CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
 Man is a being driven by an insatiable quest for dynamism. He has since the evolution of societies been preoccupied with how to effect changes in the society to maximize his well-being, man therefore, has never at any point abdicated the pressing responsibility of searching for, or evolving models of governance that would make for a better understanding and organization of the society, and one of the reasons for this conviction is to foster a blissful life for humanity devoid of rancor, violence, crisis and conflict. Thomas Hobbes insists that men decided to live under a civil society for their self-preservation and contented life such that the unfortunate and miserable situation of anarchy and conflicts would be ameliorated if not completely eliminated. The philosopher also points out that the fear of uncertainty and insecurity of lives and property prompted the formation of civil society. Jean-Jacques Rousseau also talks of preservation whereby the human race must necessarily change its nature of existence if it must continue to live and avoid violence. It is against this backdrop of social progress that Hannah Arendt points out that the glorification of violence is not restricted to small minority and eternity.        
1.1       BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY                      
In Nigeria basically violence has taken the central field in the democracy which involves the untimely death of wanton of her citizens in the pursuit of political power. We imbibe the ideas of  Georges Sorel  in his Reflections on Violence, he believed that power had to be shifted from the deteriorated middle class to the working class, and that power must be acquired through only a general strike that, to be effective, must be violence[1]. Political conflict is an endemic feature of most of the world’s political systems. This is particularly true of the developing countries, including Nigeria, where political conflict, crises and even violence, became essential characteristics of the political process, especially after independence. It was perhaps Nigeria’s pride that she achieved her independence with a minimum of social disturbance and violence. Nigeria stumbled from crisis to crisis and near disintegration, as the country witnessed a marked increase in the bitterness of party, ethnic and region.
Consequently, Violence or the threat of violence is a universal phenomenon. Writing in the same vein, Charles Tilly remarks that Collective violence has flowed regularly from the political process… Men seeking to size, hold, or realign power the lever of power have continually engaged in collective violence as part of their struggle. Nigeria affords a good case for both the theoretical and empirical study of political violence. We believe that the sources and dynamics of violence in Nigeria are fundamentally comparable to those of civil violence in the other parts of the world. Nigeria rioters share with their counterparts throughout the world certain psychological characteristics; most of them feel frustrated in their pursuit of their political and economic goals and in seeking redress for grievances. In Nigeria, those who had power had no respect for the establish channels of political action, that is, the rules of the game, and political power in this country through violence leads to economic prowess and marginalization of citizens. As Arendt posited that: Power and violence are opposites, where the one rules absolutely, the order is absent. Violence appears where the power is in jeopardy, but left to its cause it ends in power’s disappearance[2]. Political violence has become a central part of political competition across much of Nigeria and it takes forms from assassination to armed clashes between gangs employed by rival politicians. This violence is most often carried out by gangs whose members are openly recruited and paid by politicians and party leaders to attack their sponsors’ rivals, intimidate members of the public, rig elections, and protect their patrons from similar attacks[3].
The 2011 general election marked another ugly milestone of political violence in the political history and culture in Nigeria. Comparatively, it is rather difficult to determine which the most violence afflicted general elections were since the return to civil rule in mid-1999.The 1999 general election was violent prone; so also was the 2003 and 2007 general elections and what was also apparent was that each general election took place under different dimension and circumstances with progression of record of casualties. The continually deteriorating economic conditions also continue to throw up new dynamics and nuances alter the pattern of political violence.
Hannah Arendt as a child experienced war and violence during her life as she wrote: these reflections were provoked by the events and debates of the last few century, which has become indeed, as Lenin predicted, a century of wars and resolutions, hence a century of that violence...[4] This currently believed to be their common denominator. There is, however, another factor in the present situation which, though predicted by nobody, is of at least equal importance. The technical development of implements of violence has now reached the point where no political goal should conceivably correspond to their destructive potential or justify their annual use in armed conflict. Hence, warfare since times immemorial the final merciless arbiter in international disputes has lost much of its effectiveness and nearly all of its glamour. The apocalyptic chess game between the superpower that is between those that move on the highest plane of civilization is being played according to the rule; if neither wins; it is the end of both.[5]