PLATO ON JUSTICE (publish by: Dabo Euclid)

CHAPTER ONE
GENERAL INTRODUCTION

Background of Study
The term justice is increasingly becoming a fascinating issue on the front burner in our age. This is as a result of the many injustices that have becoming endemic and perennial, and whose brute impact we are experiencing in our contemporary age. This odious phenomenon has inevitable from recorded history has informed or drawn.It is in so, many philosophers and scholars into thought provoking reflections on the meaning, nature and essence of justice in human social intercourse. It is significant to assert that amongst the verse array of treatises on justice that of Thomas Aquinas is widely held as the most plausible and incisive. According to him, ‘justice is giving each one his due (Gratsch, 173). Moreover, Plato, the great philosopher is renowned for his brilliant pragmatic notion of justice. Plato’s justice was centered on the poor and deplorable political conditions in Athens. He sought the possible ways of restoring the sense of justice in Athens in his work “The Republic” when he divided the state into three classes of people, namely the auxiliaries, rulers and artisans. These classes of people were charged with different responsibilities of actualizing justice in the state because of this, each class was accorded its own place to work, that is, each performing what he or she knows how to do best, for Plato this was justice because it consist in minding your own business and not interfering with other people’s business. And so injustice for Plato comes up when one does what he or she is not fit to do.
It is a firm and constant will to render to each person that which belongs to the person by right. Justice always connotes an equality of some sort, justice, an essentially moral virtue, regulates man in the society with his fellow men. It disposes us to respect the rights of others; the idea of justice is based on the understanding that all persons are equal. Thus all should be treated equally as Formal president of Nigeria Ebere Jonathan once said in one of his campaign speech during 2015 presidential campaign that no ambition in life is worthy the life of a single citizen(Premium Times, march 31).Therefore having known this regularity, dignity and respect that justice conveys in life of people always triggers this question; is there any rational being who will not love to be free? The fact is undisputable that, there is no human being who did not want his freedom; this is innate in every rational being. Aristotle affirmed that “man by nature is a social and rational animal who always desires to be free, move and enjoy the environment in which he finds himself” (Stumpf 102-103).Be that as it may, the masses in our world today are suffering untold hardship because of the greedy people we call our leaders. Most persons have been relegated to the background, humiliated, pauperized and reduced to a state of destitution by the combined forces of the military dictatorship and economic profligacy. All of these social maladies combine to constitute social injustice
A good number of persons are dying every day because of starvation. In addition the issue of bribery and corruption has become the order of the day. As regards the distribution of social services, people are been discriminated either by tribe, race, religion, colour etc., and this makes honest citizens to have little or no chance of progressing. These are but a few vices that the world at large is experiencing. Justiceto a large extent has been misunderstood that is why it is necessary for everyone to have a clear concept of justice. Even those who claim to know the moral implication of justice do not comprehend the roots of this concept and its real meaning and values for the human person. Many view it as a set of socio-political and economic right which no longer serves any human need. But the truth of the matter remains that justice in moral philosophy can be understood only if its actual meaning is grasped.
Against this backdrop, this project, adopts Plato’s principles of justice as the panacea to restore sanity to the Nigerian polity. Plato’s central thesis is that justice consists in stratifying the society according to people’s natural abilities, and their training and role differentiation must be according to their natural ability. Moreover each stratum of the society must play her role effectively. This is against the background that the fulcrum of injustice in Nigeria is various organs of the society not playing their appropriate and respective roles effectively and efficiently. Hence, this work argues that the civil societies must rise up to their noble responsibility as the watchdog of the society to ensure accountability, transparency, good leadership etc., from public official.
Statement of Problem
A critical look into the reckless perpetuation of injustice in Nigeria democracy, one sees a society where the distribution of roles, employment opportunities rights and privilege are not done in accordance with what the beneficiaries actually deserve. One sees a society characterised by nepotism where political appointments, employments, promotions are not done based on merits and qualifications. In specific term, in Nigeria, one sees a situation whereby a well trained medical doctor gets employed as general manager in financial sector. One sees a situation where a Home Economics graduate gets employed in a bank either as a cashier or marketer.The resultant consequences of this gross injustice in role differentiation are gross irresponsibility and inefficiency that characterises the public sector, just to be prudent with words, are a great dis-service to humanity and an affront to the classical concept of justice as presented by Plato. Consequently, this essay is a therapeutic analysis, and a conscious rational attempt to employ the principles of justice as articulated by Plato to evaluate and at the same time to project Plato’s concept of justice as a paradigm to correct the misappropriation of justice in the Nigerian polity. In order to foster a society where government and civil societies would endeavour to ensure that each individual plays his/her role appropriate to his/her talent and natural inclination effectively to the upliftment and common good of the Nigerian society.
Aim and Objectives of the Study
The main aim of this study is to critically study democracy in Nigeria and Plato’s ideal of justice in order to apply Plato’s principles of justice to evaluate the Nigerian system of democracy. in order words, the study attempt to look at the problems and prospects of the Nigeria democracy in relation to Plato’s principles of justice. Consequently, the specific objectives of this study includes to:
Examine the nature and essence of justice; and to critically review the growth and development of democracy in  Nigeria
Exposition of Plato’s concept of justice, to establish veritable principles to strengthen democracy in Nigeria.
Examine the roles of the organs, institutions and the civil society towards the growth of democracy in Nigeria and an implication of Plato’s postulations.
Attempt  a critical evaluation and conclusion of the study
Methodology of the Study
The method of data collection in this research work is analytical and expository. However, the analysis of the data shall flow from, Plato’s- The Rebuplic,relevant materials, textbooks, newspapers, magazines, philosophical journals, and the internet.
Significance of Study
The study is significant because its findings will be of utmost important to the Political leaders of our society because it will help them to see the reason behind the separation of power as proffered by Plato as a sure and best way of creating and bringing peace into the society.  Scholars and students will also find this research work useful, because it exposes them to the Plato’s concept of justice so as to acquire the basic tenets of a good leader in the society.
Policy makers in the society are not left out in the significance of this research work. The exposition of this work to them will give them more insight into the true nature of democracy before they embark into any policy making in the society. The work will also serve as a basis for further research into the nature of Nigerian democracy and justice in the society. It will also identify to the citizens of the society their basic roles towards the actualisation of a sustainable democracy in the society.
Justification of the Study
Injustice has been a cancer worm which has eaten deep into the fabrics of our society and as an eclectic philosopher who is also a member of the social strata, having witnessed some injustice being perpetuated by some of the leaders of our democratic society, this research work finds it necessary to adopt Plato’s principle of justice in addressing this challenging problem posing a threat to our society.
1.7 Clarification of Basic Concepts
The following concepts are clarified as they `will be used in the entire work:
1.7.1 Justice
The term justice has been identified as one of the concepts that hardly yield to a homogenous kind of definition. This is because many people in different epochs have attempted to give their own definition of justice. But etymologically, the word ‘justice’ emanated from Latin word ‘ius’ which means ‘right’. Also, the term justice derives its origin from the famous Greek word ‘dikaiosuna’ which means right or righteousness. Thus, as cited by U. Humphrey dikaiosunaThe usual translation is Justice although Aristotle often uses ‘dikaiosuna’ on the narrow English sense of justice. He remains ever conscious of the wider connotation of the term justice, and is for him the same as righteousness (7).
It therefore becomes imperative that a righteous man is just man. And a just man is one who is always ready to give what belongs to his fellow human. Furthermore, according to Humphrey, justice could be defined as “acting in accordance with law. That is to be just is to be law abiding” (7).And so lawbreaker cannot be a just person, while in the same vein one cannot be law abiding if one is not just. Vendemiati Aldo, a professor of moral philosophy submits that, a just person is someone who has a duty and fulfills it (9).In the same vein, the New Lexicon Dictionary defines justice as a behaviour to oneself or to another which is strictly in accord with currently accepted ethical law or as decreed by legal authority(532).In the same vein Omoregbe avers that “justice falls under social ethics, which deal with issues of social orders, moral order and the notion of rightness as they appertain to evolving a sound social order” (99).He furthermore explains that, justice is the quality of being right and fair (99).Also Ekei opines that justice is traditionally defined as the right to give everyone his due (142).Hence, justice is a virtue which makes possible the habitual performance of duty respect for other people’s right. As a virtue  it holds that we respect the rights of others persons by keeping what is properly one’s own and doing one’s own jobs. Thus, to show how crucial the virtue of justice is, in Plato’s   dialogue, Socrates argues that:
Because I think that this is the only virtue which means remains in the state when the other virtues of temperance and courage and wisdom are abstracted, and that is the ultimate cause and condition of the existence of all of them (cited in Jowett, trans. 10).
Also, despite the fact that different scholars have different views of what justice is, they are in agreement on the characteristics of justice which includes:
Firstly, that justice is a social norm, which is a directive for guiding individuals in their actions toward one another, here, it could be noticed that the emphasis is on “the other” that is to say that justice solely concerns itself with one’s dealing with others. That justice is a probative in the sense that judging an action to be just manifests approval of that action. Finally, that justice is obligatory in that, judging a certain course of action to be just entails that a person in the like situation ought to do same thing (Udechukwu, 8).
Principally, the notion of justice has three traditional classifications, which are legal, distributive and commutative. Part from these, justice could also be categorized into the following forms: moral justice, social justice, and restorative justice. These will be given detail configuration as this work develops.
1.7.2     Society
The term society is derived from the latin word “societas’’ which in turn is derived from the nous ‘’socius’’ which mean ‘’comrade, friend, ally’’ and the adjectival form ‘’socialis’’ is use to describe a bond or interaction between parties that are friendly, or at least civil. The great economists Adam smith believe that a society may subsist among different men, as among different merchants, from a sense of it utility without any mutual love or affection, if only they refrain from doing injury to other. Thus the human society in this sense is a group of people involve in persistent Interpersonal relationships or a large social grouping sharing the same geographical or social territory, typically subject to the same political authority and dominant cultural expectations. For William Wallace, the society is a permanent union of human beings who are united by modes of behaviour that are demanded by some common end, values, or interest.(76)In a broadest sense, human societies are characterizes by the patterns of relationships (social relations) between individuals who share a distinctive culture and institution. In the same vein, a society can also consist of like-minded people governed by their norms and values within a dominant, large society. That is why the society is describes as an organized voluntary association of people for religious, benevolent, culture, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purpose. Conclusively, the oxford advanced learner’s dictionary defined the society as a particular community of people who share same customs, laws, etc.
1.8 Organisation of Work
This work is divided into five chapters. Chapter one deals with the general introduction of the work which comprises the background of the study, statement of the problem, methodology of the work, scope of study, significance of study, justification of study, and organisation of the study.Chapter two critically reviews the works of selected philosophers on the concept of justice. The aim of this chapter is to assess their works in order to establish a gap that necessitates a study of Plato’s concept of justice as a remedy. Chapter three exclusively ruminates on Plato’s archetypal work on justices. Hence, the chapter establishes plausible principles of justice germane to restore justice to the Nigerian polity. Chapter four takes extensive look at the nature of democracy in Nigeria, and the arms of democratic government in Nigeria using Plato’s principles as a yardstick. Chapterfive is the evaluation and conclusion of the work.

CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter attempts to critically review the thoughts of some selected scholars  on the concept of justice and democracy, respectively, specifically who have made incisive contributions to discourses of the concept of justice and democracy as philosophical enquiries enfolds in history.
2.1Barnes Jonathan, the Complete Works of Aristotle (1984).
Barnes Jonathan is the translator of the complete work of Aristotle in the year 1984, which were originally written in Greeks by Aristotle.According to Aristotle 384-324 in book 5 of his Nicomachean ethics, Aristotle defined justice: As that kind of state which makes people disposed to do what is just and makes them act justly and wish for what is just. (5) By implication, Aristotle considered justice to be that which makes us to be just by our action. This also mean that a just man does not only do what is good but wishes what is good itself. In the same vein, Aristotle conceived justice in two dimensions, which are the general and particular justice’. Meanwhile, Aristotle viewed general justice as that virtue expressed in relation to another. Thus, the just man in this sense deals properly and fairly with others, and express his virtues in his dealings with them, not lying or cheating or taking from others what is owed them. While the particular justice exists when one does not desire more than his or her share in things which are good in themselves. As foregoing, Aristotle opined that ‘the man who is not just in this sense is the man who takes more than his share of the things which are good in themselves, but not always good for particular person” (209).
Moreover, Aristotle, never wished to identify justice as a ‘virtue’ as his counterparts does, rather, he described justice as the greatest virtue, which is complete and is with excellence, for him, what make justice complete and excellence is because one who posses it can exercise his excellences toward others and not merely by himself. That is to say, justice makes us consider others as ourselves. Owing to this belief, he asserted that “alone of the excellences, is thought to be another good, because it is related to others, for it does what is advantageous to another, either a ruler or partner” (30).
Be that as it may, Aristotle explained that the principle of justice as stated above simply means that whatever is done for the good of individual or the good of the society is consider to be a just action done by just man to affect the well-being of another’s, through duty and obligation. For Aristotle, is often thought to be the greatest of virtues, and neither evening nor morning star is so Justice wonderful, and proverbially in justice is every virtue comprehended, and it is complete virtue in its fullest sense, because is the actual exercise of complete virtual” (33).
Furthermore, Aristotle identified justice as distributive and reciprocity. Distribution of resource according to himis based on the principles that there has to be equal distribution of resources among equals, hence this form of justice can be achieved through state policy. For him, distributive justice deal with sharing everything equal and at the same ratio of which one put in the business (Boss, 30). As to what is to be distributed, Aristotle enumerated the following, honours, fund, rights, powers, privileges, and similar negative or disadvantageous things. But if distributive justice is distorted or disturbed, for instance through some wrongdoing, the judges should apply reciprocity justice to restore the status quo ante’, which is the original position of thing. There, by way of definition Aristotle opines that justice is treating the equal equally and the unequally (Udechukwu, 39).
Edward J. Gratsch, Aquinas Summa: An Introduction and interpretation (2008)
Edward j,Grastch is the author of Aquinas summa. According to Edward, Aquinas opined in his work summa, justice, as a virtue in a person is a ‘’habit by which a man has the constant and perpetual will to render to everyone what is due to him” (173).  By this, it is the virtue which observes the right of all. Aquinas maintained that right and justice are corrective terms. Their relationship lies in the fact that for there to be any question of right and justice, equality must exist between two persons. He averred, “Indeed we won’t say that things are adjusted when they are made equal’ for equality is in reference of one thing to some other… right in a work of justice, besides its relation to be the agent, is set up its relation to others” (Curran, 57).
Aquinas explained that one can be said to have rights when he finds himself in the midst of other human beings who are obliged to protect his rights, since the rights of this individual becomes a duty for them. One should not think that it is only the virtue of justice that takes into account inter-personal relationship of individuals in the society. This was why Aquinas remarked that justice has its own special proper object over and above other virtues and this object is called the just which is the same as right. Furthermore, Aquinas distinguished two broad forms of justice: legal justice and particular. For Aquinas, legal justice is a special virtue from the point of view of its essence in as much as it is concern with the common good as its proper object. While particular justice is the habit of will whereby one wishes and does what is right in relation to another person, consider as a single with a right to its own private good. He Aquinas makes this distinction clear as follows, “while legal justice is directed to an object which is the common good, particular justice is directed to another object: that which pertains to some private person (cited in Curran, 58).
Each of the two broad types of justice are sub-divided into two subordinate species. Legal justice is sub-divided into equity which helps one not to obey the letters of the law foolishly. For instance, giving a match to a drunkard could be considered a foolish act. This is because one should not obey the letters of the law without thinking ahead if the consequences of one’s act. It is equity that helps one to think wisely in this case. Another form of legal justice is common legal justice which is a virtue secondary to equity, by which one wills to act for the common good as presented by the letter and intent of the law. Particular justice is sub-divided into commutative justice and distributive justice. Distributive justice, is exercise by the community through its head towards its individual’s members so that there be a fair distribution of the common goods in varying amount and manner according to the various merits and desert of the several recipients. The matter or materials distributed include: honour and public emoluments, public burdens likes taxes, rewards and punishment. Distributive justice can be violated by favouritism, partiality and paternalism. Equality in distributive justice is determined by proportion or ratio. Commutative justice, as also exposed in the first chapter is concerned with exchanges or contracts between two persons [individual or groups]. Commutation can be involuntary or voluntary. Involuntary commutation involves when one uses the possessions, of that person. If involuntary commutation is done secretly, it becomes immoral, for example stealing, adultery, and false testimony, in fact “murder is a sin against commutative justice” (Gratsch, 175). If on other hand it is done violently or openly, it consists in the forcing of some exchange upon another when he does not agree to it for example, robbery which is usually open and violent.
John Rawls, Theory of Justice (1972)
John Rawls was an American philosopher who is arguably the most important political philosopher of the twentieth century as attached by Henry Richardson in his article titled John Rawls (internet encyclopaedia of philosophy ). He is popularly known for his work entitled the Theory of Justice. In his work, Rawls attempted to solve the problem of justice by utilizing a variant device which he called ‘’justice as fairness’’. For him, this form of justice was to portray a familiar theory of the social contract theory found in Locke, Rousseau, and Kant. Although it was a justice base on the principles from which the basic structure of the society are formed through the obligation of original position. Hence, Rawls in unravelling this form of justice aptly maintained:
They are the principles that free and rational persons concerned to further their own interest world, accept in an initial position of equality as defining the fundamental terms of their association. These principles are to regulate all further agreements; they specify the kinds of social cooperation that can enter into and the form of government that can be established. This way of regarding the principles of justice I shall called justice as fairness’’ (11).
He added further that in this concept of justice as fairness, men are to decide in advance how they are to regulate their claims against one another and what is to be the foundation charter of their society. He opined that, “just as each person must decide by rational reflection what constitutes his good, that is, the system of ends which it is rational for him to pursue, so also a group of persons must decide once and for all what is to count among them as just in the state of ‘’original position’’. For Rawls, this state of original position correspond with Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau’s state of nature although, this is not thought as a primitive state of affair but is understood as purely a hypothetical situation which led to a high level of the conception of justice. Regarding the essential features of the original state of man, Rawls writes, “Among the essential features of this situation is that no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like.Even parties do not know their conceptions of goods or their special psychological propensities” (12).
Consequently, for there to be justice in this natural state, it must be chosen behind the ‘veil of ignorance’. This is to ensure that no one is at advantage and disadvantage to each other, hence, everything must be shared equally. With this therefore, Rawls reasoned that this initial situation is fair between individuals or groups of person, that why, the person in the state of original position should be a rational moral person who is equal and free. These persons themselves were representatives of certain interests and moved by these interests. They must also posse ‘’two moral powers, these moral powers according to J. Ekennia are: “these agents have a sense of justice, which implies the capacity to understand, to apply and to act from the principles of justice.Secondly,they have capacity tom form, to revise and rationally to pursue a conception of good” (82).
Accordingly, these persons are moved by these two moral powers of interest such that the liberation and conducts are governed by these interests under suitable circumstance. It is these interests that lead to development and aids them exercise their moral powers. Furthermore, the basic structure of Rawls ideas of justice and fairness is centers on the ‘veil of ignorance’. Hence, to achieve the aim of the state of original position which is a well-ordered society, it must be done through the veil of ignorance. The veil of ignorance ensures that no one can claim the principles to his or her advantage, so that agreement arrived at by the parties is free and just. According to Rawls, “the veil of ignorance, is the condition which define the principles of justice as those which rational persons concerned to advance their interests would consent to as equals when none are known to be advantaged or disadvantaged by social and natural contingencies” (19).
Reflecting on Rawls concept of ‘veil of ignorance, Brian Barry, indicated that, “the veil of ignorance by itself is not what is distinctive about Rawls approach. It is compatible with any view of morality, which insists on the central role of impartiality”(18). According to Rawls, for the sterilization of this original position, there must be two basic principles which are highly needed. The principles are: First, each person is to have an equal right to most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others. Secondly, social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be everyone advantage, and (b) attached to position and offices open to all (60).
2.4 OkonUya, Civil Society and the Consolidation of Democracy in Nigeria (2000)
This work was Witten in 2000 by OkonUya, and  like others above he reflected on the emergence and sustenance of Nigerian democracy. According to him, ‘the struggle in Nigeria to advance the frontiers of democratization and sustain democratic statecraft has not been easy. Interposing democracy as a new regime type of governance in Nigeria has been most difficult; beginning with the limitation of the anti-colonial struggle to establish independence, democracy appeared at various points in our history as a faulty start (19). In order to give a plausible problems of Nigerian democracy, Uya started his critical review by first of all establishing the background on which Nigerian democracy was built. According to him:
The pre-colonial systems of governance consisted of monarchies and a caliphate with dictatorial and non-democratic structures and cultures. They also included semi-democratic regimes with institutions of checks and balances in the interstices of government, and between government and society (3).
Based on this precursory background, Uya argued that ‘the first difficulty of Nigeria’s democratic experience arose from the consternation of the forces of pre-colonial and colonial history. The second difficulty manifest in the political economy of both the colonial and post colonial state, where the initial ingredients of modern capitalism was imposed upon the rudimentary and pre-modern structures and process of the social relations of production. By the time democracy emerged in 1960, there was hardly a complementary economy foundation for it to blossom. In the attempt to manage the political economy of democracy, the Nigerian political elites ran amok with fundamental lapses including the use of negative ethnicity, regionalizing, unprincipled competition for power, corruption and gross misallocation of scarce resources, excessive politics of allocation rather than of production and the skewing of national interest (19). The third difficulty of democratic experience according the him,revolves round the gross deficiency in beliefs and attitude commensurate with democracy.  These difficulties of Nigerian democracy fettered upon its foundations and practice during the first republic leading to its collapse in 1966. This was subsequently followed by series of military regimes, and the situation replayed itself in the second republic (20). It was all these difficulties that arouse the interest of the clergy scholar, social commentator and human right activist to assert:
Our democratic experimentation has consistently failed because our nation lacked a responsive civil society to sustain the gains of democracy. It is the various organs of civil societies along with other democratic institutions that will hold those who govern in check. The lack of civil society have made democracy vulnerable in the hands of manipulative power elite, be it a military regime or an elected civilian class (21).
However, there are some principles of true democratic system which are considered to be fundamental. These principles include, periodic elections, rule of law, supremacy of the constitution, equality of the citizens, civil liberty, and so on. Obviously, most African nations and Nigeria to be precise, claiming to be democratic are lacking some of these vital principles and thus faced with many debilitating problems ranging from the political, social, and economic disorder (Aderibigbe, 1). Democracy as a political doctrine, has the most widely applications and the type of democracy practiced in a particular government needs to be qualified.
2.5 Femi OmotosoGovernance Crisis and Democracy in Nigeria, 1999 – 2013, (2013)
In this book, Femi Omotosobegun by first of all establishing clearly that, ‘officially, Nigeria became a state on January 1, 1914 after the amalgamation of the southern and northern protectorates. After many years of colonial rule, the country became independent on 1st October, 1960. The first republic was short lived, ending with the coup d’état of January 15, 1966. Between this period and October 1, 1979 when civilian rule returned, the country was administered by the military. Uninterrupted democracy returned in Nigeria on May 29th 1999 till date (2013, the time he wrote this book under review). Omotoso therefore subjected this period of unbroken democratic rule to critical analysis and x-rayed governance and politics in the country to see the impact on societal development and citizens’ participation in governance. According to him, “The year 1999 marked a watershed in the history of modern Nigeria, in that it ushered in what was expected to be ‘enduring democracy’. Before then, the country had oscillated between civil and military rule, with the latter having the upper hand. Since 1999, however, Nigeria has been enjoying uninterrupted democratic governance. This seems unbelievable if recourse is made to the history of the country”(1)
According to Omotoso, “Obasanjo has impacted more on the Nigerian political space and indeed the country’s democracy than any Nigerian dead oralive.The fulcrum of governance and democracy in Nigeria within the period under review without any doubt is the foundation laid by the Obasanjo administration” (8). This argument is premised on the fact that Obasanjo initiated so many policies, programmes and reforms which were geared towards the growth and development of the country. Some of the reforms are:Monetisation Policy, National Economic Empowerment Development Strategies (NEEDS), Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), Banking Reforms, Revitalisation of the National Food and Drug Administration (NAFDAC), Constitutional Conference, Policy Towards Poverty Reduction/ Alleviation – SMEDAN, PAP, SMSEetc, Privatisation Policy, Emphasis on Infrastructural Development etc.
Omotosomaintain that “the plethora of reforms, policies and programmes highlighted above as introduced by the administration were geared towards developing the country socio-economically and ensuring that Nigerians derive maximum benefit therefore. The formulation of these policies and programmes is laudable, but the execution of most of them ended in fiasco. Nigerians were frustrated and made more impoverished. The challenges are legion, but we shall examine only a few considered to be the crux of the of the nation’s governance crisis (8).
In the book under review, Omotoso boldly expresses his disdain for corruption as a cankerworm that has been responsible for the woes of Nigeria. He asserts, “one of those issues triggering governance crisis and democratic problems in the country is corruption. In Nigeria, corruption is rife and very endemic. It is afflicting and ravaging all sectors of the Nigerian state. All tiers of government are equally culpable” (9).Obasanjo decried the effect of corruption on governance. According to him:
No society can grow and develop when corruption is allowed to progress unfettered as it has grown into a cancer in Nigeria. Government and its agencies became thoroughly corrupt and reckless. Members of the public had to bribe their way through ministries and parastatals to get attention and one government agency had to bribe another government agency to obtain the release of their statutory allocation of fund. (Obasanjo, 1999).
To tackle this problem headlong, the first bill proposed by the Obasanjo administration after inauguration was the establishment of Independent Corrupt Practice Commission ( ICPC) to fight corruption. ICPC is an organization that can be said to have been dead upon arrival. It is inactive, docile, weak and obtuse. It seems not to know its objectives and people’s expectation from it. Evidently, the organization can not lay much claim to the eradication of corruption in the country. At inception, the EFCC really showed commitment and desire to fight corruption. This perhaps may be due to the youthful and dynamic personality of the organization’schairman-NuhuRibadu. Ribadu seemed passionate about fighting corruption, and under him, it can be said that the EFCC was effective, but highly controversial. It was controversial in the sense that it later became a potent instrument to intimidate and harass political opponents, particularly of the ruling party. In summary, Omotoso argues:
The issue of corruption is deep-rooted because of the tolerance of the political class of the cankerworm. It is obvious in the actions, utterances and body languages of the political class and elites generally that they are hostile to the anti-corruption war. Transparency is sacrificed and accountability is discounted. The culture of impunity has taken over the land, and over-invoicing, contract inflation, bribery; outright diversion and embezzlement of public money are the rule rather the exception. Assiduously, the political elites work towards statutory emasculation or constitutional invalidation of agencies responsible for fighting corruption (30).
Omotoso critically reflected on the same. He quotes Agaguas providing an insight into the nature and character of leadership in Nigeria which can help us situate governance and democracy in the period under review as follows:
The basic problem of democracy and development in Nigeria is the nature and orientation of the political actors as framed by the nature of the Nigerian state. The political actor either as a ruler or an opposition member is concerned with his self interest. He is less concerned with what constitutes the interest of the state. As a ruler, he is concerned with the survival of the system only to preserve his interest. Indeed as a ruler, he does not serve the interest of the state except when the state is seen as an instrument of oppression and exploitation. As an opposition member, he is concerned with how the system will collapse, not with how his criticisms will improve the system for preservation (61-42).
According to Omotoso, “the above is a true reflection of the Nigerian leadership. The leadership is self serving, greedy, corrupt and excessively wicked. The egregious leadership problems in the country can be seen in all sectors of the Nigerian state. Democracy presupposes leadership accountability to the people but the situation in the country is such that the ‘leaders’ are the ‘masters’ and therefore too big to render their stewardship to the people they claim to be serving” (10).Despite the fact that they are earning so much, they pay peanuts in form of salary and allowances to public sector workers.
Moreover, Omotoso was apt to establish that one of the problems associated with leadership in Nigeria is leadership recruitment. In his words, “Most of these leaders were forced on the people by their various political godfathers, not on the basis of performance but for their ability to serve the interests of these godfathers. In most cases, they take advantage of the poverty ravaging the land to bribe their ways to power.The issue of godfatherism has made a mockery of the Nigerian governance and democratic experience” (10).  Expressing the dastardly impact of this to the masses, Omotoso decries:
Godfatherism is threatening governance and democracy in Nigeria, frustrating the people and affecting the capacity of the government to develop the country. What should have been used for development is misappropriated to maintain and appease these godfathers. And the crisis this phenomenon engenders between the godfather and godson has been seriously dysfunctional to the stability and development of the state.
The negative impact of the problem of godfatherism to Nigerian democracy is better imagined than expressed. This to say the least grossly negates (as we shall be seeing shortly) Plato’s principle of justice.
In the book under analysis, Omotoso, paid attention on security issues as a key element of democracy. According to him, “the enthronement of a democratic system in 1999 led to the ventilation of pent-up anger by various groups. This is coupledwith political issues in which various groups, expressing grievances more stridently than ever while at the same time positioning themselves for better economic and political opportunities. All that were impossible under the military are now brought to the fore because of democratic rule whichemphasizes rule of law and enthronement of fundamental human rights (10).  Furthermore, quoting Adebanwi, he submits:
The constriction of the democratic public sphere for several years, under the military prevented various interest groups and social and political formations from advancing their interests and expressing their grievances through democratic means. When democratic rule was achieved, these interests and grievances burst forth with speed; gushed forth like an overflowing dam whose boundary walls have been brought down on a still-limited democratic space, producing the conflagration which we are witnessing (328)
Moreover, Omotoso explains that the ventilation of pent-up anger by various groups in the country has aggravated the insecurity situation far beyond the capability and capacity of the Nigerian security forces. What makes the matter worse and deep rooted is the unemployment problem. With over 70 percent of the Nigerian youths either unemployed or underemployed, it is easy forthe elite to recruit the already frustrated youths to fight their political and economic interests/ battles. Since 1999, thecountry has witnessed political, ethnic, economic, religious, electoral crises that have almost consumed the nation.
Violence characterized various elections in Nigeria since 1999 as parties allege rigging and intimidation. One of the noticeable insecurity issues in the land is political assassination which is rife as a way of settling political scores. So many politicians lost their lives to assassins since 1999, and the police are unable to trace their killers.According to Omotoso, the case of Chief Bola Ige is particularly intriguing. As at the time of his assassination, he was the nation’s Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, whom Nigerians thought should have been impossible to assassinate easily because of security details attached to him. Even at that, after the assassination, it is felt that his killers should have been apprehended but up till today, nobody has been caught. This singular case and many more give the Nigeria Police out as a weak, inefficient, ineffective and corrupt-ridden organization. Omotoso believes that governments in Nigeria have always indicated their commitment to good governance. But in reality, this is nothing more than lip service and mere window dressing because excessive poverty and infrastructural decay still pervade the length and breadth of the country. Despite allocation from the Federation Account to the various states and local governments, there are virtually no developmental projects to show for it. The roads are terribly in bad shape, water taps are perpetually dry, electricity is quite irregular, hospitals are without necessary medication, schools are grossly underfunded, and in fact, virtually all sectors are neglected by the country’s political leadership. Ordinarily, the democratic system should usher in good governance and bring the citizens the proverbial dividends of democracy. Brinkerhoff and
Stressing the fundamental importance of security to democracy, Omotoso cited Brinkerhoff that, “When governance systems break down or are destroyed, the door is opened to instability, oppression, conflict and unchecked political and economic opportunism” (511).  He maintained that the observation of Brinkerhoff  is particularly relevant to Nigeria, where governance systems have certainly broken down. According to him this obviously led to the unrelenting clamour for Sovereign National Conference by various nationalities despite the fact that these nationalities have representatives in the National Assembly and other governmentorgans. Fuelling the agitation are the lack of faith in these representatives and the perception of the people that those ingovernment are weak, greedy, inefficient, ineffectiveness, corrupt and incapable of engendering good governance. Based on his understanding of what a true democracy entailsOmotoso conclusively concurred with Brinkerhoffthat“democratic governance mechanisms include selection of political leadership through elections, accountability and integrity system, conflict resolution and consensus building, institutions and procedure.Democratic governance addresses social equity and inclusiveness, management of diversity, broad based legitimacy and protection of vulnerable groups” (512).
2.6 Oru Harold The Concept of Democracyandthe Nigeria Polis (2013)
This book on democracy by the above named author was written in 2013 to reflect on democracy in Nigeria, especially from 1999-2013. Oru Harold is a socio-political scientist and a social analyst. According to him, Democracy is quite simply a system where the people elect their leaders at every level in free and fair elections. The most important and symbolic aspect of democracy is thus the ability to freely elect the leaders by the people which also represents the most significant difference between democracy and other forms of government (2).Without this essential ingredient, democracy ceases to exist. Since the ancient Greeks pioneered the modern art of democracy, it has triumphed against other systems of government and become the global model. By its very nature in which leaders emerge and can be removed only through the vote of the people, democracy no doubt better guarantees the responsiveness of leaders to the needs of their people. With particular reference to Nigerian democracy, Oru expresses a strong reservation thus:“Nigeria pretends to be a democracy, but even by a layman’s definition of the basic ideals of democracy, it is obvious that the democratic process begun in 1999, after decades of military rule, is nothing but a scam. 14 years after, Nigerians of all stripes are reeling in disappointment as they live through a 419 democracy that has turned out to be the most visionless and corrupt in the nation’s chequered history” (20).“Ordinarily, democratic governance should, among other things, usher in societal development, inclusion and participation of citizens in governance; accountability and transparency on the part of government officials, but, can Nigerians actually say they have enjoyed dividends of democracy in the past twelve years?” (Omotoso, 1).
2.7 Observation
A critical look at the works of the scholars analyzed above reveals that their principles of justices are very intelligible and could be used as veritable remedy to the Nigerian society. For instance, Aristotle’s main thesis that justice is giving each one his due as outlined above could be employed to remedy the Nigerian situation where role differentiation and distribution of our common wealth are not evenly distributed. Aquinas concept of justice which is a modification of Aristotle’s also has contributed immensely to discussions on justice. If Nigeria applies his notion, the promotion of common good and equity and fairness will be the order of the day in Nigeria. Moreover, John Rawls notion of justice also has a lot to contribute to solve the teaming problems of injustices in Nigeria. For instance, all citizens of Nigeria are not given equal and fair opportunity to develop their potentials. In terms of role differentiation and job opportunities, nepotism and favouritism violently takes the place of fairness, thereby contradicting Rawls concept of justice as fairness, given everyone equal opportunity to advance their course their through respective talents and abilities.
However, despite the invaluable contributions of the above scholars, there is one fundamental gap they were not able to fill. This weakness is in the area of corporation in terms of effective, efficient and appropriate role playing in the society. The democracy we practice not enabled the masses-the civil society to play their roles in the society. It is a kind of society built upon favouritism and nepotism in which official or political appointments are not based on qualifications. Based on this problem in Nigerian democracy, the principle of justice as enunciated by Plato has been jeopardized.
In principle, there is separation of powers between the executive, legislature and judiciary. But in practice the legislature and judiciary is dependent on the executive. This is responsible for the lack of checks and balances that fosters good governance. This negates Plato’s counsel that the organs or classes of people in the society must play their roles independently without interference. Since the inception of democracy, because of the lack of effective and efficient role playing by the organs of government caused by lack of real independence, there have been various forms of injustice to the detriment of the development of Nigeria.This the problem and gap revealed by the review of democracy above.
Furthermore, the most fundamental gap existing in the Nigerian polity which these works exposed above cannot adequately address is the area of extravagant lifestyle of public officials. Politicians go into the business of politics not for service to humanity but for ulterior and self-serving ideals. This accounts for why they live luxurious lifestyles to the detriment of the commonwealth. This accounts for why recurrent expenditure both in national budget and the budgets of state governments are always higher than capital expenditure. This inordinate and parochial attitude of our supposed leaders is in clean contrary to Plato’s plausible vision of justice. Injustice cannot be rooted out from the Nigerian polity, and this is as a result emanating from the negligence and refusal of public officials in playing their roles effectively for the common good of all.In other words, good governance and democratic stability call for active participation of all citizens in the political process. The situation in the country since 1999 has not really given room for citizens to freely choose their leaders/ representatives. Such leaders/ representatives are in most cases imposed on the people by godfathers and other interests. Political leaders take advantage of excessive poverty in the land to buy citizens’ vote. During election, voters are induced by money to vote for a particular candidate. In most cases, the highest bidder gets the competitive position.This Nigerian situation cannot by aptly remedied with the notions of justice given by the above scholars.
Consequently, because of this obvious limitations or gaps which the works of the above reviewed scholars cannot adequately address, it becomes expedient that Plato’s principle of justice be examined and projected as a possible pragmatic principle of justice to address the phenomenon injustices majorly arising from the negligence or refusal of the Nigerian people and their leaders to adhere to the principles of qualifications and effective role playing.Plato’s notion of justice is expressed in his work the ‘Republic’. This is the first elaborate work of European Political philosophy, a masterpiece of insight and feeling superbly expresses in dialogue form and probably meant for recitation. Plato realizes that all theories propounded by his predecessors, contained one common element. That one common element was that all the them treated justice as something external "an accomplishment, an importation, or a convention, they have, none of them carried it into the soul or considered it in the place of its habitation." Plato prove that justice does not depend upon a chance, convention or upon external force. It is the right condition of the human soul by the very nature of man when seen in the fullness of his environment (qtd in Samuel, 402).
Justice is thus a sort of specialization. It is simply the will to fulfill the duties of one's station and not to meddle with the duties of another station, and its habitation is, therefore, in the mind of every citizen who does his duties in his appointed place. It is the original principle, laid down at the foundation of the State, "that one man should practice one thing only and that the thing to which his nature was best adopted". True justice to Plato, therefore, consists in the principle of non-interference. The State has been considered by Plato as a perfect whole in which each individual which is its element, functions not for itself but for the health of the whole. Every element fulfils its appropriate function. Justice in the platonic state would, therefore, be like that harmony of relationship where the Planets are held together in the orderly movement. Plato was convinced that a society which is so organized is fit for survival.Where man are out of their natural places, there the co-ordination of parts is destroyed, the society disintegrates and dissolves. Justice, therefore, is the citizen sense of duties. Against this backdrop, the next chapter explicates in detail Plato’s treatise on justice. This is with the view of possibly establishing credible principles by which the Nigerian polity may be evaluated and quarantined.

CHAPTER THREE
EXPOSITION OF JUSTICE IN PLATO’S PHILOSOPHY

What is justice? can it be shown that justice can benefit the man who is just most especially in our society today, Plato will always answer affirmatively that justice can benefit the just man and ipso facto the entire society. Hence, justice in this sense consist in a harmony that emerges when the various part of a unit perform the function proper to them and abstain from interfering with the function of any other part. More specifically, justice occurs with regardto the individual, when the three component part of the soul reason, appetite, and spiritor willeach performs their appropriate tasks. This chapter will extensively elaborate on Plato’s conception of justice and it relevance to our society.
3.1 Plato’s Profile
Plato was born around 428 BC in Athens, into a distinguished aristocratic though not influent family. Plato was a renowned Greek philosopher who wrote the earliest systematic and most famous treatise of the states, His Father, Ariston traced his ancestry to the early kings of Athens, even to Poseidon, the god of the sea. His Mother, Prediction, was a descendant of solon (630-600BC).Plato real name was Aristotle’s, which means the “best and renowned’’ he was given nickname “Plato’’ derived from platys, because of broad and strong shoulders.
He was known for his good looks and charming disposition, he excelled in the study of music, mathematics, poetry and rhetoric. He never married. Thus his early life coincided with the disastrous years of the Peloponnesian wars, the shattering of the Athenians empire and the fierce civil strife of oligarchy and democrats in the year of anarchy (404-405 BC). He was too young to have learned anything by experience of the imperial democracy of Pericles or of the tide of the “sophist” movement. In his early years, he was highly influenced by the rich ingredients of Athenians culture in the arts, political and philosophy, Meanwhile, Plato came to know Socrates in 407BC at the age of 20years through his relative who were friends of Socrates. He admired Socrates and became his pupil. At this point, his life ambition was to become a politician, when Socrates was put to death, Plato was not quite thirty, and the political motivated death of his mentor may have been the turning point in Plato’s life. As a result of his friendship with Socrates, he had taken up the elderly philosopher’s challenge to pursue wisdom in his own life by facing hard questions.
At Socrates’ trial, Plato pays substantial amount to the court as an alternative to the death penalty, But to Plato’s dismay, His attempt to change the court’s mind failed and is brilliant teacher’s life came to a tragic end, Because of this event, many question haunted Plato, what kind of society was it that could not tolerate a Socrates in its midst?What kind of society ought we to have if philosophical wisdom is to pretrial in human affairs?  Consequently, he spent the rest of his life trying to answer these questions.
At this point, he went on a series of travels to Greece, Egypt  and Italy and discovered his vocation to philosophy as he reflected on the life and teachings, and  the only remedy for the ills in the society was to educate feature politicians to become philosophers, that is why in 400BC,on returning to Athens, his friends gifted him a recreation spot named after their  local hero Academy, the following g subjects were of great important: mathematics, Advance Geometry, Astronomy, Music, Law, and Philosophy.
Hence, for the rest of his life, he presided over the academy, and made it the intellectual center of Greek life. During this period he wrote on the following works; Apology, Crito, Euthyphro, laches, lysis, Charmindes, Protagoras, and the book of the Republic. In 400BC, Plato died while attending the wedding feast of one of his students, as merry making continued past midnight; Plato decided to catch some sleep. He retired to a corner, in the house, never to wake up again. In the morning, the revellers realized that he had died, On hearing the news of his death, the whole of Athens came to pay respect to one of its most distinguish and erudite. Hence, such was the impact of Plato even on his contemporaries. 
3.2 Platonic Notion of Justice
Plato’snotion of justice is expressed in his work the ‘Republic’.This is the first elaborate work of European Political philosophy, a masterpiece of insight and feeling superbly expresses in dialogue form and probably meant for recitation. He defines justice as doing one’s job for which one was naturally fitted without interfering with other peoples (Subrata and Sushila, 68). Furthermore, the origin of justice in Plato’s view is predicated on economic need. The society according to him exists in order to satisfy the need of men. In this case, men are not independent of one another but needed to be aided by the cooperation of others in the production of necessities of life. However, apart from this, the society does not exist only to further the economic needs of men, but it also exist for the happiness of men in the state. This is attainable  through the principle of justice that is a just society must always conform to justice. In this context, the society decides what is just and what is unjust. Hence this decision must be made by the state men of a philosopher king because of his wise indecision-making acumen. Moreover, Plato’s notion of justice is considered as a realisation of one’sfunction. In this case, justice could be compared to the efficient function of things. A motor car for instance, is said to be good only and only if it can lead someone towards a particular direction that is when it fulfil its function. We also talk of the physician been just when they perform efficiently and effectively their function of doctoring.Hence, in viewing justice as the fulfilment of one’s function, Plato asks: has the soul a function that can be performedby something else’/the answer to the question raised above by Plato is in the negative, for everything has it’s efficient function and when this function is usurped by some other agents there will be injustice. Consequently, Plato views justice as the fulfilment of the duty of each component of the sound hierarchy in the state which is their essential duty’s base on natural endowments upon which they are best fitted. For him, every human soul has three qualities; rational, spirit and app (Subrata and Sushila, 69).Elite, with justice as the fourth virtue architectonic in nature, balancing and harmonizing the other three qualities.Thus the soul has the power to comprehend the ideal of good. The soul is only said to be just when its three component parts carry out their assigned functions efficiently without any intrusion of any other component that makes us part of the soul. The function of reason for instance is to rule other components of the soul and to make decision. It is a function that belongs solely to reason, therefore according to Plato, thefaculty of reason will be said to be just if and only if it carries its efficient function of ruling other components of the soul effectively.Furthermore, Platoconsiders justice as a harmonious process whereby each part of the state performs its appropriate role without interfering with the proper functioning of the other part. For him, justice is at once a part of human virtue and the bond which joins man together in the society. It is the identical quality that makes good and social society. Hence, justice is not the mere strength to do one’s work but it is a harmonious strength; it is not the right of the strong but the effective harmony of the whole and so all moral conception revolves about the good of the whole- individual as well as the society. But for there to be harmony in the society Plato divided the inhabitants of the society into three groups. Theseinclude: the guardian the auxiliaries and the artisans. For easy comprehension of the three classes, what follows is brief analysis of them.
The Guardians: This class of people are otherwise called ‘the rulers’. they are  people of wisdom and knowledge; these three correspond to the rational part of the soul in Plato’psychology. The guardians parse exercise supreme authority in the state, as they are men at the helm of affairs, they checkmate activities in the state to see that it does not grow out of order and that the different classes perform their functions. They must undergo a vigorous training in philosophy and in various fields. According to Plato:
None of them should have any property of his own beyond what is absolute necessary; neithershould they have private house or store closed against anyone who has the mind to enter’. (Udechukwu, 22-23)
Basically, their work is to interpret the laws of the state which is enacted in adherence to the principle of justice and equality. Thus, the function of the guardians is to rule, to make decisions and to determine policy (Uduigwomen and Ogbinaka, 398). Plato talks of the philosopher-king as the pillar of moral probity who is decorated with a high intellectual excellence.Politically, in the election of the ruler, he must be chosen from the class of the Guardians and must possess an unquestionable integrity and impeccable character. The guardians should be those who devote their lives to the common good of the state. Thus, they are to be in possession of absolute untrammelled power over the rest of the community and their subjects should work hand with them by being obedient and loyal.
The Auxiliaries: These are the class of rulers below the guardians. This class corresponds to the spirited part of the soul. In the society, they are the people who exercise certain function like military, policing and security duties. Primarily, the essential function of the auxiliaries is to defend the state against internal and external enemies. Thus, it is the onus of the auxiliaries to see to the upliftment of peace, fighting the enemies and operating according to the instruction of the guardians. This explains why M. Joshua opined that the function of the auxiliaries is to help the executive in their command and to serve as a sort of military police(Uduigwomen and Ogbinaka 398).The auxiliaries are the real toothed bulldogs, ever ready for spontaneous action. That is why they are more educated than the artisans, and why both the guardians and the auxiliaries must pursue the same life, and has to undergo the same rigorous training and education because if the auxiliaries do their works well they can be promoted to the guardians who do not rule well can be demoted to the auxiliaries class and the guardians class.
The Artisans or Producers: Another quality of a good state is that it must not be properly fed. Hence, Plato delegates this function to a class of producers below the philosopher kings and the appetitive element of the soul in the state. They include traders, drivers, farmers and artists to mention but a few. The distinctive characteristics they share is that they engage in economic activities. In other words artisans are the group imbued with material possession. They are characterized with enormous physique and energy which avail them a strong productive ability. Thus, it must be noted that the artisan class in Plato’s sense is more inclusive than what we know today as the working class in Marxian philosophy. Plato included in it not only the actual producers, but also the labours that were also those engaged in exchange of goods, like the businessmen, property owners, shopkeepers, farmers, etc.The prime virtue of the Artisan class is obedience to the dictates of the guardians and to the control of the Auxiliaries, who in their turn would ensure that the rest are happy within the society. Hence, the artisans are subordinated to be ruled.
Having divided the ideal stated into three groups, as enumerated above, Plato emphasizes the need for promotion of common good. Each of this class should be duty conscious in their respective jobs. While the Guardians organize the state for the citizen to enjoy peace, the other individual should cooperate with their leaders. Achebe supports this view when he asserted that, “the state undertakes to organize society in such that the citizen can enjoy peace and justice, and the citizen in return agrees to perform his patrioticduties” (15).
3.3 Justice in the State
Man by nature is a social being; it is in the society that he realizes himself by living with others. The society therefore forms the structure through which man becomes social with his fellow neighbours through interaction, and formation of association; exchange of goods and services and thedistribution of justice. With this therefore, it become an in evitable fact that nobody can claim to be self-sufficient without the others. Little wonder Aristotle claim that anyone who said he is self-sufficient is either a beast or a god. Hence, the state exists for the individual and the individual exist to make up the state. In affirmation, forPlato, the state was the ideal, of which justice was the reality. Justice was the principle on which the state had to be founded and a contribution made towards the excellence of the city (Subrata and Sushila, 68).Accordingly, Plato argues that the state is a natural institution, in the sense that it reflects the structure of human nature, the human nature here is centered on the virtue of justice, which is the sole aim of a perfect state.Hence, forPlato the aim of establishing a state is so that each individual could know his or her place in the state and work towards it. The above quotation expresses the fact that everything in the ideal state is done communally, even wives and children are common so that there will not exist inequality among members. And among these citizens, a philosopher king who can be equated to our modern day’s leaders is said to pilot all the affairs of the state. And to decide which class each member should belong.The needs of the state aremultifarious and no one can possess adequate skills as to enable him produce all his needs, hence, the need for each individual citizen to contribute their quarter to the common good of the society.
For example, no musician can possess all musical abilities to play all musical instruments, or compose every kind of music, just as it is not impossible for one to put all his ten fingers into his mouth at the same time, nor can one be a pilot, a medical doctor at the same time. Hence everybody has different natural aptitudes which make them to be better in a particular field more than other. According to Plato:
Despite the fact that, it occurred to me that in thefirst place, no two of us is born exactly alike. We havedifferent natural aptitudes which fit us for different jobs, even with the differences; all individuals were born of the earth (Subrata and Sushila, 71).
With this, Plato concluded that what could make a state perfect is the specialization of labour to everybody so that one can realize what he or she can do best.Generally, thepurpose of the state consists in the establishment of justice and order, and the enforcement of law and defending against injustice/it also impact to the citizen proper insight into their right and duties. In this, according to the Platonic concept of justice, subsists justice.
3.4 Justice in the Individual
Plato’s concept of justice in the individual is explained analogously with justice in the state. As a replica of the ideal state, Plato divided justice in the individual into three parts namely, the reason, spirit and appetite which is found in his psychology. Each of these parts functions for the good of the individual. Hence, when compared to the other parts of the individual, reason as part of the soul comes as the highest, then, the spirit and finally the appetite. With these, the individual is wise and brave due to the operation of his reason and spirit respectively. Also, the individual is disciplined if the spirit and appetite are subordinated to reason.Hence, having established the three parts of a person; Plato declared that an individual can only be just when there is a perfect harmony among the three parts of the human person.
As a result of this, in his conception, Virtue centers on the psychological harmony. In a just soul element stays in his own place performs the task which is naturally suited .The chief benefit of just it allows this condition of psychological harmony to come into existence and to be maintained in the soul.Thus, Is just in virtueof the harmony which exists whenAll the three elementsof the mind achieve their Proper function and so achieve their proper Fulfillment, he is unjust when no such harmonyExists(Subrata and Sushila, 70).
And so to avoid injustice in the individual parts, no individual part is allowed to rebel against the other. Any disobedience by any of them in performing its function adequately causes an indelible obstruction to the individual in question. Concomitantly, Cronin asserts ‘’Plato defined justice as the perfect harmony of all powers of the soul’’. (80).Thatis to say that a perfect harmony plays a vital role in the realization of justice in the individual. Hence, if the state is to be just and wise, it must depend on the individual’s make-ups. This explains why Plato believed that the just man will never allow the three elements that make up the individual to trespass and interfere with each other’s duty. In describing the disorder between the three elements of the individual, certainly, it may be amusing to note here, that there is a kind of civil war between our inner selves. But such is an in undeniable reality in Plato’s context. An example of this is a madman whose inner self is in a great confusion, making him to attempt to do a thousand and one things within a minute even though, none might be accomplished. This state of inner disorder and instability is what Plato described as individual injustice; a situation whereby the three elements of the soul are in constant logger-head with each other. Then for peace to rain Plato asserts that, “If the three classes of people in the society must function harmoniously, they will beno breakdown of laws and other” (Udechukwu, 21). This implies that if these three classes of people are not in harmonious monism we can deduce that disorganization of the internal elements ushers in injustice, cowardice, weakness and even madness of every kind. In order to eradicate these ignominious and nuisantic predicament, each individual has to be just. Finally, just actions produce justice while an unjust actions produce injustice. Each faculty of the mind should then, in harmony so as to produce justice in the individual.
3.5 Unification of Platonic Justice
The phenomenon whereby justice in the state can be equated to that of the individual what Plato’s unification or harmonization of justice all about? Plato argued that there is a strong cordial relationship between justice in the state and justice in the individual. This Stumpf observes that Plato “…argues rather, that there is a structural and    natural as well as a logical relationship between man and the state” (73).
This assertion expresses the fact that a just individual is known through his action in the state. And a just society is known through its mode of giving out justice. Hence, both the state and the individuals should be just, because a healthy individual and state make a just individual and state respectively, while an unhealthy one’s produce equivalent vices. On the other hand, injustice occurs when the individual is morally bad and it could be impossible to secure a good state because the individual gives meaning to the state. At this point, Plato reached an ethical conclusion that, just as political well-being requires the regulated cooperation of its three parts, in like manner, personal well-being require the rationally coordinated functioning of the three elements of the soul.
In this unification of justice, in order for it to be realizable, Plato introduced his famous structural-functional dimensions which operate on the principles of organic division of labour. This operation of specialization is facilitated under the auspices of the reason part of the soul and the philosopher-king for the state. It is from this aspect that justice acts as a strong bond which holds society together. It is in this bond that the objective unifying principles of justice is brought to the lime light.
3.6 The Philosopher – King and Justice
In the formation of an ideal state, Plato has one outstanding ambition. That ambition revolves around a state that is being ruled by a philosopher king. For there to be revolution in any society, the philosopher-king must be in control of that society. This is because the philosopher king has the knowledge, intellect, and training to govern. The common interest of the state should be controlled by the philosopher king who is vested with knowledge which happens to be a product of reason. Plato states that,“it is only a philosopher who would be able toadminister justice an act for the common goodof the state, and is that who portray the qualitiesof a ruler, namely truthfulness, high-mindedness,discipline,and courage” (Subrata, and Sushila, 60-61).
The philosopher-king is the generative source of peace, justice and stability in the state. The fundamental qualities of the character that need to be possessed by a philosopher-king are humility and eagerness to acquire all sorts of knowledge. The philosopher-king is a man who opens an excellent avenue for knowledge. The passion of a philosopher is wisdom of every kind without any distinction. Any person who is fussy about what he studies, especially as a young person is denying himself a versatile knowledge. Hence, as a lover of knowledge, the philosopher-king must differentiate between the visible and intangible worlds. Thus, Stumpf interpreting Plato says that the ruler ‘’should be the one who has been fully educated, one who has come to understand the differences between the visible and the intelligible world, between the realm of opinion and the realm of knowledge, between appearance and reality’’(75). The philosopher-king can be compared to a ship captain who directs the ship in the sea. He can then make a calculated and accurate distinction between the world of appearance and that of reality, in the acquisition of knowledge, he moves little by little in the degrees of knowledge through the divided line it reaches the knowledge of the good, which is the synoptic vision of all knowledge.
A philosopher-king is one who is courteous and civilized. This means that a move towards a perfect society depends on the leader. To give justice its ‘locus quo’ the ruler should possess the above mentioned qualities. Hence, a civilized man is a courteous man whose demeanour in the state is well-principled. Such a principled, courteous, civilized and just man is an ideal man for leadership. He should also be a self-disciplined man; a man of few words but as active as a quicksilver. Among other qualities, a philosopher-king ought to possess the knowledge of the forms which is regarded as the highest type of knowledge. Plato declared that, The man who is ready to taste every branchof learning is glad to learn and never satisfied, he’s the man who deserves to be called a philosopher(Akam, 40).Plato proposed that this knowledge of forms is located inhis pure and immutable world of Idea. It is not the pursuit of mere shadows, but the knowledge of a real world. A good patriot is one who is amicable to his countrymen and has the feeling of the poor and the oppressed at heart. Hence, the selection of a philosopher-king is a difficult task. Little wonder, Akam vehemently supports Plato by saying that, “Justice is quite pre-eminent and primordial and to have it realized. There is need for a carefully selected and bred philosopher-king or ruler” (40).
According to Plato, unless philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy. And political greatness and wisdom meet in one, and those commoner natures that pursue either to the exclusion of the other are compelled to stand aside, cities will never have rest from their evils, nor the human race. This assertion expresses the fact that the act of leadership should be given to the philosopher-king who has undergone series of training or education in order to be fully equipped with knowledge to carry the people along.

CHAPTER FOUR
APPRAISAL OF NIGERIAN DEMOCRACY AND THE RELEVANCE OF PLATO’S PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE
4.1 The Nature of Nigerian Democracy
The Federal Republic of Nigeria which came into existence in 1963 operates the A Federalsystem of government with 36 federating units called states. Nigerian gained independence in 1960, however, she became a Republic in 1963. It operates a presidential system of government. It consists of the executives, legislature and the judiciary. The legislature known as the national assembly consists of two houses, the Senate and the House of Representatives. The constitution of the Federal Republic spent out the powers and duties of each the arms of government, and specifically made each independent even while performing their oversight functions to ensure checks and balances (cf. Part I Section 231(1), Part I Section 231(2), Section 232 (2), Part II Section 4(8)).
Democracy as a system of government is capable of ensuring good governance based on rule of law, accountability, and transparency among others if well managed. However, in the case of Nigeria, it is observes that the nation has made some giant strides in its democratic journey since 1999 but the people are yet to fully reap the fruits embedded in this political system (Oru, 1). This is as a result of challenges like corruption, ethnicity, leadership failures, elections marred by irregularities, no real separation of powers between the executives, legislators and judiciary, all these and other factors (national problems)combined in frustrating the sustenance of democracy in Africa’s most populous nation)The arms of government are discussed below.
4.2 The Legislature
The Nigerian legislature known as the National Assembly IS a unicameral legislature consisting of the upper house (Senate) and the lower house (House of Representatives).The constitution of the FederalRepublic of Nigerian clearly spent out the sacred functions of the legislature (cf. Chapter V, Section 5 8(1)). The basic duty of the national assembly is to make laws, prepare national budget and perform some oversight functions on the other arms of government to ensure checks and balances. Members of these two houses are elected to represent their senatorial districts and constituencies respectively. Before any bill becomes law the constitution of Nigeria stipulated that every bill must pass through the two houses shall be presented to the chief executive for assent before it becomes law.Section 88 of the constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria 1999, gives each house of the national assemble power to conduct investigation into the number of matters listed therein. Section 89 of the constitution also gives power to the matter of evidence. Similarly, section 126 of the constitution gives a house of Assemble power to conduct investigation as stated therein while section 129 gives it power as a matter to evidence. The powers conferred on a House of Assemble under the provisions of this section are exercisable only for the purpose of enabling the House:
(a) to make laws with respect to any matter within it legislative competence and to correct any defects in existing laws;
(b) to expose corruption, inefficiency or waste in the execution or administration of laws within its legislative competence and in the disbursement or administration of funds appropriated by it.
4.3 The executive
According to the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the legislature has its basic duties as the execution of government programmes and policies. It implements and enforces the laws of the federal republic of Nigeria. In doing this, it is expected to maintain law and order, guarantee the security of life sans properties, ensure that the fundamental rights of the people are guaranteed and protected and provide infrastructural amenities to uplift the living standard and social conditions of its citizenry, amongst other duties (Part I Section 231(1), Part I Section 231(2),  Section 232 (2)).
The executive powers of the federation (a)shall be voted in the president and may, subject as aforesaid and to the provisions of any law made by the National Assembly, be exercised by him either directly or through the vice-president and ministers of the Government of the federation or officers in the public service of the federation; and
(b)shall extend to the execution and maintenance of this constitution all laws made by the National Assembly and to all matters with respect to which the National Assembly has, for the time being, power to make laws.
In this vain, the sections 5(2)(a)(b) spells out the executive power of a state:
Shall be vested in the governor of the state and may, subject as aforesaid and to the provisions of any law made by a House of  Assembly, be exercised by him either directly or through deputy governor and commissioners of the government of the state or officers in the public service of the state; and
Shall extend to the execution and maintenance of this constitution, all laws made house of Assembly of the state and to all matters with respect to which the House of Assembly has for the time being power to make laws.it is also the constitution responsibility of the president to appoint ministers of the government subject to confirmation by the senate and provided such appointments reflects the federal character of Nigeria as stipulated in section 135,sub-section 2 and 3 of the constitution.
The most important function of the chief executive which may trigger off conflicts as linked with the legislature is giving of assent to bill passed by the legislature. The constitution stipulates that a bills passed by the National Assembly is sent to the president for assent which he has give within 30 days.but if he withholds assent, the constitution allows the National Assembly to pass it into law without the president’s assent, if it is again passed by each house by two-thirds majority. By the same token, the house of Assembly of a state must send a bill to the Governor for assent before it becomes a law, except that where the Governor withhold of the House, the bill becomes law automatically without the assent of the Governor. (Uya 215-216)
         4.5The Judiciary
The functions of the judiciary as one the three arms of government are spelt out in section 6 of the constitution as follows:
1. the judicial powers of a state shall be vested in the courts to which this section relates, beings courts established for the federation.
2.the judiciary powers of a state shall be vested in the courts to which this section relates, being courts established, subject as provided by this constitution, for a state.
3. The courts to which to which section relates, established by this constitution for the federation and for the states, specified in sub-section5 (a)to (i) of this shall  be the only superior courts of records.
4. Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this section shall be construed as precluding:
a. the national assembly or any house of assembly from establishing courts, other than those to which this section relates, with subordinate jurisdiction to that of a high court;
b.  the national assembly or any house of assembly, which does require it, from abolishing any court which it has power to establish or which it has brought into being (cf. Part I Section 231(1), Part I Section 231(2),  Section 232 (2), qtd in Uya 217).
However, the principle of separation of powers and check and balances inherent in our present system of government is aimed to facilitates, not disconnect the synthesis and logic of constitutional and democratic governance at the higher levels. The three arms of government will need to constantly remind themselves of this fact when confronted with the grey areas in their relationship. Over and above their vested and political interests, they owe a duty to Nigerian electorate to work together with less acrimony.
4.6 Elections and Formation of Political Parties
Nigeria Democracy 1999-2013 Democracy is quite simply a system where the people elect their leaders at every level in free and fair elections. The most important and symbolic aspect of democracy is thus the ability to freely elect the leaders by the people which also represents the most significant difference between democracy and other forms of government (Oru, 4). Without this essential ingredient, democracy ceases to exist. Since the ancient Greeks pioneered the modern art of democracy, it has triumphed against other systems of government and become the global model. By its very nature in which leaders emerge and can be removed only through the vote of the people, democracy no doubt better guarantees the responsiveness of leaders to the needs of their people.
According to Oru, “Nigeria pretends to be a democracy, but even by a layman’s definition of the basic ideals of democracy, it is obvious that the democratic process begun in 1999, after decades of military rule, is nothing but a scam. 14 years after, Nigerians of all stripes are reeling in disappointment as they live through a 419 democracy that has turned out to be the most visionless and corrupt in the nation’s chequered history (Oru, 12). Furthermore, he decries undemocratic stance of our purported leaders who come to power through selection rather than election whom he described as ‘lootocrats:
While the illegitimate so called leaders or rather “lootocrats” continue to bandy the false label of a democracy, in reality it has been more a clone of military regimes where the usurpers of power have used the apparatus of the state, complemented by godfathers and other enablers to deliberately and routinely rig elections and impose pre-selected candidates at every level of government. The fraudulent system that pretends to be a democracy has in the last 14 years, unleashed an unconscionable and shameless bunch of unelected criminals at every level of governance. True to type, they have gone on to undertake the greatest looting spree in the nation’s history. 14 years after and with earnings of more than N54 trillion courtesy of an unprecedented oil boom, there is absolutely nothing to show for the record earnings (Oru, 12).
Party formation which is an essential part of democracy is not done based on national orientation, and subsequently the selection and fielding of candidate are not done based on merits but based on some parochial consideration. This is aptly captured by Oru thus:
Elections for the Second Republic were held in July 1979. Most parties received votes along ethnic lines, the exception being the National Party of Nigeria (NPN), which commanded support from several corners of the country and won the most legislativeseats. The NPN fell short of a majority, however, and often joined forces with the Nigerian People's Party (NPP), a mainly Igbo group led by Azikiwe. In the presidential elections, NPN candidate AlhajiShehuShagari won the largest number of overall votes, plus 25 percent of the votes in 12 of the 19 states and 20 percent of the vote in a 13th state. On New Year's Eve 1983, army officers led by Major General MuhammaduBuhari overthrew the Shagari government in a bloodless coup. Buhari's government enjoyed widespread public support for its condemnation of economic mismanagement, of government corruption, and of the rigged 1983 elections (22).
According to Oru, this support waned, however, as the government adopted a rigid program of economic austerity and instituted repressive policies that included a sweeping campaign against indiscipline, a prohibition against discussing the country's political future, and the detention of journalists and others critical of the government. Buhari's support withered and in August 1985, Major General Ibrahim Babangida overthrew him to wide acclaim. Babangida rescinded several of Buhari's most unpopular decrees, initiated a public debate on the state of the economy, and eased controls over business. In early 1989, in preparation for a transfer to democracy, Babangida approved a new constitution that introduced only minor changes to the 1979 constitution. In May he lifted the ban on political organizations but refused to recognize any of the new parties, instead channelling politics into the government-created Social Democratic Party (SDP) and National Republic Convention (NRC) (30).
Federal legislative elections were finally held in July 1992, with the SDP winning a majority in both houses of the legislature. The presidential elections were delayed, finally held in June 1993, and then annulled by the military when initial election results indicated that SDP candidate and wealthy publisher MoshoodAbiola had won by a large majority. History has it that this election globally adjudged to be the fairest in Nigerian history was annulled by Babangida.  Consequently, expressing his outrange, Aderounmu decries:
I will tell my children how Politics of Food and lies, politics of deceit and hatred and extreme selfishness and insanity in public places deprived Nigeria of her rightful place in world history. I will let them know that I did my best at home and that I continued to do the best I can everywhere I’ve found myself since I left home. I’ve written a book where they’ll read about Nigeria’s kind of politics and there they will find out that if there is any reason at all to change Nigeria’s Democracy Day, that reason will be June 12. On that day the expectations of over 100 million Nigerians were deleted eternally by a wicked and evil soul called Babangida (34).
Babangida, however, claimed he still supported a transition to democracy and in August transferred power to an interim government. The new government lasted all of three months before General SaniAbacha, the powerful secretary of defense, overthrew it and assumed control. Among Abacha's first acts was the termination of all political activity. Finally in 1999, we returned to democratic rule in Nigeria, and the same challenges of old are still the challenges of today. According to Aderounmu:
From Obasanjo to Jonathan we have made significant progress, but not yet in our destination. For instance the priority areas promised to face headlong by Obasanjo in 1999 were as follows. The crisis in the Oil Producing Areas; Food Supply, Food Security and Agriculture; Law and order with particular reference to Armed Robbery, and to Cultism in our educational institutions; Exploration and Production of Petroleum; Education. Macro- economic policies - particularly, Exchange rate management etc.; Supply and Distribution of Petroleum Products; The Debt Issue; Corruption, Drugs, organised fraud called 419 activities, and crimes leading to loss of lives, properties and investment. Infrastructure; Water Supply, Energy, Telecommunication, Ports, Airways, National Shipping, Nigerian Railways; Resuscitation of the Manufacturing Industries; Job creation, and creation of conducive environment for investment; Poverty alleviation; Housing both; Civilian Housing Programmes; and Barrack Refurbishment and New Construction for the Armed Forces and the Police; ECOMOG; Health Services; Political and Constitutional Dialogue; Women and Youth Development.
Aderounmu contends that for so many years of this civil rule, the successive governments have made efforts, but many Nigerians will agree with me that these challenges are still standing tall before us. We have made progress, but still standing almost in the same spot. The impact of government efforts in solving some of the issues raised by Obasanjo is grossly insignificant to the chagrin of many Nigerians. For instance in 1999, 12 years after Obasanjo has made these promises, in 2011 when President Goodluck Jonathan was reading his inaugural speech, he said
‘Over the next four years, attention will be focused on rebuilding our infrastructure’.We will create greater access to quality education and improved health care delivery. We will pay special attention to the agricultural sector, to enable it play its role of ensuring food security and massive job creation for our people.repeating the same promised made by Obasanjo in 1999 (34).
The best election in Nigeria’s history was annulled in 1993. In 1999, a sad page was opened in the history of Nigeria. It continues till today. It is sad because Nigerians have surprisingly not been able to participate in any credible election. The votes have never been counted. May 29 1999 saw the emergence of the evil party in Nigeria. The PDP has destroyed lives. They have destroyed dreams and they have destroyed the pillars of democracy(Aderounmu).
I must at this point take a strong exception for the above claim that since the annulment of 1993 election, we have not experienced free, fair and credible election. Borrowing from Ya’adua, Goodluck Jonathan make it one of the cardinal pillars of his transformation agenda to organize free, fair and credible elections, and that he was resolutely committed to. Perhaps this maybe responsible for why it was possible for him to be defeated by the present administration. Although, elections under his watch may not have been perfect, however, the sincere analyst would inadvertently agree that it is closest to that of 1993.
4.7In Terms of Accountability
Writing in the year 2000 on the assessment of Nigerian democracy, Aderounmu expressed his reservation, “After 10 years of uninterrupted (stupid version of) democracy, the gains have been with the politicians getting richer by continuous looting of the treasury. Across Nigeria, the politicians continue to get richer, acquire wealth illegally and award themselves contracts and monies in reckless manners. They’ll do anything to be rich, to loot and crazily become stingingly rich. The people that they are supposed to serve are reduced to beggars and losers. It is sad” (12). He continues his lamentation,“It has gone for 49 years in total and there is no end in sight. So as “they” celebrate and in very expensive manner, the masses are crying with great pain and extreme difficulties. They are completely hopeless. The electricity generated in Nigeria can barely serve one local government, yet the entire federation is supposed to use this worthless quantity of electricity. What is wrong with Nigeria? Refineries are not working because some people are getting scandalously rich daily from the misfortunes of the nation. I cannot believe that these anomalies are perpetrated by normal people (23).
Explaining what could be the possible root course of the callous and inordinate ambition of Nigerian politicians he opines: People who fail to understand the purpose of governance and the transiency of human existence. I am convinced that the leadership of Nigeria is unintelligent and lacks the cognitive abilities to comprehend the meaning of public service. This is definitely a mad act syndrome that has infected almost everyone in Nigeria public service. This is the only way I can explain acquisition of wealth beyond the needs of a normal person. It is the only way I can comprehend billions of dollars in Swiss banks while people are dying of poverty and impoverishment in Nigeria.Sad! (2). This implies that the Nigerian democracy since its inception, is lacking in accountability, which ideally is the hallmark of democracy. Hence, our selective process code named ‘election has so far produced wastefulness and visionless leadership. This is an outrageous departure from Plato’s paradigm of justice. In line with Plato’s postulations, we need men and women with brain, mission, vision and purpose to help this great nation to take its rightful place among the comity of nations. We need people with the proper leadership qualities who can harness the wealth and potential of this country to a positive outcome.
Plato’s concept of justice can be of help here to redefine our method of governance. We need to shift the power from the centre to the regions. We need to bring governance to the people and out of the people. We need a system that allows dialogue and promotes participation. This system where one robot in Abuja regulates everyone else is completely senseless, negative and uncivilised to the core. Nigerians, wake up and save this country for the future.
4.8 The Anti- Graft Agencies
Successive government have at least given verbal commitment to the fight against corruption. As seen above, one of the reasons military invader give for ceasing power from civil government is to fight corruption. In chapter two it was established that Obasanjo is one of the civil leaders that showed great commitment to fighting corruption. He created the following anti-graft agencies to that effect, Monetisation Policy, National Economic Empowerment Development Strategies (NEEDS), Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), Banking Reforms, Revitalisation of the National Food and Drug Administration (NAFDAC), Constitutional Conference, Policy Towards Poverty Reduction/ Alleviation – SMEDAN, PAP, SMSEetc, Privatisation Policy, Emphasis on Infrastructural Development etc.
With respect to the malignant cancer of corruption, Jonathan's administration is not tackling it effectively. Heart-rending corruption is rampant among top public office holders, high profile businesspersons, and multinational companies operating in Nigeria connected to government officials. To be candid, Jonathan's government is corruption-friendly, as can be seen from the expanding eddies of official corruption and inability of the EFCC to prosecute so-called "sacred cows" in and out of government since the present administration. Indeed, Mr. President's attitude sometimes encourages corruption: examples include his refusal to declare his assets publicly and wrongheaded presidential pardon granted to DiepriyeAlamesieyegha his former boss (Anele)
4.9 Observation
Although Plato has been criticized by a great many scholars as generally presenting an utopia philosophy because perhaps his work appears too ideal for the human society; his work unarguably remains a paradigm that has overtly and covertly influenced the thought of scholars after him, even to the present day. NorthWhithead was not mistaken by referring to him as ‘The Philosopher’. He remains a philosopher of great foresight, whose work has continued to be relevant millions of years after he lived.  In specific terms, his treatise on justice which this work understudied is reasoned and seasoned. It can be plausibly construed as a viable concept of justice which can be applied anywhere in the world to foster through democracy.
5.0 The Problem of Leadership: From the review above, it is crystalline clear that the focal point of Nigerian democracy on which other problems revolves is the problem of leadership. Plato’s principles of justice is religiously and judiciously applied would invariably solve this ground problem but how?Plato’s principles of justice gave premium to who is supposed to be a leader in the society. This is very germane for the Nigerian democracy because the fulcrum of our problem lies squarely with bad, corrupt and incompetent leaders.We elect (select) our leaders from men and women with no prior leadership training. Plato strongly believed that leadership is a technical mater, and as such must be handled with the same measure of urgency. According to him, just as a medical doctor, a lawyers and other professionals are not allowed to practice without attaining at least a minimum qualification, even more so a leader must not allowed to assume any leadership position without appropriate training. This idea is very true and relevant to the Nigerian situation. Our leaders to say the least has always being incompetent with no form of formal training on management and leadership. This happens in all levels of governance, in ministries, parastatals and agencies of government. It is important that those who are to be Nigerian leaders at every level, must be subjected to rigorous training so as to acquit with the technicalities of leadership and governance. Nigerian is in dire need of good and qualified leaders to catalyst the much needed development.
Generally, in this works we have been able to see that the philosopher-king or ruler plays a significant role in establishing justice in the society, the reasoning why Plato considers the philosopher-king or ruler as the ideal man. Who answer the question, ‘what ought to be done in the society’, and ‘what action is considered a vice or a virtue’, and also one who would be able to administer justice and act for the good of the community, he would have a good character, a calm disposition and a sound mind. He added that the philosopher-king is also an embodiment of immense knowledge of moral integrity and of self-discipline, qualities that needs in order to be able to lead the citizen out of ignorance and enhance the general enlightenment of the citizens in the state.
5.1Specialization/Non Interference:From the analysis of the accepts from the Constitution of the Federal Republic on the separation of powers amongst the arms of government, one can plausibly argue that this perfectly reflects Plato’s vision of true democracy. This is commendable because it fosters checks and balances, there engendering qualification, efficiency, accountability, effectiveness and non interference. Of course this is the hallmark of Plato’s notion of justices. However, from the literature review in chapter two,it is obvious that in practice, this separation enshrined in the constitution are not strictly adhered to. The officials of the various arms grossly discountenance this principles in their day to day running of government’s affairs. This negligence, ineffectiveness and non adherence to the principles of separation of powers is responsible for the woes of Nigeria. To remedy this, there is the dire need to invoke Plato’s political doctrine on justice as has been critically analyzed and streamlined in the previous chapter.
From the above explication, it is obvious that the kind of democracy invoke in Nigeria there is at least separation of powers in principle. The Nigerian constitution clearly spells out the duties and obligations of these distinct but complimentary arms of government as seen above. However, because they in practice have not been faithful to their noble and sacred roles, that is why there are myriad of injustices in the Nigerian polity. To the sincere observer, it is no longer news that the executives overshadows the other two arms. They usurp their duties at will without any iota of remorse. The executives blatantly every now and then disobey court orders and resolutions of the national assembly. This contravenes the principles of justices as outlined by Plato.
It is germane to indicate that in the events of legislation and over-sighting the executives, the legislatures put their personal ambitions over and above the teaming populace of Nigeria. In the event of interpretation of laws and adjudication of cases, the judiciary most times subvert or delay justice.The executives on their part has not always put common good as the yardstick for formulating and implementing government’ policies and programmes. Consequently, this utter negligence that has resulted in inefficiency and ineffectiveness in government business is a grave injustice to the collective will of Nigerians and to the detriment of the development of Nigeria. Therefore, in line with Plato’s thought, politicians must know that the common good is the essence of government. Plato says that those in the class of Guardian and Auxiliary must be people of proven integrity and selfless leaders. Hence our politicians but not be ambitious. They must be qualify for their jobs and must play it effectively to the best of their abilities. Again, even while maintain checks and balances, the arms of government must not interfere with the affirms of the other, according to Plato’s admonition. This claim is anchored on the authority of FinefaceOgoloma, who asserted that “it will help to dispense with executive usurpation of powers, check corruption of elected officials and manipulation of electoral processes” (133).
Furthermore, in line with Plato’s thought, the various arms of government must be reminded that their strength lies in the maturity of their cooperation. Democracy can only thrive in an atmosphere of symbiotic respect for human dignity, transparent honesty and political politeness.there should be no basis for selfish rivalry or competition among them. All actions should be cohered for effectiveness for the enhancement of the continuous development of the civil society with sustainable democracy as one of it important elements (Uya, 220). Having reflected on the arms of government, let’s consider other essential features of democracy.
Plato’s conception of justice as a sort of specialization is veritable. It is simply the will to fulfill the duties of one's station and not to meddle with the duties of another station, and its habitation is, therefore, in the mind of every citizen who does his duties in his appointed place. It is the original principle, laid down at the foundation of the State, "that one man should practice one thing only and that the thing to which his nature was best adopted". True justice to Plato, therefore, consists in the principle of non-interference. The State has been considered by Plato as a perfect whole in which each individual which is its element, functions not for itself but for the health of the whole. Every element fulfils its appropriate function. Justice in the platonic state would, therefore, be like that harmony of relationship where the Planets are held together in the orderly movement. Plato was convinced that a society which is so organized is fit for survival. Where man is out of their natural places, there the co-ordination of parts is destroyed, the society disintegrates and dissolves. Justice, therefore, is the citizen sense of duties. This postulation is very relevant and rooted in reality. If it is applied to the Nigerian democracy, it would perpetually eliminate the myriad of injustices bedevilling the Nigerian democracy. For instance, the problem of corruption can only be effectively fought by all citizens of Nigeria by contributing in no small measure their efforts. No matter the will and resolution of the present administration to fight official crimes and corrupt practise, if the whole citizens are not resolved that corruption must go, it will not succeed.
5.2Active Participation of All (Civil Society) as the Hallmark of Democracy: Plato’s Ideal Justice
According to Izibili and Eribo, the ideal definition of democracy is that which gives recognition to the essence of the concept as “rule of the people”. By this, they meant that, democracy implies a system of government which every individual participates in the process of governance. This presupposes that the principle of participation is an essential component of democracy, which must be reflected in every genuine definition of the concept. Any democratic form of arrangement ought to have certain basic ideals that are important for it to be called a democratic state. Lively (1975); Izibili and Eribo (2008) assert that these ideals are freedom or liberty, accountability to the people, right to vote and be voted for, among others. To achieve the above, there must be active participation of all, most importantly, the civil society, and this discourse proceeds to examine how much the media and the civil have done in delivering andconsolidating democracy in Nigeria.
Several years after Nigeria’s independence, the challenge of nation-building and overall development at various fronts of national life has remained unattainable task due to innumerable factors that have beset her. Of particular concern is being the inability to evolve democracy to the level of its guiding tenets and sustainability. Invariably the failure of the political class and other segments of the society to fashion the desired path of nation-building and national development. Largely therefore, a political class which draws its economic life-blood from the subversion of the national economy for private gains has often remained unchecked by ahelpless citizenry pushed to the brinks of despondency, growing cynicism and apathy (Dakyyen and Dang, 1).
This malady with the Nigerian polity is the height of social injustice understood in the spirit of Plato’s principles of justice. According to Imade, “the extent to which the Nigerian government resolves these challenges, will determine whether Nigeria’s fledgling democracy is transient or sustainable and, more importantly, whether Nigeria disintegrates or reconfigures itself as a nation-state (qtd in Dakyyen and Dang, 11). But more importantly is the challenge posed to nation-building especially the attainment of such objectives as the Vision 2020:20. This chapter contends that for Nigeria to attain nation-building and sustainable development by 2020:20, Plato’s notion of justice must be entrenched in the Nigerian polity. It is imperative use Plato’s principles of justice to probes the idea of what agitates the progression of Nigeria as a democratic state aside the role of its basic agents and institutions. The question that begs for answer is, Do civil society organizations in Nigeria play any role in promoting and sustaining democracy? Existentially, the civil society in Nigeria has not be conscientiously playing her roles. Even the teaming population of Nigeria are too weak and are ready to tolerate the impunities of government officials. This has inadvertently contributed to the growth of all forms of injustices in Nigeria.
It is an impeccable fact that a vibrant civil society coupled with civility and social capital are the basic building blocks for democratic survival as mare elections alone do not secure democracy but require the civil society among other catalysts and agitators of the process. Moreover, it is further proposed in this analysis that a vibrant civil society can champion government reforms such as the vision 2020:20, confront corruption, advocate respect for human rights, promote and defend democratic processes and institutions, alongside the state and overall nation-building (12).
According to Diamond, the civil society connotes: “The realm of organized social life that is voluntary, self-generating, self-supporting, autonomous from the state, and bound by the legal order or set of shared roles…it involves citizens acting collectively in a public sphere to express their interest, passions and ideas, exchange ideas, exchange information, achieve mutual goals, make demands on the state, and hold state officials accountable. It is an intermediary entity, standing between the private sphere and state.”
This broad postulation no doubt captures the crux of social action, shared interest and activity required of civil society to stand in the vacuum the state sometimes creates in failing to fulfil its essential welfare to the citizenry. This certainly informs the basis of it also been seen as embracing the “totality of voluntary, civic and social organization and institutions that form the basis of a functioning society as opposed to the force-backed structures of a state (qtd in Dakyyen and Dang, 13).
In a bid to understand why the concept of civil society is vital sustaining Nigerians nascent democracy as catalyst of justice, its common characteristics that work in that direction are worth examining. According to diamond, the following are its basic features:
An organized civil society serves as a check against the excesses of government, human rights violation, and abuse on the rule of law, monitors of the application of constitutional provisions.
Increases the participation and the skills of all various segments of society and instils a sense of tolerance, thrift, hard work, moderation, compromise among the various competing parties in the society.
It serves as an alternative to political parties and can offer a refuge for those are shut out from their rights due to non-membership of given political parties.
It serves to enhance the bargaining power of interest groups and provides inclusive mechanism for them.
It has a role in mitigating the excesses of fundamental extremists and maximalists who tend to have a very narrow view of life in the context of either/or. It thus also provides other alternatives for negotiations within a multifaceted society.
It can serve as recruiting ground for, and the training of prospective members of the political or economic classes to enhance the availability of participants in government. In effect it is a leadership recruitment field (cited in kukah, 1999).
From the forgoing features, there is no gain saying that civil society forms the bedrock of democracy in a society and even though it is seen to have been considerably weakened and politicized in many post-independent African states our politicians gets away with the grave injustice they do to our country because our civil society is weak and inactive. To achieve Plato’s ideal of justice, the civil society must play its watch dog role effectively.
The civil society have a great stake in helping to realize Plato’s vision of justice in the Nigerian contemporary society because, according to Kukah, “it’s being an effective check to state power in most of those countries has been significant and acknowledged over the years” (qtd in Dakyyen and Dang, 10). According to Dakyyen and Dang, in Nigeria, the civil society encapsulates this reality and reflects the notion of collective action towards achieving shared values of the society. In serving as a “counter hegemonic social movement” against authoritarianism, it has been instrumental to regime transition in Nigeria and a vehicle that has helped in securing , promoting and sustaining Nigeria’s nascent democracy amidst the turbulence of the socio-political milieu. Outlining the calibre of people that constitute these most important strata of any civilized society, Dakyyen and Dang, outlines:
Mostly, championed by professionals such as the academics, lawyers, labour, doctors and other segments of society, the outcome of civil society activities in Nigeria have demonstrated efforts of creating a just democratic society where citizens’ rights are fought for, accountability by public officials is demanded, electoral reforms are necessary and nation-building is the objective. This will help in filling the vacuum the state has created and spells the essential component of the civil society (34).
To conclude this chapter, it must be asserted that to promote the rule of democracy which stillremains the best form of government in Nigeria, Plato’s paradigm for justice which main thesis emphasises qualification, specialization and effectiveness becomes expedient. There is no other way be which the cankerworm corruption must leave our land, unless by the sincere resolution by the three arms of government to eschew idiosyncrasies, lackadaisical attitude, negligence and indifference. The greatest corruption in Nigeria is the lack of dedication, commitment and selflessness in service. Nigerian leaders must be selected from qualified and dignified, and studious and exposed leaders who are will to lead simple lifestyle for the good of Nigeria. Against the backdrop that Plato’s notion of justice connotes a participatory democracy. A system that calls everyone to actively participate in the developmental project and prospect of the state, the next chapter, which is the concluding chapter, is pains and exclusive attention on the role of the civil society in promoting democracy. This becomes important to balance our reflection on Plato, who (as has been established in this work) says, to achieve justices, everyone must participate actively.

CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The central object of this research has being to critically analyse and explicate Plato’s theory of justice, in order to eatables pragmatic principles that would be plausibly applies to sanitize the injustice prevailing in Nigerian democracy. This central thrust has been aptly and systematically undertaken by the previous chapters.Plato’s proposed ideal state have been consider as a comprehensive and a standardized system of government whereby, if justice prevails, it will eventually bring forth an offspring of a harmonized perfect society. Consequently, this last chapter attempts a deductive conclusion of this research. However, to foster a plausible conclusion, it suffices that first present a summary of the chapters.
5.1 Summary of the Chapters
Chapter One: In chapter one, the general introduction to this work was presented. In this chapter, it was established that right from the dawn of philosophical reasoning to this contemporary age, scholars and philosophers have paid a critical and sustained attention to the concept of justice. This is premised on the fact that justice essential in every human society and interactions. However, it was observed that a critical look into the Nigerian situation reveals that it is bedevilled by a myriad of injustices. Hence, it was indicated that Plato’s paradigm of justice if profoundly probed into stands as a remedial principles of justice to elevate the Nigerian situation. Consequently, it was proposed that this work stands the chance of being beneficial to the Nigerian polis in particular and to scholars in general.
Chapter Two: Chapter two consisted of a review of some selected literature on the principle of justice, and Nigerian democracy respectively. After a painstaking and rigorous review of some selected literature on the concept of justice and democracy respectively, it was revealed that the Nigeria democracy obviously are lacking in some of the fundamental features of democracy of which the notions of justice reviewed if applied would not adequately correct the anomalies ranging from bad leadership, nepotism, lack of effective role playing by the various organs and segments of the Nigerian society, amongst others. Consequently, Plato’s concept of justice which hacks on specialization, corporation and effective role playing as the focal point of justice as a lee way to bettering Nigerian democracy.
Chapter Three: This chapter paid an exclusive attention to a critical analysis and exposition on Plato’s principles of justice as articulated by him in the Republic. It as established that in his philosophy, Plato gives a prominent place to the idea of justice. Plato was highly dissatisfied with the prevailing degenerating conditions in Athens. The Athenian democracy was on the verge of ruin and was ultimately responsible for Socrates’ death. The amateur meddlesomeness and excessive individualism became main targets of Plato's attack. This attack came in the form of the construction of an ideal society in which justice reigned supreme, since Plato believed justice to be the remedy for curing these evils.
Justice is thus a sort of specialization. It is simply the will to fulfill the duties of one's station and not to meddle with the duties of another station, and its habitation is, therefore, in the mind of every citizen who does his duties in his appointed place. It is the original principle, laid down at the foundation of the State, "that one man should practice one thing only and that the thing to which his nature was best adopted". True justice to Plato, therefore, consists in the principle of non-interference. The State has been considered by Plato as a perfect whole in which each individual which is its element, functions not for itself but for the health of the whole. Every element fulfils its appropriate function. Justice in the platonic state would, therefore, belike that harmony of relationship where the Planets are held together in the orderly movement. Plato was convinced that a society which is so organized is fit for survival. Where man are out of their natural places, there the co-ordination of parts is destroyed, the society disintegrates and dissolves. Justice, therefore, is the citizen sense of duties. Consequently Plato concludes that, Plato says that justice is not mere strength, but it is a harmonious strength. Justice is not the right of the stronger but the effective harmony of the whole. All moral conceptions revolve about the good of the whole-individual as well as social.
Chapter Four:This chapter ruminates on the nature of Nigerian democracy. It critically examines the essential features of democracy like: conduct of election, party formation, separation of powers between the arms of government, accountability of leaders to the electorate, institutions of the state like the INEC, etc. The purpose of this is to establish the relevance and significance of Plato’s concept of justice to either strengthening the positive aspects of Nigerian democracy or correcting some of its limitations or shortcomings noticeable.
It was established that to promote the rule of democracy which still remains the best form of government in Nigeria, Plato’s paradigm for justice which main thesis emphasises qualification, specialization and effectiveness becomes expedient. There is no other way be which the cankerworm corruption must leave our land, unless by the sincere resolution by the three arms of government to eschew indiosyncracies, lakadaisical attitude, negligence and indifference. The greatest corruption in Nigeria is the lack of dedication, commitment and selflessness in service. Nigerian leaders must be selected from qualified and dignified, and studious and exposed leaders who are will to lead simple lifestyle for the good of Nigeria. Against the backdrop that Plato’s notion of justice connotes a participatory democracy. A system that calls everyone to actively participate in the developmental project and prospect of the state, the next chapter, which is the concluding chapter, is pains and exclusive attention on the role of the civil society in promoting democracy. This becomes important to balance our reflection on Plato, who (as has been established in this work) says, to achieve justices, everyone must participate actively.
5.2 Conclusion
The Athenian philosopher Plato was a great man who has written his name in the hall of fame of European scholars. Little wonder  Whitehead observed ‘that the European philosophy consist of footnote to Plato’. ( qtdinEkpo 192).  In spite of the flaws or lopsided nature of his position, he deserves a considerable place in the history of philosophy. Before the advent of Plato, very few were able to discover that something was fundamentally missing in the society and to state boldly what it was. But Plato sought for this missing links and through his notion justice in the attempt of wipe away the ills in Athens. He proposes that through the means of specialization of work, if each person in the society doses their work well, the society will be harmonious. There will be a perfect state.
This work therefore, bacons on the Nigerian state, to adhere to the theory of separation of powers as is the practice in other democratic states of the world taken account of our historical past and the urgent need to modernize where necessary. Any dictatorial tendency should be nibbled on the bud. Secondly, it will help to dispense with executive usurpation of powers, check corruption of elected officials and manipulation of electoral processes. It provides a basis for the adoption of structure processes and control which protects liberty now and in the future. It guards against broad spectrum of the ills like absurd judgement avaricious and ambitious self-serving behaviour and inefficient performances of functions. it is obvious that the essence of the doctrine of separation of powers is to protect the arbitrariness of rules.
Hence, this research concludes that all strata of the society-the governors and the governed, government and the citizens, the rulers and the ruled, peoples of all professions, creeds, walks of life and all men and women of goodwill must play their unique but indispensable roles for the collective good of the society. The auxiliaries, the guardians, and indeed the artisans must play their noble, unique and indispensible roles effectively and efficiently for justices to rein supreme. Those who take leadership positions must be trained rigorously before they will be allowed to practice because the art of leadership is very technical. Moreover, government officials must learn the business of government is a selfless, sacrificial and unreserved service to humanity and not a money making business. Also, those in the economic class-the masses must contribute their lot. So that together, all playing their roles based on qualification by natural ability and training, we may build a nation where justice shall reign. Remember, the task to kick out corruption out of Nigeria is a collective responsibility of all Nigerian; the task to attain develop out nation is the responsibility of all Nigerians. But there cannot be development without peace. Hence, do what you are qualified both by nurture and training to do well, you would be fostering justice. It is only when all hands are on deck that our most cherished democracy can flourish to the happiness of all.

WORKS CITED

Aderibigbe, M.O. Distributive Justice: The Sustenance of Democracy in Africa. In West
African Journal of Philosophical Studies. Vol. 13, December, 2010.
Akam, J. Towards a Civilized Society. Nigeria: Ethel Printer, 1987.
Arua, Kelvin C. Global Injustice and the African Predicament. In West African Journal of
Philosophical Studies. Vol. 15, December 2013.
Aristotle, P. The Complete Works trans. by Jonathan Barnes’’, United Kingdom; Princeton
university press,1984.
Boss, D.Aristotle. Methuen Company Limited, 1923.
Dakyyen, M. M. and Dang, S. M. The Role of Civil Society in Promoting and Sustaining
Democracy  in Nigeria.  In Cultural Relations Quarterly Review.Vol.1 Issues 3 (Summer 2014).
Ekennia, J. African Modernity Crises. Benin: Barloz Publication, 2008.
Ekei, C. Justice in Communalism. Nigeria: Realm Communication Limited, 2001.
Ekpo, Israel. Democracy and the Need for Political Ethics in Nigeria. In Koinonia, Vol. 3, No. 3. St Joseph Major Seminary Studies. 2007.
Ekwutosi, Cosmas M. Basic Issues in Ethics.Anambra: Rex Charles& Patrick Ltd: Booksmith, 2006.
Gratsch, Edward J. Aquinas’s Summa: An Introduction and Interpretation. India:
Bangalore Theological Publications, 2008.
Griffith Tom.Plato Republic.Trans. John D & David V. Herfordshire: Wordsworth Editions Limited. 1997.
Imade, L. O. Democratizing Democracy in Nigeria: The Role of Civil Society
Organizations.(Online).Available at http”//jsd.africa.com/sda/spring2001/ARC
D.retrieved June 25, 2016.
Karen,Lebacqz. Six Theories of Justice.Mineapolis: Augsburg Publishing House 1986.
Kukah, M. H. Democracy and Civil Society in Nigeria.Ibadan: Spectrum Books Ltd.
1999.
Mathias U. Mending the Cracked Pot. Owerri: Gabtony Prints Limited, 2001.
Ndiokwere, Nathaniel I. Only in Nigeria.Vol. 2.Springfield Publishers Ltd. 2013.
Ojakaminor,Efeturi. Nigeria’s Nascent Democracy: Order & Disorder.Suleja: Lentari Publishers, 2012.
Omoregbe, J. Knowing Philosophy. Logos:Joja Educational Research and Publishers limited, 1990.
Plato   The Republic: The Complete And Unabridged. Trans. Jowett, New York: Vintage Books, 1991.
Rawls J. A Theory of Justice. New York: Oxford University Press, 1972.
Kamai, Peter Hassan. On Giving Democracy a Chance: Free and Fair Elections- A Recipe for Peaceful and Credible Transition.In Jos Studies: St. Augustine’s Major Seminary, Jos, Vol.14, 2006.
Stumphf,  S. Philosophy: History and Problem. New York: McGraw-hill Publication, 1971.
Subrata, M. &Sushila R. A History of Political Thought: Plato to Marx. Delhi: Prentice-hall of India Private Limited, 1999.
Udechukwu, H. Justice: The Basis of Authentic Peace and Development. Nigeria: Snaap Press Limited, 2007.
Uduigwomen, A. &Ogbinaka.Philosophy of Education; An analytical Approach. Lagos: Joja Educational Research and Publishers Ltd, 2011.
UyaOkon E. Civil Society and the Consolidation of Democracy in Nigeria.Calabar: Clear-Lines Publishers, 2000.
Vendemiati, A. In the First Person: An Outline of General Ethics.Cynthia R. Trans. Urbaniana: University Press, 1999.

INTERNET SOURCE
http//:www.premiun time Nigeria.com
Http//:www.internet encyclopaedia of philosophy