The understanding of Nigerian foreign policy cannot be achieved through the application of one and only theoretical perspective. As a matter of fact, its formulation depends on multiple factors and it is influenced both by the international and the state level. Consequently, it is appropriate to distinguish selected elements and compare how different IR theories understand them. In this paper, there will be a critical juxtaposition between the liberal and neoclassical realist understandings of the active engagement of Nigeria in regional and continental organizations, with particular attention to the military and economic fields. Then, there will be a comparison between the constructivist and Marxist explanation of the attempt of Nigerian leadership to improve its image abroad.
Apparently, the engagement with institutions fits with the weak liberal interdependence theory and the neoliberal paradigm, whose approach is system-based. As a matter of fact, Nigeria actively sponsored and supported the institution of ECOWAS in the 1970s, when West Africa was plagued by political instability and mutual distrust (Babatunde Amao and Okeke-Uzodike, 2015).
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Since the primary objective of ECOWAS was the economic integration between member States (ECOWAS, The Treaty), one of its very first outcomes was the construction of mutual economic interdependence between the different national economies. Coherently with the weak interdependence theory, the trade interdependence made the perspective of conflict supremely expensive, since it was confronted with the mutual gain guaranteed by economic cooperation (Beach, 2019). In this case, the liberal paradigm would spotlight that the newly created international economic interdependence allowed Abuja to secure the development of its economy, and to aspire becoming an industrial powerhouse in the region of Western Africa (J.B.Olatunde, 1980).
However, liberal paradigms fail to explain the recent protectionist turns of Nigerian economic foreign policy, particularly noticeable in the delayed signature of the African Continental Free Trade Agreement - AfCFTA (Vanguard, 2018). In this matter, the neoclassical realist perspective demonstrates a greater explanatory power for its emphasis on the role of domestic factors in the formulation of foreign policy (Beach, 2019). In the case of the AfCFTA, the widespread poverty, the pervasive corruption (Transparency International, 2018) and the low Human Development Index (UNDP, 2018) probably contributed to the Nigerian wavering about the African Continental Free Trade Agreement, whose ratification was first guaranteed, then disavowed, and finally approved with some considerable limitations (Vanguard, 2018; Quartz, 2019).
Focusing on the field of political cooperation, it seems that the neoliberal paradigm is able to fully understand and explain the institution of ECOWAS. As a matter of fact, it claims that reiterated interactions between States within an institutional framework contributed to alleviate the security dilemma in Western Africa: the institution of ECOWAS contributed to creating common and stable expectations about peace between neighbors (Nye and Welch). Again, Abuja has been pushing for a gradual deepening of the cooperation between the ECOWAS member States, that came to include political, security and cultural issues (Omo-Ogbebor, 2017). At this way, Nigerian foreign policy contributed to secure the political stability in the region, at the same time guaranteeing its own national security against attacks from neighbor countries.
However, it is precisely on the pattern of expansion of the ECOWAS competences to the military field that the explanatory power of liberal paradigms fails. As a matter of fact, Abuja has been pursuing a foreign policy centered on the military application of the leadership’s belief about the irreplaceable role of Nigeria in the African continent (Osaherumwe Idahosa and Adebayo, 2017). Thus, it is appropriate to adopt again a neoclassical realist perspective, that is based on a State-level approach to understanding how domestic factors may contribute to the definition of national foreign policy (Beach, 2019). As a matter of fact, the debate of the political elite on Nigeria’s prominent role in the African continent crafted a foreign policy that implied a noticeable military engagement abroad. For instance, Nigeria actively promoted and led peacekeeping initiatives in neighboring states, like Liberia and Sierra Leone, and it was basically the sole funder of them (Kolapo, 2014). Such an outward commitment strained the public finances, already stressed by a mix of poor governance and lack of transparency (Bach, 2007).
The magnitude of economic issues, societal problems and security challenges tarnished the public image of Nigeria abroad. As a result, the two last Nigerian presidents, Goodluck Jonathan and Muhammadu Buhari, engaged in domestic structural reforms, but they also asked for international help and foreign aid to implement their efforts (Lysa, Terfa and Tsegyu, 2015).
The attempt to improve the public image and perception of Nigeria can be read like a foreign policy strategy to improve the country’s status in international politics. At these regards, the two theoretical perspectives of constructivism and Marxist international political economy enter into a conflict while understanding and explaining it.
As far as constructivism is concerned, the emphasis placed by Nigeria on its external image is a confirmation of its importance in foreign policy. As Wendt (1992) puts it, international politics is a politics of identities, that are being constructed by re-iterated interactions between states. It is possible to argue that the national image is the external representation of national identity, and it at the same way subject to a process of social construction constituted by the relations with other states (Adegoju, 2016). In the case of Nigeria, its recent public image has been socially characterized by denigrating associations, like the linkage between the Nigerian population and criminal groups (Lysa, Terfa and Tsegyu, 2015). As a study conducted by Lysa, Terfa and Tsegyu (2015) has demonstrated, the re-formulation of public image in a positive sense could support the formulation of a foreign policy able to serve effectively the well-being of Nigerian people through the achievement of a larger quantity of foreign aid and wider international cooperation.
From the point of view of the Marxist strand of IPE, constructivism fails to consider the wider impact of foreign aid on Nigeria. As a matter of fact, foreign aid is seen as a tool of modern imperialism (Richards, 1977). Indeed, its pre-ordained definition of development and relative political requirements represent a way to internationalize further capital and capitalism (Richards, 1977). As a consequence, foreign aid is an instrument to endure the structural dependence that prevents the development of peripheral, developing economies in favor to the interests of the capitalistic, developed economies (Nye and Welch, 2011). Thus, the Nigerian quest for greater financial fluxes is a demonstration of its dependence on the international capitalistic system.
Overall, it is clear that none of the theoretical perspectives can offer a definitive understanding and explanation of the selected elements. However, each of them provides valuable insight into Nigerian foreign policy. As long as the membership in regional institutions is concerned, the liberal paradigm explains the importance of economic and political space of interdependence, while neoclassical realism highlights the impact of domestic factors in formulating the foreign policy. In the case of the attempt to improve the public image of the country, constructivism explains the importance of positive external perception, while Marxism ponders the origin and outcome of quest for a greater quantity of financial flows.
Stuck on your essay?
