zone is the wealthiest region of the country.

 

The people that make up the region are very friendly people with rich cultures. Delta State one of the states that make up the South-South geo-political region is senatorially divided into three districts namely Delta Central, Delta North and Delta South. In all five major ethnic-groups make up the region, and are the Urhobo, Isoko, Ijaw, Anioma and Itsekiri. Major languages in this state are Urhobo, Isoko, Ijaw, Itsekiri. The people of Anioma diversely speak about 15 languages amongst which are Enuani, Ozzara, Evbu, Igara, Ika, Ukwani, Aboh, etc however, the Igbo language is intelligible to Anioma people of Delta State. Interestingly, the whole ethnic-groups that are located in Delta State have one form of similarity or the other. The Urhobo and Isoko share similar ethnical similarities which extend to language as well.

 

The Anioma also referred to as Delta North also share obvious ethnical similarities socio-culturally, firstly the people comprising of today’s Anioma have been relating from time immemorial and this has continued till date. The much diverse people with communities scattered in the state are united by a single language which is intelligible to the group. Thus it does not require language translations for an Ibusa indigene to trade Aboh, or an Ndokwa woman to purchase an item from the popular Ogbogonogo market in Asaba, such is the beauty of unity among the people made possible by nature. The Ndokwa/Ukkwani people of Anioma also share cultural affinities with the Urhobo and Isoko people of the state. Marriage has acted as a bridge of unity between the Urhobo and Itsekiri. In all, a single ethnic tension has not been recorded between the Anioma and Urhobo, or between the Ijaw and Anioma people of the state.

 

Cross-Rivers State is another state within the South-South Geo-political zone, and so named after the river that bisects the state. The old Cross-River State was created in 1967 as part of the strategy to weaken the Biafran secessionists and covered today’s Igbo Arochukwu, and whole of present Akwa-Ibom State. Efik is the major language spoken in the state, several other languages are also spoken including but not limited to Ejagham, Ogoja, Ikom etc. Quite interestingly, it is common to hear people erroneously refer to people of Cross-Rivers and Akwa-Ibom Calabar while Calabar actually remains the capital of Cross-Rivers State.

 

Other states that make up the South-South Geo-political zone shall be discussed in the later part of this piece.

 

      

 

          

From skillful caricaturists to passionate crusaders for political causes, Israeli artists have throughout history in one form or another created a political work of art. Whether biblical stories of Jewish bravery and martyrdom, the birth of Zionism or more modern examples of courage, political art has always played a part in the soul of Israeli creations of art. At the same time, even in modern times of today artists are often scared to link their creations to history and politics.

In the following, this article examines four aspects analyzing the issue of art & politics.Artists & Politics

The first aspect addressing the subject of artists and politics examines the extent of public involvement by Israeli artists in taking a political standpoint expressed through their art paintings.

From a democratic point of view which seeks to protect freedom of expression, it is important that art work tackle political issues and influence public debate

However, the problem in Israel for artists who want to express an anti-establishment view is the concern over the fact that the establishment represents their main source of support and financing. While those who want to back up the establishment are not doing so out of fear of being accused by their artist friends that their creative work is influenced by economic reasons. As such it can be concluded that in our time the majority of Israeli artists are “fearful” when it comes to touching upon political issues. Politicians & Art

In the second aspect addressing politicians and art, I examine the involvement and understanding of political leaders in the creations of art. There is no doubt, that an artistic point of perspective opens horizons contributing to the development of a more open-minded way of thinking.

For this reason, Israeli leaders – whose personalities are often channeled through the security and/or party platform – should show interest in the arts as a tool for personal development which can widen their world view.

From a public point of view, a politician, who has knowledge and proven interest in cultural issues, will be considered as having preferable characteristics of experience and knowledge.Politics in Art

Addressing the third aspect of politics in art, the following questions I believe are at the heart of the issue: To what extent does the political and public activity of the artist influence the artistic evaluation of his creations in the present and the future? If the official establishment wants the prestige of a particular artist can it increase or decrease the value of his art? Art in Politics

In the fourth aspect of art in politics I raise the question if to a certain extent there is an artist at work in the political making? Can we make the assertion that certain people have a political-artistic talent which makes it easier for them to succeed in the political arena?

In this context, I very much believe, that in order to be a player in the political arena winning public opinion, a leader needs to be creative and have strong interpersonal skills combining artistic elements.

Copyright (c) 2008 Jackson Kern

It is commonly accepted that the project of sustainable development is conceptually composed of three constituent parts. These parts are (1) environmental sustainability, (2) economic sustainability, and (3) social-political sustainability. The United Nations 2005 World Summit refers to the “interdependent and mutually reinforcing pillars” of sustainable development as environmental protection, economic development and social development. The interdependency of the first two is evident; it is perhaps the greatest challenge of our time to satisfy the needs and wants of burgeoning populations within the binding constraints imposed by our physical environment. But what is this great hoopla about social development and sustainability of politics, and what exactly is its place?

If environmental protection is concerned with the preservation of our natural environment and resources, and economic sustainability is concerned with seeking durable growth solutions therein, then the social-political sphere can be thought of as representative of the more purely human element in the equation. Social development and social-political sustainability are intimately related concepts but they are not in fact entirely interchangeable. It is important that we understand their symbiotic relationship and its implications for the broader sustainability project.

Social development is a concept that is familiar to most of us in its many and varying forms. Within any given society there are opportunities to improve and enrich each of its composite parts in many ways. Of sometimes greater importance is the need to harmonize relations amongst these various and sometimes opposing elements. Those actively engaged in the process of social development include agents acting within its institutions to effect change via established channels. Of more notice, however, are often those who act from the outside, those who reject the society’s institutions as inadequate, and who advocate wholesale social and political change as the only true path to social enrichment and development.

It is in this transformational role that we begin to touch on the realm of social-political sustainability. Within any given social context, social development can be pursued with the simple granting of budgets. Financial and human resources are utilized to strengthen and enrich societies by improving educational opportunities, by embracing the marginalized and the forgotten, by making improvements to healthcare and hygienic conditions and by endearing knowledge of financial and entrepreneurial activities to name just a few. Here, the distinguishing feature of social development is that it is executed within the institutional mechanisms and constraints prevailing in that given entity.

Social-political sustainability too is very much concerned with physical and material standing of peoples, but further than this it is concerned with the state of their civil society. Social-political sustainability is differentiated from pure social development in that its sphere is expanded beyond the employment of simply monetary means. Social-political development entails not only the engagement of institutional mechanisms, but also their modification and advancement. Social-political sustainability thus seeks pathways to durable social enrichment and development via the vibrancy and health of a society’s political processes. At its core, there ultimately is little more than an absolute faith in the functioning of liberal democracy. Despite the frequent changing of the guard and the potential for policy discontinuity this entails, it is believed that representative republican government bolstered by mass public awareness and participation provides the best model of a sustainable body politic.

In addition to social policy, environmental and economic policies are clearly dictated in the political realm as well. It is in the creed of the sustainability project to hold that healthy political bodies which are truly representative of the collective will can show us the path forward. Recognition of the strain to our natural environment that unrestrained industrialization and consumption have brought depends upon it.

The French political thinker and historian Alexis de Tocqueville long ago warned Americans that their political structure (and indeed that of all democracies) could fall hostage to a “tyranny of the majority”. To illustrate the weight of these words, consider a scenario in which a pluralistic political majority were unwilling to adopt legislation which combatively addresses climate change issues, while the autocratic but highly environmentalist ruler of another nation prosecuted an aggressive climate change agenda with gusto. In the face of peril, such a situation would revive human moral and ethical dilemmas of the highest order.

Faith in democracy and the ideologies it espouses transcends the purely political arena. In a free and wealthy society, those in the pursuit of scientific truth battle only scientific obstacles. If the danger is real, the truth will be brought to bear. But even in the face of incontrovertible truth, can the titanic inertia of human complacency and comfort be overcome and conquered?

Many scientific and economic authorities now believe that emissions caps are insufficient in the battle against climate change. They call for a massive mobilization of public funds for investment in research with the goal of discovering new low-carbon-emissions technologies, and this on the scale of the Manhattan Project that delivered the first atomic bombs.

We will be watching. This, folks, is nothing less than a test of social-political sustainability in action.