Developing Country Studies www.iiste.org ISSN 2224-607X (Paper) ISSN 2225-0565 (Online) Vol.3, No.7, 2013 102 Politics, Poverty and Violent Conflicts: Exploring Their Complex Nexus in Nigeria Segun Joshua Department of Political Science and International Relations, College of Development Studies, Covenant University, PMB 1023, Ota, Ogun State, Nigeria. E-mail of corresponding author: joshuasegun2003@yahoo.com Abstract This paper explores the nexus of politics, poverty and violent conflicts with a particular focus on the Nigerian fourth republic. Anchored on the frustration-aggression theory, the paper argues that profligacy of political office holders impoverishes the masses which have direct or indirect link with violent conflict. The paper posits that to reduce poverty index and its implications on violent conflict, political office holders should be re-orientated towards selfless service and that culture of peace should be built among the citizenry. Keywords: Politics, Poverty, Violent Conflict, Nigeria 1. Introduction Politics is the means through which people attain positions of authority with the ultimate goal of allocating resources. If political office holders allocate resources dispassionately, it will alleviate poverty and culminate into holistic development. Conversely, if political office holders use the authority conferred on them to allocate resources disproportionately to their selfish interest, development will be retarded, the masses become oppressed and it may lead to frustration and aggression that can ignite violent conflict directly or indirectly. This can better be understood when one extrapolate from the work of Ibeanu (2008) that affluence can be used to eliminate affliction which will invariably result into political development. In the same vein, affluence can as well be used to perpetuate oppression which he interpreted as political oppression. He also argues that affliction could be used to eliminate affluence which he tagged as political rebellion. Ibeanu concluded that the first is the desirable, the second is the most prevalent and the third becomes inevitable because of the second. This lends credence to the quotation credited to Adegbite (2009:33) that: In human history, no nation ever prospers with perverse values. In fact, no nation can prosper where personal will supplants the general will. Where established procedure are observed in the breach, where governance is for self-enrichment rather than public service. Where there exists a yawning gap between leadership and stewardship… virtuous societies are built by leadership who are accountable to the led are driven by the altruism desire to improve the lot of the highest number of the people. The title of our discourse therefore, suggests two issues; namely, how has politics contributed to entrenchment and institutionalization of poverty focusing on the Nigeria’s fourth republic? The second issue is how poverty has fuelled violent conflict directly or indirectly. For analytical purposes this discourse is segmented into the following sections: the introduction; conceptualization of the key concepts; and theoretical framework. The next section discusses the interface between politics, poverty and violent conflict in general. This is followed by exploring the nexus between politics, poverty and violent conflict in Nigeria with a particular focus on the fourth republic. The concluding section proffers some recommendations that could mitigate the use of politics to spread poverty with attendant violent implications. 2. Conceptual Explications 2.1 Politics Politics is an omnibus term that does not lend itself to a universally acceptable definition. Suffice to say that there are as many definitions as there are commentators on the concept. To Lasswell (1936) politics simply denotes “who gets what and how?. Dahl (1976:3) sees it as “any persistent pattern of human relationships that involve, to a significant extent, control, influence, power or authority”. Easton (1965:57) defines politics as the “authoritative allocation of values”. From the various definitions above it can be gleaned that politics denotes the struggle and the process of acquiring political power with the aim of allocating resources. Scholars like Appadorai (1974), views the concept from the perspective of state organization. Still Hariss (1979) sees the concept from the angle of conflict management. The above definitions are positive connotations of politics. However, some political commentators have also viewed the concept from a pejorative sense. Thus, Alexandra Bierce sees politics as strife of interest, masquerading as a contest of principles, the conduct of public affairs for private advantage (Pius 1986). It also connotes “unseemingly machinations of the ambitious and self-serving to gain advantage over others” (Bibby and Schaffner 2008:15). However, the definition of politics that will guide