CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
During the colonial era, the abundant natural resources in the rural areas were exploited without any attempt to develop such areas. Development projects were concentrated in the few urban centers and any extension of such development effort was to facilitate their administrative convenience. The rural areas served as sources of cheap and most often forced labor. Dike (1992), need that though the road and river ordinance, the warrant chiefs were empowered to order communities to provide up paid compulsory labor for the construction and maintenance of access roads and other services. The different attempts to development culminated in the 1976 local government reforms which main proclaimed objective was to bring government operating at the grass roots, a development process that would improve the lot of the rural populace were triggered off.
Rural sector in Nigeria, public policy was consistently employed and this “increased agricultural development (Hall, 2000, OnokerHoraye and Okafor, 1991 and Tom (1991). The assumption was that increase in agricultural output would lead to rural income and improvement in the livelihood of people especially the NsugbeAnambra East Anambra state individuals. However, Okpula (1980) disagrees and argues that the prevailing public policy emphasis its increased in agricultural out-put and productivity as the main goal of rural development, is at variance with the communities perception of which constitutes their development. It is obvious from the above position, that the rural dwellers do not share government as enthrisium for agriculture development. They frequently do not adopt the type of rural development proposals, proagrammes and projects that are exposed in the official natural development programmes.
As Olisa (1992) rightly observed over 80% of the country’s population are living in the rural areas and are engaged in agriculture, yet the country’s internal food supply relative to domestic demands, has been consistently on a steep decline. Another way of starting the Nigerian rural development dilemma, Lisa(1945) further stated is that all the agricultural and industrial projects started in all corners of Nigeria since 1950s to the present were successful and in active production today, the country would be recording substantial food supply and much of its rural areas would have undergone substantial transformation.
These efforts of developing the rural areas in Nigeria have not yielded the desired results, due largely to their inability to accelerate the development of the sector. The initiatives failed because of the exclusion of the people not only from policy making and planning but also from implementation. Other attendant factors for the low level of development of the rural areas include the failure to harness available resources within the rural areas, inability to sustain their programmes, managerial problems and the failure to take into cognizance the socio-cultural background and hastened experience of the benefiting rural communities. The complexity and enmity of the problems confronting the rural dwellers in Nigeria, call for a profound search or both the formulation of a more appropriate and enduring approach the problem is more than just technology and productive. It is the “social, cultural and economic issue responsible for under development that requires attention” (Altieri, 1995).
The consequent entrenchment of profit and centralized institutions of governance in society has continued to threaten the existential essence of man in his local and natural involvement. The Igbo were originally free from such centralized and despotic institution of governance. However, to facilitate government in Igbo land were the kingship institute was few to achieve uniformity with the test of the country, the columned mater created the “warrant chiefs” in 1916. The proliferation of kingship institution was thus engineered in an area of Nigeria where the predominant political organization was the “democratic village republic”. In which the traditional local institution for governance has been the age grade. However, the important thing is that all communities in Anambra East local government area Anambra state should agree on the need for an enhanced socio-economic political and cultural life of the community.
Agreeably, government alone cannot provide these services Julius Nyerere had said “that if people realize that their suffering is not the will of God, they will make efforts and sacrifices. It could have been thus realization that spurred non-governmental organizations in Anambra East local government into action. But while non-governmental bodies are making efforts towards improving the living condition of Anambra East populace, it must be stressed that there is need for adequate government participation in their development bid.
Credence is said to these when one looks at the United Nations definition and community development. Community development also rural development is the process by which the affairs of the people themselves are united with those of government authorities to improve the economic social and cultural. Conditions of communities to integrate these communities, into the life of the nations and to enable them to contribute fully to national process community development by this definition, ought to be a joint effort between government and the people of the rural communities.