The political world has been shaped continuously for several years by a few dominants known as elites. These few elites with an irregular distributive nature of political power manipulate, deploy, use and misuse power and in turn control the society at large [1]. Historically, this can be attributable to the colonial heritage of sovereign lords and masters, the colony of a few (elites) who ruled and dominated full power and control during the colonial era. In addition to that, post-colonial era, our African heritage of kingship only by a few and continuous by blood, first born son as heir to the throne, and family ties or ruler-ship backed by religion and traditions evidently depicts elitism blueprint [2]. Political theorist such as Vilfredo Pareto and Karl Marx and Gaetano Mosca, observed that political elites cloister and segregate themselves from the society and try to reproduce themselves from within [3].

According to Karl Marx, he opined in line with Mosca’s position of the ruling class by asserting that the few class are the bourgeoisie, the upper class in the society who rules over the proletariat, that is, the lower class. These few elites do not want to surrender power and they hold tenaciously to it. More so, they do all within their reach to keep their circle close and small by further ensuring that non-elites do not join their membership. Power they say corrupts, elites continuously reproduce or rotate themselves on an individual and selective basis in a process which Pareto specifically referred to as the circulation of elites [4]. The criteria for such elite recruitment are often closed-minded and the procedure is usually done in a manner that does not in any way compromise the traditional integrity of the dominant elite class [5,6].

Circulation of elites undermines democratic consolidation in Nigeria. Political elite recruitment in Nigeria has been one of a fierce struggle among politicians and political power seekers. It is usually characterized by god fatherism, militarism, thuggery, rigging, ethnicity, corrupt practices and delay judgments from election tribunals. The above characteristics evidently portrays a lack of democratic consolidation in Nigeria [7].

Circulation of elites and democratic consolidation in Nigeria is a topical, recurrent and ongoing issue in Nigeria and there are fundamental issues revolving around election, democracy and circulation of elites in Nigeria. These issues undermine the democratic consolidation in Nigeria in multifarious ways such as poor leadership, weak succession process, undemocratic nature of government and endemic poverty. Thus, the focal point of this study is to examine circulation of elites and democratic consolidation in Nigeria.

It suffices to assert based on the background to the study that the problem of this study, lies with the circulation of elites and democratic consolidation in the Nigerian political system. This is because, leadership, elections, appointment and inappropriately circulation of elites and a lack of democratic consolidation have always been a fundamental issue in Nigeria. Thus, this study seeks to examine the circulation of elite and democratic consolidation in Nigeria. The general objective of this study is to examine the circulation of elites and democratic consolidation in Nigeria. The specific objectives are to: (i) examine if the circulation of elites can be curtailed or eradicated, and whether or not, democratic consolidation particularly in the Nigerian context is plausible and (ii) recommend how elite circulation may be dealt with, in the specific Nigerian context.

This study has both theoretical and practical significance. Theoretically, the study provides a theoretical framework for the understanding of circulation of elites and democratic consolidation in Nigeria. Equally, it also has practical significance with regards to certain stakeholders who are the potential benefactors. These certain stakeholders are 1) Academic; 2) Government and 3) The Public as a whole. Firstly, the study will draw attention of, and enlighten both the stakeholders and those who implement policies on electoral processes, elite recruitment and democratic consolidation in Nigeria and who may not really understand the central role on election, elite recruitment and democratic consolidation. It will eradicate albeit curb the source problem.

More so, the study of this nature will serve as a road map for government in the sense that it will help to know how best to go about electoral processes, elite recruitment and enhance democratic consolidation in Nigeria. It will be of immense value for policy formulation and execution. This study will equally be of immense benefit to other researchers who will find it useful for further research in related topic. On the whole, this study will be useful for the general public, organizations and corporate institutions as may be interested.

Furthermore, the unique significance of this study is that it addresses relevant issues about the consequences of circulation of elites and the understandings of democratic consolidation in Nigeria. This study explores the serious nature of this subject matter and will contribute to the literature on circulation of elites and democratic consolidation in Nigeria. Also, it will demonstrate that there can be grave political and social implications when there is a continuous circulation of elites and the undermining of democratic consolidation in Nigeria.

Conceptual Framework

Several authors such as [5,6,8] have adduced that the “circulation of elites” has taken a formal and organized process of circulating within a closed circle of only a few, especially of members of a political body to continue to control and remain in power. This view has been further supported and advanced by several other scholars which depicts that the topic circulation of elites and democratic consolidation is a familiar concept in literature [2,9,10,11]. However, the lacuna in this reviewed literature which the authors have failed to adequately reconcile is what this study seeks to investigate as reflected in the research objectives.

In the view of Haralombos (1999) as cited by Ibietan and Ajayi [9] the assumptions of elite theorists are as follows: Elites owe its power to its internal organization and forms a united and cohesive minority in the face of an unorganized and fragmented mass; Major decisions which affect society are taken by the elite and these decisions usually reflect the interest of the elite rather than the wishes of the majority; The mass of the population is largely controlled and manipulated by the elite, passively accepting the propaganda that justifies elite rule; Major change in society occurs when one elite replaces another. Pareto considers this as ‘circulation of elites’ and subsequently the elites become soft and ineffective due to the power privileges experienced over time. This position is further buttressed by the works of a galaxy of authors, such as [2,7,9-12]. The rule by the minority is an inevitable feature of social life and that the ruling minority is superior to the mass of the population who lack capacity of self-government, and require the leadership and guidance of the elite. Pareto opines that modern democracies are merely another form of elite domination [13]. According to Varma [13] elite theorists believe that the society has two broad categories:

1. The selected few who are capable and therefore have the right to supreme leadership and;
2. The vast masses of the people who are destined to be ruled.

In line with Varma’s thoughts above, Mosca observed that the political class which is by far the majority compared to the masses and having certain intellectual, financial and moral superiority readily available due to their status and level of resource control, outsmart the masses using them to satisfy their personal interests. Pareto in support of the foregoing stressed that “the elites are proficient in the use of force and persuasion or propaganda to implement political rule” [14].

The historical nuances and landmarks of democracy are traceable to the Greeks, where it was practiced in its direct form, and as noted by Alapiki [15] it is “a situation where all the citizens took part in law making and policy formulation”. However, this is no longer practicable in contemporary situations with manifestly large population and wide geographical coverage. In its stead, representative democracies in which people exercise governing power either directly or indirectly through representatives elected periodically by themselves has proved to be suitable [15].

Democracy is a system of government usually involving freedom of individuals in various aspects of political life, equality among citizens and justice in the relations between the people and the government and the participation of the people in choosing those in government [16].

Democracy is “a government by persons freely chosen by the governed who also hold them accountable and responsible for their actions while in government” [2]. Hence, the two core ideas and ingredients underlying democracy are participation and accountability. A thorough scrutiny of the political process in Nigeria reveals that the governing elite have made caricature of these ingredients (participation and accountability). Elections which ordinarily should ensure, confirm or reaffirm legitimacy of the elected in governance through regular consent, and also provide a virile platform for democracy to blossom has become grossly compromised [11].

Democracy in this study stands for a people-centered system of government, which entails periodic popular elections, in which the sanctity of the electoral process is strictly guaranteed [15]. Implicit in this position is the connotation that democracy not only allows mass participation, by way of encouraging the electorate to participate in the selection of their representatives, but also that democracy is nourished by transparency and accountability in public administration [11].  It should be emphasized that democracy thrives better in many parts of the world where there are also strong democratic institutions [1]. In other words, democratic principles thrive and are more effective when they are supported by strong institutions of modern government [11].

In addition, democracy requires strong political culture and durable institutions to thrive. The state of the following institutional guards of democracy needs to be tinkered with: election management organization, the legislature, the judiciary, the police, the constitution, and the civil society. The observation made by Umezurike [7] that “democracy has remained largely tenuous in Nigeria raises a fundamental poser on whether it is apt to discuss democratic consolidation in the context of its wobbling and fumbling experience”.

Democratic consolidation connotes “the challenges of making new democracies secure by extending their life expectancy beyond the short-term and making them immune against the threat of authoritarian repression…” [11]. This makes it clearer why Obasi [17] posited that “democracy is…the opposite of arbitrary, despotic or tyrannical rule”. The conditions for democratic consolidation are: popular legitimization; the diffusion of democratic values, the routinization of anti-system actors, civilian-military relations, party building, organization of functional interest, the stabilization of electoral rules, judicial reforms, alleviation of poverty and economic stabilization [9].

When Yagboyaju, cites Ake as opining that “democracy is about principles rather than about institutional forms” [11] there appears to be a contentious issue in this proposition. According to Yagboyaju, it is the principles of public accountability, mass participation, majority rule, and minority rights that define democracy as a concept. Thus, citing Mimiko [11], Yagboyaju concludes that it follows therefore, that “any political system that provides for these principles qualifies to be called a democracy (anyone that does not, no matter the majesty of physical infrastructure of democracy put in place, cannot justifiably refer to itself as a democracy)”. The problematic issue here is that the sanctity of these principles is a function of the majesty of physical democratic infrastructure - the excellence of strong democratic institutions [1].

Democratic consolidation is a process. It is not an accomplishment. Some scholars tend to view democratic consolidation as a realization-an achievement [17]. According to Valenzuela (1990) cited in Ibietan & Ajayi [9] “the building of a consolidated democracy involves in part an affirmation and strengthening of certain institutions, such as the electoral system, revitalized or newly created parties, judicial independence and respect for human rights, which have been created or recreated during the course of the transition”. In this context, democratic consolidation becomes a post-transitional condition, curiously akin to some developmental [9]

Yagboyaju [11] further opines that democratic consolidation could be said to effectively prevail in most mature and advanced democracies of the world, where many of the prominent democratic principles largely constitute the political culture. But democratic consolidation is a lot more than all of these. Democratic consolidation is a feature of all democracies. While the need for building the defence mechanisms of democracy may be more pronounced in emerging democracies, all democracies are prone to attacks that necessitate the fortification of democracy. It is this process of fortification that is democratic consolidation. Democratic consolidation therefore is not an end in itself [8].

The elite theory is the most apposite and useful theoretical framework tool of analysis for this study. It is the crucial theme and subject matter in that, elite theory is central and it relates perfectly and forms the basis of the topic circulation of elites and democratic consolidation in Nigeria. In addition to the above, elite theory is more useful as it is sometimes used to criticize the concept of democracy as well (Olaniyi, 2001). This is a theory in political science and sociology, a theory of the state which seeks to describe and explain the power relations in contemporary society [14].

The word elite originates from a Latin word eligere meaning “to elect”. From the definition of a German sociologist Peter Drieztel (1962), the three characteristics of elites are: Leadership position, power or influence and political achievements. In this theory, political elites are observed as the few powerful people in the society who have and wield a lot of influence in the political, economic, and social realms. Elite theory elucidates power relationship in contemporary society [6].

The political elite theory became popular in the United States of America in the year following the Second World War. This popularity is traceable to the writings of popular European thinkers such as Gaetano Mosca, Roberto Michels (1876-1936) and Vilfredo Pareto [3,4]. Other key proponents are Wright Mills [10], Geraint Parry (1969), James Burnham (1980), Floyd Hunter (1982), C. Wright Mills, Thomas R. Dye (1965), G.William Domhoff (1936) and Robert D. Putnam (1941)[10]. They are of the belief that the routes of politics be in it advanced or upcoming democracies, have been branded by elite domination.This can be deduced from Mosca’s notion that, the nature of any society be it consensual or authoritarian, pacifist or totalitarian is determined by the kind of its elite [14].

According to Vilfredo Pareto, it is portrayed that minorities who possess the superior qualities suitable for its accession to full social and political power rule societies. Thus, elites are those who rise up to the very apex of their stratum. For the purpose of this study, elites harps on the reality of a true democracy being that in Nigeria, it appears to be the small minorities who appear to play an exceptionally influential part in political and social affairs. The contention by Roberto Michels is that all governments are oligarchical and that democracy is fraud. However, as buttressed by Taiwo, 2000 who observed that “the Nigerian state, since independence in 1960 has been governed by about one hundred people who kept circulating themselves, periodic elections or military interregnums notwithstanding” [18,14].

Olusegun Obasanjo of the PDP was once Military president in 1976 and served as a civilian president in 1999. Also, the case of Muhammadu Buhari of the APC the current Nigerian President who was once a military president in 1984. This shows how ready elites are willing to ensure that they remain in power by rotating the same group of politicians since independence. This lays emphasis on the circulation of elites, the rule by the minority and domination of the political system by elites [14].

Elites in Nigeria exercise most of their power through political parties as opposed to the masses who are in majority, they appear to be stronger than the majority in the sense that they manipulate them to act for their own reasons. The likes of Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, Ladoke Akintola, Tafawa Balewa and other have prescribed the manner of actions of political parties till date. This is evident in the ways political parties unite to form coalitions to strengthen their capabilities.

The law makers manipulate the mass and make decisions which are merely to satisfy their personal interests. The use of stomach infrastructure along with the fake promises of provision of quality education, good roads, basis infrastructures and better health facilities has been employed by some political aspirants, who have successfully gained positions they have been vying for Nigeria today. During the era of military coup d’états and counter coups Nigeria experienced huge changes in government, appointment and reappointments of ministers and other cabinet members. These changes in support of the new government were admirable where constant. However, the opposite which includes the circulation of elites, stagnated the overall political and economic development in Nigeria.

The elite theory like any other theory is not perfect and has been deeply flawed, the theory is opposed to pluralism and also contradicts state autonomy theory. It is anti-democratic and views democracy as a fraud, and utopian ideal [14]. The political elite theory is oligarchical and has been severally and severely criticized for its tacit support for selfish use of power by a few.

Elite theory abhors equality and thrives more on inequality. The theory postulates that political elites devise a variety of methods for maintaining themselves perpetually in power through re-cycling of leaders. Elite circulation or perpetuation of regimes, is contrary to the belief or assumption that there is the possibility of a gradual and continuous expansion of the political elite [6].

Moreover, it has been criticized as more normative than empirical in content and intent. It therefore does not easily lend itself to empiricism and science of politics. Notwithstanding its numerous criticism, it is essential and a useful theory for this study. Political power is controlled by a relatively small and wealthy group of people sharing similar values and interests and mostly coming from relatively similar privileged backgrounds. That is, most of the key personnel in virtually all sectors of society are products of the same social group [13].

The assumptions of the elite theory has proved that Nigeria is at the mercy of the political and social elites. Politicians only consider their personal gains and not the interests of the populace despite their “representative status”. They have continued to toss power amongst each other thereby limiting room for innovation in the political system [6]. The crux of this matter is that Nigeria needs radical and revolutionist measures to ensure political parties conform to the provisions of the constitution and to achieve a good level of stability within its polity [18].

The methodology deployed in this study is explanatory and exploratory, and textual and content analysis. This study will rely on secondary source of data collection, that is, desk or library based research relying on the works of other publisher. The sources of data for this study includes data generation, collection, methods and techniques were also deployed. Data from secondary sources such as books, journals, articles, news studies, magazines and internet sources were collected and content and textual analysis served as the techniques so adopted to compared and analyze data so sourced.

Facts have been sorted from secondary sources, such as data from textbooks, peer reviewed journals and peer reviewed articles, news studies, archives, magazines, and report from periodicals, while the content will be analyzed by a method of generating relevant information. The components of analyses are individual politicians, civil societies, the press, interest group and other politically conscious groups within Nigeria.

According to Adeoye [19] the values and preferences of the elites include: pre-bendalism, god-fatherism, materialism, ostentatious life among others. Furthermore, there is a high tendency for the emergence of patron-client politics in an elitist democracy, where the society is hierarchically patterned like a pyramid. The activities of circulation of elites could be likened to the control by the big men in politics, the patron-client network, big business, military, and ethnic interests. It therefore follows that, circulation of elites is a causal effect of an undemocratic society [20].

For instance, in Oyo state where Late Lamidi Adedibu operated what could be referred to as patron-client rule having some Governors as his dependant at that time. Also, Abiola Ajimobi, Governor of the state adopts a similar patron-client style in the appointment of his commissioners, but this is restricted to friends and business circles [15]. Since the creation of Oyo state in 1976, the state has been having its own share of the politics of elite circulation [21]. In keeping with the values and preferences of the elite, the reputed strongman of Ibadan politics, Late Lamidi Adedibu played a prominent role in the enthronement of Late Alhaji Lamidi Adesina as governor of the state in 1999.

Adesina, who had been in government since the second republic as a member of the Federal house of Representatives under the platform of Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN). Shortly after he was sworn-in, governor Adesina refused to honour his financial pledge to Adedibu and slugged it out with the godfather of Oyo State politics [19]. Consequently, he was denied a second term of office in 2003 in which power was handed over to an aristocratic business tycoon (a member of the elite class), senator Rashidi Ladoja [19]. It is adduced that democracy cannot be strengthened with the circulation of elites, since the circulation of elites at its very core infringes on fundamental democratic principles.

In similar manner, on installing Ladoja as governor of Oyo state in 2003, it did not take long before trouble between Ladoja and Adedibu emerged. According to Hunjenukon [22] “the battle line in Oyo state was drawn again between Lamidi Adedibu, the kingpin of Ibadan politics with his estranged godson or protégé and governor of the state, Rashidi Ladoja”. Adedibu claimed that he invested financial resources in “installing the governor”, with an agreement that the governor will be a (shadow) lame chief executive, taking orders from him and to subject public resources, to his private whims and caprices [23].

Subsequently, Ladoja was impeached in January 2006 by the state legislature that Adedibu alleged coaxed to boot the governor out of office [21]. This pave way for his deputy, Alao-Akala, another member of the ruling elite, a two-time chairman of Ogbomosho North Local government Area of the State, and who is eager to serve Adedibu better. The case of Oyo State as an indicator of circulation of elites is evident. Nonetheless, it also accurately illustrates the indices of an un-democratized state where the legitimate principles of democracy holds no sway and has been disregarded albeit, tossed to the side by the political elites of Oyo State.

In Lagos State, Ahmed Bola Tinubu, an unrepentant and prominent godfather in Lagos State with so many godson like Former Governor of Lagos State, Babatunde Raji Fasola and Akinwunmi Ambode. The issue of power tussle mostly surfaces when the godson refuses to bend to the demands and desires of the godfather and in turn the godfather retaliates by changing the supposed godson for being no longer cooperative [6].

Similarly, the history of how Abubakar Bukola Saraki and Olusola Saraki (The Saraki’s Family) bestrode the Ilorin kingdom like a hulk is not concealed. He was the former governor of Kwara State under the platform of PDP- People’s Democratic Party (2003-2011), a typical political elite who is a prominent godfather to many especially in Kwara State. Saraki from Governorship position, he rose to the senate president of Nigeria. It appears that democracy cannot be consolidated where the circulation of elite is present because circulation of elites and democratic consolidation are just not concomitant [17].

Likewise, former President Olusegun Obasanjo and the story of his support for the political career of his daughter, Iyabo Obasanjo, even to the post of a Senator in the Nigerian National Assembly is equally well-known [22]. They are typical of intra-class struggle for political power which implies elite replacement and “this has been anchored on the orientation of continued social inequality on the distribution of political power resources, accessibility and circulation of elites” [2]. The series of offences that were committed by these people in office have been treated with levity and they have never been brought to book. This demonstrates an undemocratic and kleptomaniac political system that cannot be consolidated until Nigerian political elites change their value orientation [8].

Anambra State is popularly known for godfather politics [1]. Mbadinuju was sworn in as civilian governor of Anambra State, after many years of military rule [22]. Between 1999 and 2003, the fight was between Emeka Offor (Godfather) and the Governor of the state Chinwoke Mbadinuju (godson), who refused to dance to the tune of the godfather. In this respect, Omisore [21] admits that, “Governor Chinwoke Mbadinaju was supported by Chief Emeka Offor to win election in 1999, and throughout his tenure as governor”. He expended more energy and time struggling to free the resources of the state from the predatory grips of his godfather, and the struggle was so much that the critical issues of governance were ignored [22].

Conflicts between godfathers and godson depicts how democracy has been marginalized. Democracy reflects a system of government by persons freely chosen by the governed who holds them accountable for their actions while in government [2]. It therefore suffices to assert that democracy can only be consolidated in Nigeria, when political elites change their value orientation.

Uba was the godfather responsible for the “installation” of Ngige and the majority of other politicians in the state who succeeded in being elected to other various positions [19]. Chris Uba [20] stated.

I am the greatest of all godfathers in Nigeria, because this is the first time, one single individual has single-handedly put in position every politician in a state, the State Governor and his deputy, the three senators to represent the state at the national assembly, ten out of eleven members of the federal house of representatives and twenty nine state house of assembly members. I also have the power to remove any of them who does not perform up to my expectations anytime I like [20]

Based on the foregoing, Hussaini [20] states that “the former (Uba) is a multi-millionaire who invest in politics and reap dividends from his political investment” [20]. Democracy is not consolidated because politics is not accorded its democratic attributes rather, political godfathers and elites circulates elites as they deem fit.

Kano State was created on May 27, 1967 and located in North-Western Nigeria. The capital of Kano State is Kano. Kano State is regarded as Northern Nigeria’s commercial center. Kano State is the most politically prominent state in Nigeria, because its population guarantees it, a higher proportion at the national level. Its political history has also been lively. The godfather politics was evidenced in Kano in the person of Olusegun Obasanjo, Abubakar Rimi and Rabiu Kwankwaso amongst others [24]

Abubakar Rimi has been a political figure since his debut into politics in the first republic, when he was elected a member of the House of Representatives, courtesy of Late Aminu Kano’s goodwill [19]. Rimi was among the fanatical supporters of Aminu Kano just as he emerged as governor of Kano. However, due to his radical stance on matters of governance and politicking, Rimi fell apart with Aminu Kano.  In 1999 at the beginning of Obasanjo’s civilian regime [20] admits that “Kano for the first time found its place in mainstream national politics largely because of the consensus of the two Kano political gladiators Abubakar Rimi leader of the leftist wing and Aminu Wali leader of the rightist wing of the behemoth PDP”. Dr. Rabiu Kwankwaso who was aligned to the Yar Adua (Padama) group emerged as the Governor of Kano State under the PDP. This was largely because those who called the shots in Abuja were not willing to accept a loyalist of Rimi (Abdullahi Umar Ganduje) as the governor [22]. It follows from the above that elite’s circulation undermines democratic consolidation. Thus, democracy cannot be consolidated until the political elites are truly ready for a democratic consolidation. This is because there cannot be democratic consolidation while circulation of elites continues to be operational.

One major contribution Rimi brought to Kano politics is the instituting of a big crack in the leadership and followership of politicians in the state [24]. On this, Rafindadi [20] in his opinion reports that, “Rimi is now using politics as a merchandize and in addition, using thuggery and intimidation to achieve his selfish and parochial ends”. This evidently illustrates the lack of democracy, as politics ought to be free and fair and not monopolized. Hence, the deeply embedded issue of democratic consolidation especially on the part of Nigerian’s political elite.

From the above indicators, it is logical to adduce that democracy cannot thrive in the existence of circulation of elites. Can we expect democracy to be consolidated where the political elites continue to circulate and rotate themselves on political seats? The simply and rational answer is No! This can be likened to the biblical illustration of new wine in old bottles, democracy being the new wine cannot be strengthened if the old bottles, that is the elites do not desist from circulating themselves.

Circulation of elites is indicative of a biased and undemocratic selection. This is because, before elections are conducted, a candidate has been chosen by elites which makes election a mere democratic crusade without any internal or practical effect whatsoever. Democracy is a system of government that fosters meaningful and extensive competition among individuals and groups, especially political parties for political offices at regular intervals and excluding the use of force [15]. It also encourages a highly inclusive level of political participation in the selection of leaders and policies, at least through regular, free, fair and non-violent elections, such that no major (adult) social group is exempted [2]. It therefore goes without saying that circulation of elites is not parallel to democratic consolidation since democracy does not function in isolation, it is about the people [7]. This is because democracy makes electoral activities meaningful and the interest of the electorates represented. However, in Nigeria, elections have become a tool for promoting the interest of the aristocrat rather than the electorates [7].

The strength and success of democracy is measured or dependent on the extent it has empowered people to surmount their basic needs and enjoy unrestrained participation in the policy process [2]. Democracy does not thrive on an empty stomach and democracy cannot be consolidated when majority of the people live in abject poverty [15]. This is manifest in the total delusion of the basic democratic electoral principles symtomic of the successful selection of elites and opening up the democratic space genuinely for democratic consolidation and people’s participation [16].

It is arguable that the presidency was zoned to the southern part of the country in 1999, “the truth however is that the emergence of the candidates was anchored more on class consideration” [12]. For instance, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo emerged as a result of his military class and influence and based on his orientation towards western capitalism. Since this is under class consideration, the system is to a great extent exclusive of the masses in that their votes do not count in determining who represent them in political offices [8]. Accordingly, democracy cannot be consolidated in the facade of bias or any undemocratic principles or acts such as circulation of elites.

The changes in the composition of the elite group affect merely the form and not the structure of society, which remain at all times minority dominated. Hence, democracy cannot be said to be consolidated in a situation whereby democratic principle is not adhered with [17]. Moreover, the death in June 8, 1988 of General Sani Abacha, the most notorious military dictator that Nigeria ever produced, confirmed the critical elitist maxim of elite decadence and replacement without significant change in values and interest [8].

According to Professor Chinua Achebe [26] “turning and turning in the widening gyre, the falcon cannot hear the falconer; things fall apart; the center cannot hold. Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, the blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere the ceremony of innocence is drowned; the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity” [26]. In all, it is pertinent to recommend the transformation of elite values and the redirection of interests towards social demands in ways that result to significant social changes in the Nigerian polity [8].

Democratic consolidation cannot be done as a shambolic act in defence of the circulation of elites. It is germane to note that, Nigeria’s democracy has remained grossly unstable since the return to this popular form of governance in 1999 [11]. The political terrain has been home with lots of challenges precipitating against the genuine realization of the system [2]. The impediments to the nations unending desire for a true democracy seem to assume a more perilous proportion by the day. Circulation of elites issue remains one of the forces that have contributed greatly to socio-political instability in the country [7].

Nigeria lacks the necessary democratic values (civil and human rights abuse are rampant, freedom of speech and expression is hampered, lack of social security and distributive justice) hence, the rampant social unrest in the polity [7].

In Nigeria, there is appointment of corrupt and or compromised electoral officers, manipulation of the electoral law and the constitution. The electoral tribunals is also manipulated to protest stolen mandates, use of state security forces and apparatus to intimidate opposition parties. More so, there is denial of access to state owned media houses to ensure they regain or elongate their tenure against popular will [25]. These are purely anti democracy, the politics of godfatherism is another great impediment to democratic consolidation, which has been dominating the political scene in Nigeria [2].

The elites’ activities help frustrate the basic democratic values in society. These activities block the democratic process by obstructing selection of good and qualified candidates for elective posts thereby making the rise of true democracy a hard nut [7]. This confirms that democracy cannot be predicted on a fragile, circulation of elites and unstable political base. Corruption as a devastator has greatly eroded the fundamental values of democracy and its essential principles. Circulation of elites as a corrupt practice is the exploitation of public position, resources and power for personal or selfish gain [17].

Circulation of elites and democratic consolidation are not in tandem, they are two sides of a coin because they cannot exists amicably without circulation of elites undermining democratic consolidation. Furthermore, there is the lack of ultimate democratic principles of transparency and accountability in circumstances where elites are being circulated, except only to those to circulate them.

Circulation of elites and the absence of democratic consolidation in Nigeria is a serious issue that has been taken facetiously with a pinch of salt. Hence, there is the need for a change in our orientation as this will most likely take a revolution in order to effect a proper and much needed change. There is also the urgent need for an adequate application of the tenets of the rule of law, which is a deep democratic principle, in which every citizen of the country is equal before the law. Although, fingers are not equal, elites are few but more powerful than non-elites. Nonetheless, everyone irrespective of the position being held must be seen as equal before the law.

For democracy to be consolidated in the country, there is need for change in the value orientation of the political elite. The election management body must be truly independent in terms of finance and administration and should sanction any erring members found to have been involved in election malpractice. Furthermore, security operatives involve in election must be up and doing. Electoral offenders should be prosecuted to serve as a deterrent to others.

Nigeria today stands a great nation among the comity of nations. In spite of this endowed greatness, it is an observed fact that the dynamics of circulation of elites in the country has negatively affected its democratic consolidation, socio-political and economic development. These activities of the elites are in no way desirable for the sustainable political and socioeconomic development of Nigeria, and therefore require amelioration or outright elimination. It is on this process of circulation of elite amelioration and democratic consolidation in the Nigerian polity that this study’s advanced panacea is suggested for subsequent implementation.

1. Bariledum, K. Political Elites and the Challenges of National Development: The Nigeria Experience. European Scientific Journal. 2013; 9.
2. Kifordu HA. Political Elite Composition and Democracy in Nigeria. Open Access: The Open Area Studies Journal. 2011; 4:16-31.
3. Mosca G. The Ruling Class. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1993.
4. Pareto V. The Mind and Society. New York: Harcourt-Brace.1935
5. Akintayo JO. Elite Circulation in Nigeria: A Study of Oyo State. Department of Political Science, University of Ibadan.
6. Ekundayo WJ. Political Elite Theory and Political Elite Recruitment in Nigeria. Public Policy and Administration Research. 2017; 7: 1-8.
7. Kwasau MA. The Challenges of Democratic Consolidation in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic. European Scientific Journal. 2013; 9: 181-192.
8. Aregbesola MO. Explaining the Concept of the Nigerian Elite: The Elite Theorists Perspective.
9. Ibietan JI, Ajayi OO. The Governing Elite and Democratic Consolidation in Nigeria: An Appraisal of the Fourth Republic. Journal of Human and Social Science Research. 6: 14-21.
10. Okonofua BA. Who Rules Papa’s Land? C. Wright Mills and the Nigerian Power Elite. SAGE. 2013; 1-11.
11. Yagboyaju DA. Democratic Consolidation, Fiscal Responsibility and National Development: An Appraisal of the Fourth Republic. African Journal of Political Science and International Relations. 2013; 7: 100-106.
12. Omodia SM. Elite Recruitment and Political Stability in the Nigerian Fourth Republic. J. Social Science. 2010; 24: 129-133.
13. Johnson PM. Elite (elitist) theory, Glossary of Political Economy Terms. 2005.
14. Nwachukwu J, Ogundiwin A, Nwaobia. Anthology of Theories and Their Applications in Social & Management Sciences. Jamiro Press Link, Nigeria. 2015.
15. Adeosun AB. Democracy and Democratic Consolidation in Nigerian Fourth Republic: Issues and Challenges. IOSR-JHSS Journal of Humanities and Social Science.2014; 19: 5-10.
16. Nwanegbo J, Odigbo J, & Nnorom K. Party Defection and Sustenance of Nigerian Democracy. Global Journal of Human Social Science: F Political Science. 2014; 14.
17. Okeke RC. Democratic Consolidation in Nigeria: Progress and Challenges. Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review. 2015; 5: 21-34.
18. Olaniyi JO. Foundations Public Policy Analysis. Ibadan: Sunad Publishers Limited, Nigeria. .2001
19. Adeoye OA. Godfatherism and the future of Nigerian Democracy. African Journal of Political Science and International Relations, 2009; 3: 1-10.
20. Chukwuka E, Ugwu E, Obasi CJ. Godfatherism in Nigeria’s Politics: A Study of Obasanjo’s Civilian Administration (1999-2007). International Journal of Research in Arts and Social Sciences. 5: 130-147.
21. Omisore BA. Godfatherism in Nigerian politics and the impact in National Development. Free Articles Directory. 2009.
22. Hungenukun O. Nigeria; Good people, Great Nation, challenges of Godfathers In Nigerian politics. The Nation. 2.
23. Ifowodo A. Adedibu, political Thuggery and the Rule of Law. 2007.
24. Aliyu MK. Peoples Democratic Party in the Fourth Republic of Nigeria: Nature, Structure, and Ideology. SAGE. 2016; 1-11.
25. Uwaifo SO. Circulation of Elite and the Nigerian Political Situation: A Discourse (Doctoral dissertation). Department of Political Science and Public Administration, Babcock University.
26. Achebe C. The Trouble with Nigeria. Enugu: Fourth Dimension Publishers. 1983.
27. Okeke RC. Anatomy of the Nigerian Elite: Interrogating a Blind Elite Model of the Elite Theory (Doctoral dissertation). Available from European Scientific Journal.10:320-336.
28. Welzel C, Inglehart R. The Role of Ordinary People in Democratization. J. 2008; 19: 126-40.
29. Wright MC. The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press.1956.