COMMUNITY POWER STRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT OF CHIKAJI

COMMUNITY, SABON GARI LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA, KADUNA STATE,

NIGERIA.

Abdul Hamidu Abdullahi PhD

Department of Local Government and Development Studies
Faculty of Administration
Ahmadu Bello University Zaria
hamiduabdul07@gmail.com
08065298660

Abstract:

The community have attracted a lot of discourse in terms of power, development, and social
relations, to the extent that it now constitute sites of political engagement and contestation
with contradictory meanings around which diverse economic and social cultural practices
occur. The interplay of community power structure with the socio-political and economic
institution and structures are what gives raise to development activities or otherwise. This
paper examines the community power structure of Chikaji Community. The paper
interrogates the existence of power structure, its nature, composition and overall bearing on
development. The methodology use for the study is a survey design using focus group
interview and questionnaire coupled with secondary data anchored on grounded theory. The
findings indicate that rather than having the economic elites controlling and influencing
power it is the cleric and community leaders that are the dominant power structure. The
study recommends that for the dominant power structure to be able to contribute and
participate more meaningfully to the development of the community there is the need for them
to undertake some form of orientation on rural and community development and the youths
should be giving more voice in the affairs of the community.

Key Words: - Community, Development, Power Structure, Community Leaders.

INTRODUCTION:
The community has attracted a lot of discourse in terms of power, development, and social
relations. For any community to develop there has to be full exploitation of human and
material resources and to achieve the above people in any community have to direct and
dictate the kind of development they want. In achieving the above interest, individuals and
groups emerge to influence and control the power that dictates development (Mills, 1957),
(Dahl, 1961), Kuponiyi, 2008), Oyeleke, 2013), Boogers, 2014). The individuals and social
groups that dictate and influence development within communities are the community power
structure.
Development could be a cluster of benefits given to people in need but it also requires the
populace gaining a greater mastery over their own destiny. It relies on local people using

[1]
assets in new ways, working cooperatively, improving networks, mobilising existing skills,
and putting innovative ideas into action with having synergy with formally constituted
institutions or establishments such as Federal, State, Local governments and donor agencies
as partners.
This is the more reason why international development partners favours local over central
planning. The shift is partly in response to the well-documented inadequacies of top–down
approach to development. These give rise to the community-driven development that is
tailored by the community power structure applying community-based planning strategies
and the use of participatory action to initiate, implement, monitor and evaluate community
programmes.
The power structure is constituted of institutions or establishments together with various
social groupings and individuals within the rural communities. These are the core groups of
people that identify community felt-needs, while at the same time working together for
solutions to the identified community felt-needs. These small groups of “activist gladiators”
integrate community members for developmental purpose. They are the active community
members that identify the community’s problems, work out policies and decide for
organizational solutions, or mobilize constituency support for program implementation
(Checkoway, 1991).
The power structure are can be categorised into both formal power structure, made up of
individuals working with constituted institutions or establishments like federal, state and local
government staffs, elected and appointed politician, etc. The informal power structure is
made up of individuals that are not working with the formal constituted institutions or
establishments such as farmers, local artisans, traditional rulers; Social Groups such as age
grades community development associations, Teachers, etc. Those that posses such powers
have a stake in the system and can either ignite or even sabotage development in their
respective communities (Gaventa, 2006).
The examination of community power structure in any community entails a clear conception
of what a community is. It is a generic term, which can be referred to isolated rural hamlets,
small college towns, major industrial centres, state capitals, exclusive suburbs and resort
towns (Clark 1965).
Communities can then be broken down into different types which will obviously lead to
different types of power structures too. These also lean to the fact the community can no
longer be seen as a naturally occurring entity, a political space that one escapes to, in order to

[2]
avoid the pressures or the bustle and hustle of city life. Rather, the community now
constitute sites of political engagements and contestation with contradictory meanings around
where diverse economic and socio-cultural decisions and practices occur. And it is the
interplay and the harness of Community Power Structure with the prevailing socio-political
and economic institutions and structures that can give rise to developmental activities or
otherwise in any community.
The paper interrogates the existence of power structure, its nature and composition in Chikaji
community of Sabon-Gari Local Government Area of Kaduna State.
Community power structure is generally considered as a dynamic social system and most of
the time in some state of transition. The rate of transition, the solidarity or differences of the
power actors, and “membership” in the power structure may vary considerably from one
community to another and within a given community over time. The issue is, to what extent
is the above applicable to Chikaji community?
Studies have indicated that the following factors serve as bases for influence and,
consequently, as base for power: past achievements, source of ideas, human relations skills,
contact with others (in and outside of community), access to needed resources, influence
within community organisations, family background, past participation in community groups,
length of residence in community, age, occupation, education and control of jobs, wealth,
credit and mass media. The fundamental question is that, in Chikaji Community do the above
mentioned factors exist?

Another problem frequently encountered in communities is that of leaders not conceding

decision-making roles to other people especially in different development project situations.
Some feel they can perform effectively in all situations thereby arrogating the roles of
initiators, legitimizers, planners and executors to themselves alone for all projects (Oyeleke,
2013). This goes to underscore the relevance of community power structure in issues of
development within Chikaji Community.

Based on the problematic above, an analysis of community power must grapple with such
research questions as ‘Who governs Chikaji community? Is the nature of the community
power structures in Chikaji pluralistic? In which sectors of the community do the power
actors have more influence during decision making?
The main objective of the study is to examine the Community Power Structure of Chikaji
Community. The Specific objectives include the examination of structure and dynamics of

[3]
power within Chikaji Community; identify the power actors in Chikaji community and the
areas in which the power actors exercise their influence and control in the community.

Methodology
The study uses descriptive survey research that facilitates the collection of factual
information. The primary data used in the studies include focus group discussion and
questionnaire, while secondary data is also used to supplement the primary data.
The population of the study comprise of the people in Chikaji Community. The population
exhibits degree of homogeneity as been members of the community. As such in arriving at
sample size, purposive Judgmental random sample was used to arrive at those that were
administered questionnaires while the list of key influential people in Chikaji Community
were arrived at through preliminary investigation in the Community using informants.
Selection of participants in this research was based on purposive sampling also know as
judgmental sampling. It is a form of non-probability sampling where participants were not
selected randomly, but on the basis of the researcher’s knowledge of the population.
The population of Chikaji community was estimated at 27,000 in 2006 and this group was
identified as the target population for this research. It is not possible to gather a list of the
names of people of the community and more so it is not every person that is relevant to the
research. Babbie, (2005) expressed that at times, it is appropriate to select a sample based on
the purpose of the research, its elements and knowledge of a population, and to collect
sufficient data for the purpose of the research is to examine the community power structure
existing in Chikaji community.
Based on the above therefore the sum of twenty people was chosen based on their knowledge
of the community, and questionnaires were administered to them. Six people were chosen for
the focus group interview.
In terms of data analysis simple percentage was used and the highest percentage is given as
the accepted decision rule that will lead to either accepting or rejecting the research
assumption. The research assumption postulated for this study is there are no community
power structure existing in Chikaji Community that active and influential in decision making.

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework.

Scholars have identified the various roles played by both individual and community groups
in decision making at the community level. For instance, recent researches suggest that

[4]
individuals, community organisation, business firms and trade associations have shown most
active interest in local politics, as they lobby public officials to participate in local
governance (Coopes, et al, 2005:2006).
Community
One of the earliest theorists on community, Ferdinand Tonnies considered community as
Gemeinschaft and society as Gesellschaft. In Gemeinschaft (‘community’) human
relationships are intimate, enduring and based on clear understanding of each person stands in
society. A man’s ‘worth’ is estimated according to who he is not what he has done – in other
words, status is inscriptive, rather than achieved in a community, roles are specific and
constant with one another: a man does not find his duties in one role conflicting with the
duties that develop upon him from another role.
Community can be defined as a number of families residing in a relatively small area within
which they have develop a more or less complete socio – cultural definition imbued with
collective identification and by means of which they solve problems arising from sharing of
an area.

Power
Power can be seen as the ability to ensure compliance despite resistance from individual
involved. It is the ability to compel or influence others to do what they would otherwise not
do. The various form of power as described by Handy (1985) is as follows:

(i) Physical power – this is the capability of using physical force to achieve influence.
(ii) Resource power - this is the possession of valued resources both human and
otherwise.
(iii) Position power – this is the power of offices or position. It refers to the rights
written into the particular position (to allocate work, assess performance, etc).
(iv) Expert power – this arises from the possession of acknowledged expertise. This is
power which, in effect to a position by those over whom it is to be used. The
power only exists if other people recognize it and value it.
(v) Personal power – this is the power of personality (charisma) which is relevant to
community power structure.

The possession of any of the above is referred to as a power actor. These are individuals who
have social power and exercise such power in making their community and regularly
participate in community decision making. The Power actors in a community are not only
[5]
individuals but also important groups or organization which act as a unit in exercising social
power such as Unions, Churches Congregations, Ethnic and Racial Organizations, Civic
Clubs, etc.

The above clearly indicate that power is not simply embedded in structural relations, but is
also constituted through: language and through every day practices, in short power is derived
from the community.
Channels of exhibiting Power
Power usually is defined as the capacity to control the action of others and control is usually
exhibited through the following:

i. Authority – is the power given to the individual by the system i.e. an office,
whether elected, appointed, or delegated such as the chairman of a local
government council, bank and company executive, traditional rulers etc.
ii. Influence- is the amount of power in individual has by virtue of control of or
access to resources relevant to the proposed social action. As the capacity to
influence resides in the individual and his abilities, not in the role itself. Influence
may be due to such factors as wealth, reputation, skill in handing people, special
knowledge of the social system, or reciprocal obligation.
iii. Power structure- is an identifiable interaction pattern composed of power actors
who may relate to each other in a number of different ways.

Types of Power Structure

The above give rise to power structures which various studies have shown that it differs in
rural and urban communities. As a community changes from small, tightly – knit and rather
homogenous, that power structure evolves from simple to more complex. The word
‘’structure’’ implies rather static, but coalitions change shift, depending on the issue and
circumstances.

In urban settings, where the power structures are more complex, there is a greater emphasis
on specializations of skills and knowledge. Therefore, the power structures will be more
specialized and focused.

The power structure of any community can then be categorized broadly as follows:-
1. One-person power structure- power centres in an individual who is then surrounded by
“lieutenants”. For example where one family has dominated a community for generations or a

[6]
person or company “owns” a town. This is on the wane now due to globalisation,
industrialisation as its attaining specialisation and growing complexity of society.
2. Tightly-knit group- the decision making is controlled by the “power elite”. The member of
this power group may be the local aristocracy.
3. (Split community) segmented power structure-with each group competing for power such
as the management and labour unions, Republican and Democrat, Protestant and Catholic,
each trying to influence and dominate decision making.
4. “Power pool” or “diffused” power structure-is a “pool” of power actors each trying to
influence and dominate decision making.

Characteristic of Power Actors

Studies of some communities indicate the following factors as bases for influence and,
consequently, as bases for power: past achievements, source of ideas, human relations skills,
contact with others (in and outside of community), access to needed resources, influence
within community organisations, family background, past participation in community groups,
length of residence in community, age, occupation, education and control of jobs, wealth,
credit and mass media.
Based on the above therefore the characteristics of power actors include the following:-

1. Persons 50 years old and over.

2. In the higher income group in the community.
3. In a position of having control of, or access to, the resources of their position in credit
institution, firms employing several people, mass media and/or elective offices.
4. Above average in education for their age peers.
5. In occupation described as self-employed, owner or executive residents of the
community.
6. Long-time residents of the community.

Theoretical Framework.
The elitist model of power is use in this study. The model represents power as concentrated in
the hands of a few people that include ruling elite, a small number of people that are able to
make all the important decisions, which are here referred to as the power elites. Mills
[1959:4] suggests that economic, political and military elites are distinct from other elites.
Other writers have pointed to bureaucratic, aristocratic, social religious and local elites as
existing too. The elites are defined by Mills as:-
Composed of men whose positions enable them to transcend the ordinary
environments of ordinary men and women; they are in positions to make
[7]
 decisions having major consequences. Whether they do or do not make such
decision is less important than the fact that they do occupy such pivotal
positions: their failure to act, their failure to make decisions, is itself an act
that is often of greater consequence than the decisions they do make, for they
are in command of the major hierarchies and organisations of modern society.
[Mills, 1959:4]
A look at Chikaji Community will indicate whether or not there are various elites that govern
the community.

Data Presentation and Analysis

The data presentation will be done using table and the analysis will be done using simple
parentage to test the hypotheses.
Table 1.1 showing the number of questionnaire distributed and returned.
Response Number Percentage %
Number distributed 20 100
Number returned 14 70
Number not returned 6 30
Source: - Researchers survey, 2017

As can be seen from table 1.1, the researcher administered the questionnaires, only fourteen
were returned which represent 70% of the responses. This is significant enough for researcher
to continue the analysis.
Table 1.2 Period of Stay in the Community.
Response Number Percentage %
0-15 years 1 7.14
16-25 years 1 7.14
26-35 years 2 14.28
36-above years 10 71.14
Total 14 100
Source: - Researchers survey, 2011

Table 4.2 indicates the period of stay of the respondents in Chikaji Community. The majority
have stayed for over thirty six years and above which is 71.14%. This indicates that the
respondents have enough knowledge to speak on the historical and current development in
Chikaji community.

Table 1.3 level of influence

Reponses Very Percentage Not Percentage %
influential % influential
Individual 12 85.71 2 14.28

Community 8 57.14 6 42.85

Association

[8]
 Youth 7 50 7 42.85
Association

Business 4 28.57 10 71.42

Association

Religious 13 92.85 1 7.14

Groups

Professional 2 14.28 12 85.71

Groups

Women Groups 1 7.14 13 92.85

Political Parties 7 21.43 7 78.57
Farmers 5 21.43 9 78.57
Association
Okada riders 2 14.28 14 78.57
Traditional 13 92.85 1 7.14
Rulers
Source: - Researchers survey, 2011

The above table indicate that the traditional leaders and clerics are very important in
influencing decision making in the community. The only group following them are certain
individuals, members of community associations and youth association. The least group that
influence decision making is the women groups follow by the commercial motorcycle riders,
[okada riders] and other professional bodies.

Table 1.4:- the Areas of Activity

Reponses Very Percentage Not Percentage
active % active %
Refuse 2 14.28 12 85.71
Collection
Land Use - - 14 100
Electricity 4 28.57 10 71.42
Supply
Water Supply 4 28.57 10 71.42
Sanitation 7 50 7 50
Social 10 71.42 4 28.57
Problems
Economic 7 50 7 50
Development

Personal 9 64.28 5 35.71

Problems
Conflict 11 78.57 3 21.43
[9]
 resolution
Employment 4 28.57 10 71.42
Drainage 10 71.42 4 28.57
Educational 9 64.28 5 35.71
placement
Source: - Researchers survey, 2011

The above table indicate that influence is felt more in the area of conflict resolution and
dealing with social problems which represent about 78.5% and 71.42% respectively. While
the least area is the Land Use and Refuse collection which represent 100 % and 14.28%
respectively.

Findings
From the above it indicates that there is the existence of community power structure and the
most influential among them are the clericals and community leaders, therefore the research
assumption is hereby accepted.
It is also discovered during the research that some people are more active and influential in
decision making in their group capacity than in individual groups such as business groups,
farmers Association and Community Associations etc.

Conclusion and Recommendation

The study indicates that there is the existence of pluralist community power structure and not
an elitist structure in Chikaji community, though the clerics and some community leaders are
the dominant. The youth’s performance in community development is recognised but they are
not the dominant power actors. Chikaji community though amidst the Industrial Estate yet is
facing some problems of development which the community power structures are doing their
best to solve it.
The study therefore recommends the following:-
[1] The dominant power structure to be able to contribute and participate more meaningfully
to the development of the community there is the need for them to undertake some form
of orientation on rural and community development.
[2] The youths even if they cannot be regarded as power actors, they should be giving more
voice in the affairs of the community.
[3] Some of form of orientation should be conduct for the various state actors and non-state
actors on the need for them to also get involved in such areas like refuse collection.
[4] The orientation should also extend to the various associations such as women groups,
Farmers association, such that their concern will not be only to their members but to
others in society.
[5] The government should do something about the moribund industries within the Chikaji
industrial area as such will check the unemployment rate within the community.

REFERENCES:

[10]
Babbie, R. (2005). The Basics of Social Research, Thomson Wadsworth, London
Bell, C & Newby H. (1971) Community Studies: - An Introduction to the
Sociology of the Local Community, George Allen & Unwin Ltd, London.
Cooper, C. A, Nowness A.J. Roberts S. (2005), ‘’Perceptions of Power: Interest Groups in
Local Politics’ in State and Local Government Review. Vol. 37, No 3 2005; 206, 16.
http://slg.sagepub.com/content/37/3/206, viewed 25th June 2011
Clark T.N (1965) ‘Power and Community Structure: - Who governs, where and when?’ A
paper presented at 1965 Annual meeting of American Sociological Association,
Chicago, and III.
Ekong E.E (1988) An Introduction to Rural Sociology, Jumak publishers limited
Ibadan.
Farazmand, A. (1999) the elite question: Toward a Normative Elite theory of organisation,
Administration and Society Journal 1999:31:321 online Versions at http://aas.sage
pub. Com/contents (31)3/321.accessed on 12.october.2010.
Foucault, M (1980) in Gordon C. (Eds) Power /Knowledge: Selected Interviews
And Other Writings, pantheon Books, New York.
Haralambos and Holborn (2004) Sociology: - Themes and Perspectives.
HarperCollins. Publishers Limited, London.
Hossain A. (2006) ‘’the Changing Local Rural Power Structure: the Elite and NGOS in
Bangladesh, in Journal of Health Management, Sage Publications.
http://jhm.sagepub.com/content/8/2/229.accessed on 5 - 9 –2010.
Hunter, E. A (1952) Community Power Structure, Chapel Hill, University of
North Carolina Press, North Carolina
Jumare B. (2004) Economic Elite and Community Power Structure at Local
Government Level in Nigeria, in Abuja Management Review (AMR). Journal of the
Faculty of Management Science, University of Abuja, Abuja Nigeria. Joyce Graphic
Printers & publisher’s co. Kaduna. ISSSN 1596-6666
Kuponiyi F.A. (2008). ‘’Community Power Structure: The Role of Local
Leaders in Community Development Decision Making in Ajaawo, Oyo state,
Nigeria’’ in Anthropologist, 10(4):239-243. Kamala –Raj 2008. Accessed on the 11 th
august 2010.
Olukoju A. (2005). ‘’Actors and Institutions in Urban Politics in Nigeria: Agege
(Lagos) Since the 1950s’’ working papers. Nr.58http;// www. Uni-mainz de/ unifeas.
Schofield B. (2002) ‘’ partners in power: governing the self – sustaining
Community ‘’ in sociology in British Sociological Association, sage
http//www.publication.com/content/36/3/603.accessed on 5- 9 -2010.
Sunders P. et al (1978) ‘’Rural Community and Rural Community Power ‘’ in
Howard Newby, International Perspective in Rural Sociology, John Wiley & sons,
New York.
Uins Ford, T.R.S Lunsford, B.R, [1995]. The Research Sample, Part I: Sampling. Journal of
Prosthelics and Orthotics, 7(3), 105-112.

[11]