Of L. N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University педагогика. Психология. ӘЛеуметтану
parts of the country has been responsible for
жүктеу/скачать 3,76 Mb. Pdf көрінісі
|
parts of the country has been responsible for a certain reversal of the progression contrast between the prosperity of the former and the deepening poverty of the latter. There is a need for interdisciplinary analysis. The objectives of this paper are to substantiate the hypothesis that systemic marginality is responsible for the difficulties being experienced by people and communities within a system whereby distribution is inequitably constructed through the systems of religious and cultural hegemony. Systemic or hegemonic marginality differs from market-induced marginality because it defies market reforms as a corrective measure. Mainly because it stems from a conscious plan by an existing hegemony to perpetuate its political control, social exclusion and economic exploitation. The history of hegemonic marginality is considered specific to each community relative to the historical configuration of power within it. Vivid instances of these would include the inequity and oppression suffered under apartheid in South Africa and Rhodesia, ethnically targeted exclusionary practices in countries like Rwanda, Ethiopia, and Sudan, and policies that (in)advertently marginalize ethnic and religious groups leading to horizontal inequalities in countries like Nigeria and Cote d’Ivoire where autochthony confers and denies rights. In many African countries, it remains at the center of agitations for secession and ethnic militancy. However, the susceptibility of ethnic minorities to hegemonic marginality is peculiar not to Africa alone [3]. Reversion to the old ways of life leading to the eminence of the Weberian traditional authority has taken the form of serfdom and feudalism underscored by absolute poverty and hopelessness particularly in the northern parts of Nigeria today. As stated by ex-president, Goodluck Jonathan: “A situation where 52.4% of males in the Northeastern region of Nigeria have no formal Western education. The figure is even worse when you consider the states most affected by the insurgency. 83.3% of the male population in Yobe state has no formal Western education. In Borno state, it is 63.6%. Bearing this in mind is it a coincidence that the Boko Haram insurgency is strongest in these two states?” [4, p.196]. In the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Index Nigeria Country Briefing published in 2017, the poverty map of Nigeria’s states runs as follows: Arguably, there are development disparities throughout the country, as can be seen in the last two southern states. Nevertheless, poverty in Nigeria, according to Elombah, increased from 27% in 1980 to 66% in 1996, in 1999 it increased to 70%, by 2011 it was estimated that more than 85% of Nigerians live in poverty, accelerated mainly due to pervasive impoverishment in the north of the country [6]. A report published by the National Bureau of Statistics released in May 2020 revealed comprehensive data on poverty and inequality in Nigeria for the year 2020: O.W. Adeleke, А.T. Аbzhaliyeva Zamfara Jigawa- Bauchi Sokoto- Kebbi Katsina Gombe Taraba *Bayelsa *Osun 92% 88% 87% 87% 86% 82.2% 77% 78% 29% 11% жүктеу/скачать 3,76 Mb. Достарыңызбен бөлісу:
|