CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1       BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
In contemporary democracies, elections are acceptable means of electing leaders, an important process that strengthens democratic institutions and facilitate peaceful transition of power (Ugiagbe, 2010). However, in Nigeria all elections conducted since her independence in 1960 have been characterized by widespread violence, intimidation, bribery and corruption. Muhammed (2010) reported that the prevalence of one political violence or the other has been the mainstay of elections in Nigeria with youths as the major actors in the theatre of electoral violence and that such violence has assumed a serious dimension.
Electoral violence according to the International Foundation for Electoral System (IFES) is any act or threat of physical or psychological harm to a person or damage to property, directed at anyone directly involved in an electoral process (voters, candidates, party officers, election workers, election monitors, journalists, etc.) which may disrupt or attempt to disrupt any aspect of the electoral process (Fischer, 2002). Electoral violence could therefore be described as a pre- meditated act that intends to influence the electoral process using foul language, verbal intimidation, blackmail, dangerous weapons, arson and assassination. (Bamfo 2008). At the receiving end of political violence are human beings.Ugiagbe (2010) submits that acts associated with electoral violence include physical harm, (homicide, torture, assault),threats (physical, verbal, intimidation; destruction of property), arson, damage from dangerous objects, forced displacement and ballot box snatching.
Usman (2009) identified five major common grounds of electoral violence; these are during registration, during political campaigns on Election Day, when results are announced, winner takes all syndrome. In their own study, Onwudiweand Bernard (2010) describe the pattern of electoral violence in Nigeria as intra party crisis, inter-party crisis, electoral crisis, violence and community unrest while Ugbaigbe (2010) opines that electoral violence do manifest in the three electoral stages namely, pre-election, during election and postelection stages. The objective of electoral violence is to influence the electoral process with the sole aim to win political competition or power through violence or subverting the ends of the electoral and democratic process through intimidation and disempowerment of political opponents. The increased involvement of Nigerian youths in electoral violence should be of concern to all. Defining youths has been a little bit controversial, different authors define it in the context in which the word-youth is used. United Nations Children Education Fund UNICEF (1972) sees youth as those within age bracket 15-25years Johnson cited in Abhuere (2000) asserts that while leadership programmes have no upper age limit, their membership covers people of over 35-45years old, for the purpose of this study youth refers to anyone between the ages of 18 and 45 years.
Most of the world’s development strategies largely depend on the youth. This societal segment is believed toassist in producing sustained economy, social justice and stable democracy of a nation. It is therefore veryimportant if the society could produce a qualitative youth to make these a reality. The primary aim of theresearch is to understand the relationship between drug abuse among the youth and political thuggery in Nigeria. The problem is made complex by a series of problem which is climaxed in the failure of the Nigerian state to solve its internal differences.