Blavo Etsri

Abstract

Patronage, an asymmetric relationship between two individuals of unequal social status, permeated the socio-political landscapes of ancient Rome and modern Nigeria. Previous comparative studies on Rome and Nigeria have focused on literature, legal system and history to the neglect of the patronage system. This study was, therefore, designed to compare and contrast the socio-political significance of patronage in Republican Rome and modern Nigeria, with a view to determining its influence on the socio-political space. The study was anchored on Karl Marx’s Class Theory while the interpretive design was used. Texts drawn from both classical and Nigerian sources were purposively selected due to their depiction of patronage. The texts from classical sources included Dionysius of Halicarnassus’s Antiquitates Romanae(AR), Horace’s Satires and Epistles (SE), Cicero’s On Duties (OD)and Juvenal’s Sixteen Satires(SS). The texts from Nigerian sources included Albert’s Explaining Godfatherism in Nigerian Politics(EGNP), Al Chukwuma’s The Contradiction of Godfatherism in Nigeria Politics(CGNP), Familusi’s Moral and Developmental Issues in Political Godfatherism(MDIPG) and Onwuzurigbo’s Recontextualisation of the concept of Godfatherism(RCG). The texts were subjected to content analysis. The AR traces the origin of patronage to the founder and first king of Rome, Romulus, who divided the citizens into the upper and lower classes of patricians and plebeians respectively. The patricians became the patrons and the plebs, clients. A patron was a social superior who was socially responsible for looking out for a set of social inferiors (clients), who were in turn loyal and supportive of the patron. Similarly, EGNP traces the origin of patronage in Nigeria to the naming practice of the Catholic Church, as well as instances of its deployment in pre-colonial Nigeria. The RCG espouses the concept of patronage through the activities of the Babaogun(Yoruba), Nnam Ukwu(Igbo) and Maigida(Hausa) who served as power brokers in the socio-political spheres of their respective societies. The OD vividly describes the patronage system as a mechanism of social integration based on social advantage. The patronage system in both societies became degenerated and its cherished traditional function was corrupted. The SS demonstrates that patrons were no longer committed to their responsibilities as demanded by the patronage system. The CGNP and MDIPG reinforce the same concern in Nigeria’s case. The activities of contemporary godfathers in Nigeria’s politics have relatively declined and its fundamental functions of social engineering and social development have been defeated. The patronage system in both Republican Rome and modern Nigeria emerged from a historical and religious context, but later degenerated into a practice that undermined the socio-political space of both historical contexts.