TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract
CHAPTER ONE
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Background of Study
1.2 Statement of Problems
1.3 Research Objectives
1.4 Research Question
1.5 Research Hypothesis
1.6 Scope of Study
1.7 Significance of study
1.8 Limitation of study
1.9 Definition of terms
CHAPTER TWO
2.0 Literature Review
CHAPTER THREE
3.0 Research methodology
3.1 Research Design
3.2 Population of study
3.3 Sampling Design and Procedure
3.4 Data Collection Instrument
3.5 Administration of Data Collection Instrument
3.6 Methods of data analysis
CHAPTER FOUR
4.0 Data Presentation and Analysis
4.1 Data Presentation
4.2 Test of Hypothesis
CHAPTER FIVE
5.0 Summary, Conclusion and Recommendation
5.1 Summary
5.2 Conclusion
5.3 Recommendation
References
Questionnaire
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Man, says Aristotle, is by nature a political animal. This implies that man is naturally inclined to live in a political society. Joseph Omoregbe aptly captures this idea when he says that no one can rightly claim to be independent of the society, because no man is an island. To buttress these points, Aristotle maintained that: “he who is unable to live in a society or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god.”[1]
This is to say that man is a social being by nature. Thus, man identifies and associates with his fellow man and the society in which he lives. More so, man as a member of the human society has been endowed with some fundamental human rights. Hence, it is the duty of justice to get their rights protected and ensure a peaceful co-existence of man in the society he lives.
Justice is something essential to a society, for right is both the basis of the political association and the criterion for deciding what is just. This is because where justice fails to reign, man will face the difficulties in life; he cannot again attain the goal of life. The rich gets richer while the poor gets poorer, power becomes might; and there will be a survival of the fittest. These above facts however, are evident in the case of Nigeria. Our polity is devoid of justice, and as a result, we are living in a corrupt and unjust society. Those at the corridors of power have completely lost the sense of justice in piloting the affairs of the public. They pursue their selfish interest and make conflicting claims on public resources, which most often lead to economic hardship and violation of human rights. This situation therefore, calls for an urgent and lasting solution which could definitely assist in the restoration of justice into Nigerian democratic government.
As it could be noticed right from the ancient era, philosophers and social theorists equally uphold this view that justice is a virtue, which is pertinent or dialectically related to moral conduct. And in line with this thought, Rawls had to say this,
Justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others. It does not allow that the sacrifices imposed on a few are outweighed by the larger sum of advantages enjoyed by many. 2
That is to say that end does not justify the means. So, the investigation into the social significance of justice in Nigeria democratic system is our guiding spirit.
1.1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
History indicates that right from the ancient times to the contemporary period, justice has been regarded as one of the cardinal virtues which man as a political animal makes quixotic effort to establish in the society he lives. Thus, justice is the ultimate goal of political life, but experience has shown us that it is injustice that dominates political debate. The reason is that it is easier to identify and deplore injustice than define precisely what is lacking in an unjust political society or what an ideally just political society might be like. This however, is the kind of predicament John Rawls sees in modern period, where moral thought and the means of assessing moral behaviour are dominated by utilitarianism. Those who set out, according to him to criticize it often did so, on much narrower front. They pointed out the obscurities of the principle of utility and noted apparent incongruities between many of its implications and our moral sentiments. But they failed to construct a workable and systematic moral conception of justice to oppose it. In reacting to this, Rawls had to develop the concept of justice in which he wanted to work out certain principles that will provide a reasonably systematic alternative to utilitarian conception of justice. The principles he developed dwell strongly on the constant way of equal distribution of wealth and division of benefits and burdens resulting from social cooperation in well-ordered society. Similarly, in Nigerian democratic government today, I think it could be an obligation if not indispensable task to seek social justice, where the political elites in the country have completely lost the sense of justice in piloting public affairs and engaged constantly in violation of human rights and injustice.
And to do that however, the Rawlsian concept of social justice should be our stepping stone through which we shall endeavor to restore justice economically, socially and politically in Nigeria.