Interwovenss and Interdependence of Law and Political Science

By Chioma Asimole asimolechioma@gmail.com

Political science is a discipline in the social sciences concerned with systems of governance, political activities, thoughts, behavior, concepts, the relevant constitutions. Political Science, also called politology, is primarily concerned with power. It focuses on governments and governmental systems' theory and practices at the local, state, national, and international levels.
The field of political science is heavily related to and draws influence from other areas, especially philosophy, sociology, psychology, and law. However, the focus of this paper is on the interdependence and the interwoven nature of political science and the law. The disciplines of law and political science are intrinsically linked both directly and indirectly, and in these ways, they impact our lives. In fact, the various sub-branches of the political science field are connected to the study and concept of law, especially international relations and comparative politics. So, what is the law, or what is law?
Simply put, laws are rules or systems of rules established by authority and applicable within a definite geographical location. These rules and regulations guide and dictate the conduct, including the actions and inactions of people within specific boundaries.

A law can also be seen to be a rule or principle that defines the proper conduct, action, behavior, or creed. In this instance, the law relates heavily to political science. For example, there are many political science concepts, but only the law of a particular people defines which specific idea is right and applicable within their borders. A system or collection of rules
The laws are always enforced through governmental institutions that are based or founded on political science principles and concepts. The political systems of a particular people greatly influence their laws.
Many political science concepts and theories rely heavily on the law for further explanation and protection, and most of these concepts overlap with the legal field. A keen eye would notice this interwoven nature of both areas. For instance, the ideas of change of government, sovereignty, rights of the citizens, social contract theories, etc., are all political science theories whose understanding has been heavily influenced and dictated by legal provisions. Even theories of state can find roots in the legal field. A state’s theory of origin will heavily influence its legal system, especially the kind of laws enacted, the purpose of the statutes, the manner of enforcement, and who enforces it.
In fact, it is apt to state that political science cannot exist apart from the law, and the law cannot exist apart from political science. This is because most political science theories will remain theories without any force except for the backing from the law. For instance, the legitimacy of government, although a political science concept, is defined and explained in the rules of different countries. The provisions of these laws are what make any government legal or illegal.
The reality of the interconnectedness and interdependence of political science and law is seen in our everyday existence. This is expressed both in local and international occurrences. This paper will explore this independence through domestic and global realities.

International Examples
Elections and the Mali Coup
As has been stated previously in this work, political science is concerned with the concept of power. Who is in control in a given state, and the manner of allocation of resources gotten through this power. Political theorists explore and philosophize on means through which this power can be obtained, including positive and negative processes. However, political science cannot dictate a particular manner in which power will be handed down in the country. At best, it can only consider the peculiarities of a given state and make a recommendation. But, to enforce such recommendation, the law is needed to provide it with backing.
Therefore, political science is reliant on the law in that the law defines how this power is taken, how it is exercised, and how it is kept and transferred. Hence, the constitutions of different countries specify the means through which power is taken. For instance, in most democratic countries, a person only becomes the head of the state through an election. The existence of this procedure also creates the concept of unconstitutional changes of government. A change of government will be unconstitutional when it doesn’t abide by the dictates of the nations constitution . In many countries, an unconstitutional change of government is a treasonable offense often punishable with harsh penalties.
This interdependence and interconnectedness of political science and government played out in Mali on 18th August 2020. Malian soldiers had moved from their barracks to the nation’s capital, Bamako, where they detained many members of the then civilian government, including the then President Ibrahim Boubacar Keita. The coup was an undesired eventuality of peaceful protests which had been calling for the resignation of President Keita. Unlike many African countries with a long history of coups, this was Mali’s second coup, following the 2012 coup.
President Keita then resigned from office that evening and dissolved the government and parliament that evening, stating that he didn’t want any bloodshed to keep him in power. Colonel Assimi Goita. Following this, there was a flurry of activity from the international community - Mali was suspended from the African Union, ECOWAS imposed sanctions, and the USA stopped military aid to Mali. Many other countries and international institutions also joined in the criticism and condemnation of the Mali coup.
Although this coup received the support of many Malian citizens, especially young people, it was still against Malian laws. Firstly, Article 25 of the Malian Constitution states that Mali shall be an independent, democratic state. This provision implies that Mali was to be governed by democratic principles, to which military rule was alien.
Furthermore, Article 29 states that the President shall be the Chief of the state. This provision then goes on to declare the functions of the President. In fact, it is emphatically stated that the President shall be the guardian of the Constitution. Therefore, it is clear that a military officer who seized power through a coup cannot in any way be qualified to be the guardian of a constitution he already desecrated.
Article 30 expressly states that the President shall be elected for a tenure of five years by direct universal suffrage and an absolute majority of the votes. Where an absolute majority is not realized by the first ballot, there shall be a second ballot. Article 33 then delves into much more details on the electoral process for the election of a Malian President. It goes on to say in Article 36 that where the President cannot exercise his functions, the Prime Minister will do so on his behalf.
From all these provisions, it is clear that the Mali Constitution never intended that a military officer will become the Chief of State by the mere exertion of force. Therefore, even though under political science, a coup is one of the many ways through which power can be gotten, by its dependence on the law, the coup was declared illegality in Mali. Finally, it is based on the above that the international community could weigh in on the situation in Mali was because, although there had been a change of government, it wasn’t done in accordance with Mali’s laws. Therefore, the government wasn’t clothed with the garb of legality.

The doctrine of Sovereignty and the America Attack on an Iranian General

The doctrine of state sovereignty is one of the major political science theories. Most political scientists are agreed on the fact that a state is defined by four key characteristics, viz:
• Sovereignty
• A definite government
• Population (its citizens)
• A definite territory
Therefore, a state cannot be said to be one if it doesn’t have absolute sovereignty over the issues occurring within its borders. Sovereignty can be defined as the supreme authority within a territory. Chiefly, this sovereignty is expressed in the freedom of the country to promulgate its own laws without external influence. It is the supreme power of a state overall institutions and individuals within its territory. This can be described as internal sovereignty.
A sovereign state ought also to be free from foreign control. This is primarily seen in the freedom from an alien invasion. However, sovereignty also manifests in the independence of the state from control and interference from any other state in its international relations. Primarily, the state is absolutely in charge of its foreign policy. Sovereignty is absolute, permanent, universal, inalienable, indivisible, original, and imprescriptible.
Political science theories can only describe and explain the concept of sovereignty; however, they cannot protect the authority of any state, hence, its reliance on the law. Again, domestic laws cannot protect the sovereignty of the states because local laws are only applicable to the people within a nation’s borders, whereas the threats to a nation’s independence are from without. For this purpose, states rely on principles of international law to protect their sovereignty. In fact,
State sovereignty is also called Westphalian sovereignty, and it is a concept in international law that each state has exclusive sovereignty over its territory. This is the summary of a number of treaties that make up the Peace of Westphalia. You cannot take away freedom from a state, and that is how important the concept is to modern states.
The President of America dedicated an entire drone to strike Iranian General Qasem Soleimani on 3rd January 2020. The strike occurred near Baghdad International Airport while the General was on his way to meet the Iraqi Prime Minister who was in Baghdad. The strike also caused the death of 10 persons, five of whom were Iraqi nationals and the other five Iranian nationals.
There were claims and allegations that the General had sponsored attacks on American citizens in Iran. Much more, he had future designations to attack more Americans. It is no secret that America takes such threats and attacks on its citizens rather seriously. Therefore, the President launched that attack on the General, allegedly to protect American citizens in Iran. The questions raised by this action of Trump bother on whether that attack doesn’t constitute an assault on the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Iranian state.
Trump claimed that he struck the General to stop a war between the two countries. However, Iraq claimed that the attack was an attack on its sovereignty and a violation of international law. In international law, the only justification for such an attack is if the attack was made in self defence. That is, the country that launched the attack would have done so to prevent an attack from the country it u=hit. However, the evidence isn’t exactly conclusive on whether Trump acted in self defence. Furthermore, Executive Order 11905 of America signed in1976 to prevent similar assassination attacks on Fidel Castro provides that “no person employed or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.”
The Trump administration claimed that the law was on its side based on the provisions of the Constitution and the Authorization of the Use of Military Force Against Iraq, 2002. Whether Trump was right or wrong is a hotly debated topic with no side seeming to agree with the other. In fact, neither Trump nor anyone who took part in that operation may be held accountable because of the political might of the US. However, what can be clearly seen is the fact that sovereignty, a political science concept, is protected under international law. Furthermore, for this sovereignty to be breached, it must also be in accordance with laid down legal provisions and procedures. That is how the concept of sovereignty interweaves law and political science.

Domestic Realities
The End SARS Protests and the Nigerian Constitution
The End SARS protest may well be the most significant event recently in Nigeria. The protests shook and affected every facet and fabric of this country. It also had multiple effects on various fields of thought and knowledge, including the law and political science. During the End SARS protest, the fields of political science and the law converged in these three areas:
• Freedom of movement and association
• The social contract theory
• Change of government

Citizen’s Freedom and the Right to Protest

It can be argued that a government has the right to regulate the movement of its citizens within its borders. In fact, at least one Nigerian Governor (Governor Nyesom Wike of Rivers State) tried to do so. The protests spread like wildfire across different states, and while it was about to get to Rivers state, the Governor issued a declaration banning all protests within the state.
Now, in some countries, this ban on protests may have been legal because of the countries laws. It would be inconsequential whether the statutes reflect the ideals of the people or not. However, based on the provisions of the Nigerian Constitution, Gov. Wike had no such powers to ban a peaceful and lawful gathering of people. Therefore, it isn’t surprising that this ban generated no small debate online, especially on the Twitter platform, which was a powerful instrument of mobilization and sensitization during the protests.
Section 39 of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution guarantees the entitlement of every Nigerian citizen to freedom of expression and the freedom to hold opinions and receive and impart ideas and information without interference. This section expressly protects the right of the Nigerian youths (who were the most represented age group in the protests) to thin=ink and believe that the government hadn’t and wasn’t doing enough to protect her citizens from the brutality of the police. They’re also free to propagate this thought to as many people as will listen.
Section 40 then crowns it all by backing the right of Nigerians to assemble and associate freely with other persons and form associations for the protection of their interests. Therefore, the Nigerian youths were well within their rights to gather together, interact, and protest for the recognition and security of their rights. Finally, section 41 guaranteed the freedom of Nigerians to move around the country as they chose. The combined effect of these three sections of the Nigerian Constitution is that the Nigerian youths who flooded the streets to protest against police brutality were well within their rights. Therefore, although the Governor is the chief officer of the state, he had no right to prevent their gathering. The citizens of the state were aware of these rights, so they paid no attention to the Governor and came out en masse for the protest. The Governor made a turnaround, though, and came out on the streets to join the people. Whether this was for political gain or not, it clearly shows how the political will of the people, backed up by the law of the state, can triumph over every opposition.
The above sections did include a caveat in section 45, to the effect that the provisions can be suspended in the interest of defence, public safety, public health, order, morality, or morality. This provision is the political scientist’s theory on how the state is charged with the protection of its citizens. Even under this provision, the government had no right to try to stop the protest. That is why the only way they could quell the protest was to employ force against her citizens.

The Social Contract Theory
At the fabric of the ll End SARS protest is the fact that the Nigerian state had failed to uphold its part of the social contract. Political science theory lists the social contract as one of the sources or origins of a state. The social contract theory is concerned with the legitimacy of any authority the state has over its citizens. The basis of this theory is that individuals have consented, whether expressly or impliedly, to surrender some of their freedoms to the state and submit to the authority and rulership of that state. The end is that the state then undertakes to protect the remainder of their rights, which they didn’t surrender.
The social contract theory is a hypothetical theory that comes into reality when it is backed up by laws. That would mean that the laws of a state expressly state the responsibilities of the government towards the people. In the same manner, the rules will also express the duties and obligations of the citizens. In the Nigerian context, the Nigerian social contract is expressly stated in Chapter Two of the 1999 Constitution. Chapter two is the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of the Nigerian state’s policy. The primary provision in this regard is Section 14 (2) that states that the security and welfare of the Nigerian people shall be the primary purpose of the government. Furthermore, section 17 (1) provides that the state social order is founded on the ideals of freedom, equality, and justice. Moreover, section 17 (2) (b) provides that the sanctity of the human person shall be recognised and human dignity maintained and enhanced. This provision on the dignity of the human person is further reinforced in section 34, while every citizen’s right to life is guaranteed in section 33.
Clearly, the grievance of the end SARS protesters was that the Nigerian government had shirked its responsibility under its social contract with the people. Security is meant to be the chief business of the Nigerian government; however, the police that was meant to protect her citizens was killing them. And for those not killed, they were dehumanised with torture and other forms of abuse, robbing them of their dignity.
While citizens were still playing their roles under the social contract – paying taxes and obeying the government, the very government charged with their protection was killing their youth. A lot of arguments have been made on the eventual violent turn of the protests. Claims have been made exonerating the protesters from a violent breed that hijacked the process. However, whether or not the violence was by the protesters is inconsequential.
Where the Nigerian government was already in breach of its part of the social bargain, on what basis could it demand responsibility from its citizens. The response of the government was even one of nonchalance as one who had been disturbed while asleep. They even attacked and arrested protesters in many cases, and many lives were lost in the process. So, if the government had resorted to violence against those they were paid to protect, on what basis can peace be demanded of the citizenry. It is the position of this paper that whether or not the actual protesters were the violent group means little. Based on the social contract, they ought not to be held to a higher standard than the government. Furthermore, even if some of the violent elements were arrested and prosecuted, while that prosecution will be sound in law, it would be unbecoming if judged in light of the concept of a social contract.

The Issue of a Change of Government
Another issue of a change of government was raised by the protests. At some point during the protests, it was claimed that the agitation was a ploy by the opposition party (PDP) to remove Nigeria’s President Muhammadu Buhari from office. While this may look like the claims of a ruling party unable to deal with domestic issues as simple as police brutality, it does raise the question of whether protests can change a sitting government in Nigeria.
Firstly, it is doubtful that the protesters would have sought to change the government through violent means considering that the Nigerian government almost has a monopoly of force and violence. An understanding of this fact must be why some elements during the protests were calling for the resignation of the President.
Now, unless President Buhari had voluntarily resigned from power, it would have been practically impossible for a protest to have gotten the nation a new President. This is because the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is evident on the procedure through which a sitting president may be removed. Firstly, the Nigerian state is a democratic state, and a change of government can only occur through democratic means.
Section 130 states that the President shall be the Head of State, the Chief Executive of the Federation, and the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federation. Section 131 goes on to state the qualifications to contest for the office of President in Nigeria. By section 132, it is expressly stated that an election into the office of President shall be conducted by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in accordance with the Electoral Act in force. Section 133 provides that the President shall be elected by a majority of YES votes and at least one-quarter of the votes cast in at least two-thirds of all the States of the Federation. Furthermore, section 135 states that a person shall be President until:
1. When his successor in the office takes the oath of office
2. He dies while holding office
3. The date when his resignation from the office takes effect
4. He otherwise ceases to hold office in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.

Apart from these four instances, a President can only leave office after the expiration of his/her four-year tenure. It is clear from these provisions that to remove the President of Nigeria from office would be a difficult task without the ballot box, and as at the time of the protests, the elections were years away. The only legitimate option would have been to protest and make calls for the President to resign. This was the path explored by those who were not just interested at the end of police brutality but also in the removal of who they termed an “ineffective President.”
With the kind of momentum the End SARS protests gathered, it would have been wonderful to know if enough pressure could have been mounted on the President to resign. However, much more, it would also be great to see whether the End SARS saga would amount to any significant political implications in the next elections in 2023.