INTRODUCTION

The Sociological literature is rich with empirical opinion of the role of the family in the socialization of children. The family is the microcosm of the society; a collective of them is what constitute a society. As the first institution where children are raised, the quality of family members determine to a large extent the quality of the society members. Such quality is influenced by the kind of socialization that family members received from family leaders. In the observation of Bandura and Walter (1964), the family providestwo important processes for the socialization of the children: direct tuition, or instrumental training, and imitation. In both of these processes, the children acquire attitude, values and patterns of social behaviour.
In the course of the direct or instrumental training, parents and other socializing agents are relatively explicit about what they wish their children to learn, and therefore attempt to shape their behaviours through rewarding and punishment. On the other hand, the process of imitation revealed that children acquire their personality patterns through active imitation of parental attitude and behaviour (based on the ‘do as I do dictum), most of which the parents never directly attempted to teach. Depending on the quality of the “do as I do” example, community members are produced, as well as future leaders in the society.
The nexus between the direct tuition or instrumental training and imitation can be demonstrated; for example, when a parent punishes a child physically (like drawing his ears) for insulting an elderly family member. The intended outcome of such instrumental training is to make sure that the child keeps the norms of the family: that of respecting elders. In this context, the parents’ duty is to see to it that the child learn and behave appropriately and responsibly. However, the child is also learning in the process when and how to apply physically punishment. Such imitative learning may inform the child’s pattern of behaviour in subsequent social interaction. The discipline may have seemed unpleasant to him or her at the first time; however, it later produces some gains. As the Bible rightly pointed out, there is “a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it” (Hebrew, 12, vrs.11).The parental discipline, which initially caused “short term pain” is capable of producing “long term gain” as the child involved is now known to have appropriate socially acceptable behaviours.It is common observation during ‘role-play’ to see children reproducing parental role-behaviour, including ways and manners, as well as voice intonation and attitude; sometimes to either admiration or embarrassment of their parents.
The understanding of the nexus between the two processes of socialization suggests that imitation is not just a simple reproduction of what one sees; it incorporates reinforcement learning (Bruno, 2001). When children imitate a certain type of behaviour or action and the consequences are rewarding, the children are likely to continue performing the same behaviour or action. In this context, the behaviour has been reinforced or strengthened. However, if the imitation is not accepted and approved by the parents and or significant others, the behaviour will be weakened. Herein lies the importance of the family as an institution that influence character and moral formations, as well as values. And this is largely achieved through the enforcement of discipline.
Discipline is always pointing toward future acts; the purpose is to train for correction and maturity. In this context, acquisition of values and lasting beliefs or ideals about what is good, bad, desirable or undesirable becomes important. Since values are developed early in life, it means the family and parents play the central role. They exert a major influence on a child’s behaviour and attitude, which serveas broad guidelines in all situations.In their work on Tupocracy,Amaowoh and Chinwokwu (2018) observed that actions and deeds of leaders (whether as parents, family heads, community heads,political leaders, etc) exert significant influence on member and /or followers, and can drive great responses from them, especially when such actions are good ones. This suggests that followers and observers of actions and deeds of their leaders are capable of either recreating or imitating them, thus encompassing the same behavioural phenomenon. In this respect, many scholars have provided analyses on family organization, values, and socialization (Santrock,1996; Yunus, Fatima, Haktan, 2012; Lucifora& Meurs, 2012; Stacey, Raj &Vaishali,2013).
A number of recent studies have provided analysis on the role of the family in the socialization of members(Roostin, 2018), including empirical researches on parenting styles and discipline (Grusec& Kuczynski, 1980; Kochanska,1991).What has been less analysed is how indiscipline in the family can be curbed through the exemplary leadership of family leaders and parents; recognizing the fact that what affect the family will eventually affect the society at large, and vice-versa.Leadership by example suggests a model deserving honour, respect and admiration that can be imitated. In the context of Tupocracy, exemplary life will consist of high moral values, transparency, accountability, probity, justice, equity, and fair play.Given that families have different types of parenting styles, it seems interesting to inquire into the extent to which family members imitate the actions and deeds of their parents and / or leaders, and the extent to which exemplary lifestyle of the parentscan exert discipline on members.
The chapter is structured into themes. Following this introduction is the conceptual explanation and literature. In order to properly contextualise the discussion, an attempt is made to formulate the Tupocratictheory by way of explaining its building blocks and identification of the variables. This becomes necessary since only the identification of the variables can enhance the discussion on the tupocracy-discipline nexus and disciplinary outcomes. In addition to this, the paper discusses the causes of indiscipline in the family, and the consequences on the larger society. The concluding theme is on curbing indiscipline through tupocracy.
CONCEPTUAL EXPLANATION AND LITERATURE
INDISCIPLINE
The word, indiscipline, is the antonym of ‘discipline’, which has a common etymology traced to the Latin word, Disciplinus. The Longman Dictionary of the English Language gives the meaning of indiscipline as: (i) lack of discipline,and (ii) state of disorder because of lack of control. From this understanding, indiscipline can be regarded as non-adherence to rules, regulations, norms and order of the society. Following this context, McConville(2003) defined indiscipline as disorder. Elsewhere, disorder is regarded as a tendency or an act to upset the natural order of or disturb the existing order or norms (Lewis, 1997). Indiscipline is a symptom of value degradation; and when this happened, values are dishonoured and social life is bound to experience unexpected problem (Ikoh, 2018).
Unfortunately, indiscipline is a household name in Nigeria. This is inspite of the efforts of many social movements and institutions established to checkmate it. For instance, in 1981, the Shehu Shagari administration started the Ethical Revolution, which made little or no impact on indiscipline. When Mohammadu Buhari successfully launched a military coup that deposed Shehu Shagari in December 1993, a full scale war against indiscipline (WAI) was initiated for the purpose of mobilisation and corrective response to social maladjustment. Although the WAI programme had structures in all the states of the federation, including a WAI Brigade, the military government of Babangida (1985 – 1993) that replaced Buhari administration did very little to sustain the programme. The National Orientation Agency (NOA) that embarked on massive mobilisation to conscientize Nigerians with ethical principles, through its periodic “letter to my countrymen and women” written by the then Communication Minister, could not realize it objective. Indiscipline had become institutionalised in the country by the time General Babangida stepped aside in 1993. The conducts of the government and its officials were contrary to what they preached to Nigerians. Attempted to resuscitate the WAI programme by Sani Abacha (1993 – 1998) yielded no impact. Even when he had added another component, war against corruption, the emerging WAI&C programme only succeeded in spreading the rhetoric of “do as I say; not as I do” message. The Abacha presidency was indiscipline personified, and created lootocrats who had no moral norms of decency. The president demonstrated much of the looting by himself, such that many years after his death, the country is still recovering the money he stole from the national treasury. Such leadership style is not without consequences. It created followers who imitate him as a leaders, and enthrone a socio-political system conducive for corruption, as well as crime of all persuasions.As Oden (2000 argued in Amaowoh (2018, p.117), “when a man becomes famous (a head of state for that matter), and is known to many, his misdeeds will inflict a common injury to all”. In Nigeria, indiscipline has tended to remain a national albatross that is found in both private and public organizations.
THE FAMILY
The term, family, has been given special attention by both socio-economic and religious scholars (Kandel, 1983). However, it exact definition has received tinkering by many scholars in what Eleanor (1992)referred to as ‘objective and subjective definition’. The key components of an objective definition is that it specifies (and restricts) who is (and who is not) in a person's family. For instance, Roostin (2018), defined the family as a social group consisting of two or more people who have blood ties, marriage, or adoption.The important of this definition is that it has included what Anthropologists referred to as genealogical relationship, which is explained by blood ties (affinal and consanguineal). However, many other scholars believed that such definition sees the family objectively, and that subjective definition exist. The subjective approach allows people to make their own decisions about who is in their families.In this context, family members are not necessarily related by blood, marriage, or adoption. In contemporary time, many partners are cohabiting, and are considering themselves to be family. Similarly, manypeople consider their best friends to be family members.
Among the Ibibios, for instance, friendship (Amah), is given some designations: Amah UbökMkpö (right-hand friend), Amah Akȃpkpa (embracive friend), and Nkaña Amah or Ufan (just a friend). The Amah UbökMkpöis regarded as intimate and trusted friend, who sometimes, have taken blood oath (uta iyip) for lasting relationship. The blood oath is believed to cement the relationship between them to the extent that none can harm or contemplate harm against the other. The Amah UbökMkpö is very important that if any of them kills an animal, he must give the right hand side to the friend. The emphasis of subjective definition, therefore, is not on the family staying together, but on the existence of family networks (consisting of a supportive and caring groups of friends) to which members communicate, share secrets; and are emotionally close. They exchange assistance, and are available as potential help givers in times of need(Yunus, Fatima, & Haktan, (2012). This, perhaps explains the concept of the Christian family, the Moslem family, and extended family as in lineage traced to putative ancestors.
In the observation of the Parenting in Africa Network (PAN, 2016), relying on objective definitions has led researchers to over-identify the home as the site of a person's most meaningful family relationships and to give insufficient attention to relationships and interactions with family members outside the home.However, in whatever way the family is viewed, our concern here is to see the family as the first unit and the first institution in the society where the relationships contained in it are mostly direct relationships, where individuals develop early stages of the socialization process, and through individual interaction acquire their knowledge, skills, interests, values, emotions and attitudes in life.As Grusec and Kuczynski (1980) would argue, building strong families is a self-preservation strategy for any rational and sane society. An enlightened society is one which supports all of its members in reaching their full potential as human beings.
The family remains the first institution responsible for the training and survival of the children. In this context, the family serves as agent of socialization, which enablesthe children to find their identity, as well as imbibe their culture and values. In Stacey, Raj and Vaishali’s (2013) analysis, socialization enables children to develop emotional attachment to parentalfigures, and/or “the significant others,” and a belief in themoral order underlying conventional bonds. As an ongoing process, socialization enhances social interaction through which the children become functional members of their immediate community, and by extension, the larger society (Eleanor, 1992). Functionality, here, is influenced by a broader socio-cultural context. This is because the goals of socialization and parenting practices used to accomplish these goals vary across families, and parents,as well as family leaders,who play influential role in theprocess.The role variation, notwithstanding, tupocracy places emphasis on parental leadership and practices that would influenced successful childhood socialization.
The argument of family scholars is that family members are expected to engage in bothconventional and unconventional behaviours depending on the parental leadership and / or significant others (Smith & Stephen, 1976; Kandel, 1983; Sampson & Groves, 1989; Peterson, Lauren &Kriyo, 2010). In this context, indiscipline, as shown in deviance, anti-social and criminal behaviours, would be attributed to failures in conventional bounding by the family, religious organizations, and other institutions whose functions are to socialise young ones to norms, moral values and societally acceptable behaviours. As Sutherland (2004) would argue, a person becomes a violator of the societal norms and laws when he or she has excess of definitions favourable to the violation of norms and laws over definitions unfavourable to the violation of norms and laws. The assumption here is that individuals become indiscipline because their socialization to behaviours favourable to violation of norms and laws exceed their socialization to behaviours and practices unfavourable to violation of norms and laws.Good parental socializationwould result in parental attachments that influence thedevelopment of the child’s conscience and feeling of guilt, such that even while with their peers, when the parents are not there, the ethical norms he or she was exposed to at home still influence his or her actions and deeds (Wiatrowsk,Griswold, & Robert, 1981).

TUPOCRACY
The concept of Tupocracy has an elaborate explanation in the work of Amaowoh (2010; 2018). The author traced the term, “tupocracy’,to two Greek words, tupos and cracy (krateia). While tuposrefers to example, manner, etc, cracy or kreteia, means power, government, and or rule. In joining the two words together, Amaowoh (2010) defined itas “a system of government involving people who lead by positive example”. The emphasis is on leaders with integrity, who raised followers on the principle of “do as I do” (Amaowoh, 2010, p.208). In this context, the expectation is that leadership style that is characterised with transparency, integrity, altruism, patriotism, and godly character, would create imitative mechanisms for followers to emulate, and in so doing exhibit behaviours similar to their mentors. Tuporacy, therefore, suggests the important of exemplary leadership in both social and political endeavours.
The main tenets of Tupocracy are derived from six moral principles. These include “transparency, accountability, probity, justice, equity, and fair play”(Amaowoh, 2010, p. 209). The argument of the Tupocrat is that exemplary leaders will raise followers with similar character, and in the course of time, the society will boost of leaders with high moral character. This argument suggests a good lesson on sowing and harvesting. A farmer who sowed cassava will surely harvest cassava (depending on the health nature of the stick). A farmer who sowed cassava and later claimed to have harvested yam, will likely be a thief; because it is difficult for casava root to turn into yam tubers. It is therefore not possible to sow hatred and discrimination in the minds of the citizens and expects to harvest love and fairness. Influenced by such line of argument, Achebe (1983) had observed that the problem of Nigeria is the problem of leadership. We may claimed to be led by democratic leaders; but what type? Democratic leadership is not enough, especially when the representatives are devoid of requisite moral qualifications. In Amaowoh’s (2010) analysis, democracy in Nigeria can only retain its universal acclaim of best socio-political culture and leadership, if it inculcates moral principles in governance as enshrined in Tupocracy. Inculcation of moral values is not taught in Democratic Institutes; but in basic institutions like the family, the churches, and Mosque.
The family is regarded as a major social institution and a locus of much of a person’s social activity. It thus functions as the basic unit which produces future generations and provide love and affection to the members. The concept of tupos in the family is therefore a sin qua non for sustainable leadership and development of any society.If the Leaderships at the family level (parents) are upright and morally sound, the society will become an amalgam of morally strong citizens, and the Biblical blessing of “righteousness exalts a nation” will not be difficult to realize. The problem of leadership is how to start with good upbringings at the family level,and impart strong moral values that family members will imbibe above deviant characters, even when peer group influence suggests otherwise. Action and deeds of family leaders exert great influence on responses from members most especially when such actions and deeds are good ones (Kandel, 1983). In this context, integrity plays a major role; as a leader who shows integrity gains his followers’ trust (Zentall, 2006).

THE TUPOCRATICTHEORY

Tupocracyis a term with six major construct concepts(Amaowoh, 2010, p. 209). The founding father of Tupocracy has provided elaborate discussion on the roles of tupocracy as solution to socio-political problems of leadership (Amaowoh, 2010; 2018);however, putting those discussions within a theory will help readers as well as researchers to understand Tupocracywith respect to the cause-and-effect construct involves; the relationship between the presumed cause and effect; relationship causal (rival explanations of the observed effects), and relationship across persons, settings, and times. Given this understanding, the concern of this sub-theme is to present the focal constructs and specify how the constructs relates to its measures; and in so doing, the understanding of the study’s hypotheses will be enhanced.
Constructs, variables, hypotheses, propositions, are the building blocks of theory. It is not possible therefore to build a theory of Tupocracy until proper construct definitions are rendered. The construct definitions provide meanings of each of the construct variables. It helps to show, for instance, how construct A is related to construct B. As Cook and Campbell (1979) argued, when a construct is poorly defined (ornot defined at all), there is a tendency for its meaning to bestretched in a slightly different conceptual direction, and may affect the test of hypotheses.
According to Amaowoh (2010, p. 209), six moral principles, including “transparency, accountability, probity, justice, equity, and fair play” serve as constructs for the measurement of Tupocaracy. In Figure one, attempt is made to present the major constructs of the theory with variables as indicators of each of the constructs. While the major constructs collectively explain the components of Tupocracy, the variables explain the characteristics of each of the construct using the arrow. It should be noted that some of the variables are a bit abstractive and will require further operationalization to objectify them. In the analysis offered by Amaowoh (2010), the moral values which explain integrity as encapsulated in the Tupocracy constructs tend to share characteristics. For instance, a transparent leader is said to be honest, credible, and trustworthy. The variable of honesty is also shown in accountability, probity, and Justice.
Atransparent leader is one that invites trust by revealing that he or she has nothing to hide. The trust is sustained by his or her degree of honesty, and he or she is seen as credible in the eyes of the followers. When leaders build on transparency and trust, they will typically overcome challenges that will arise in future, because trust among the citizens strengthen cooperation and social capital (Heyes,2002). On the other hand, accountability is defined to include accepting responsibility and admitting ones error. A leader who exhibits accountability is also known by the variables of transparency.
The variables associated with probity are honesty, honour, and integrity. While honesty implies arefusal to lie or deceive in any way, honour suggests an active or anxious regard for standards; the quality of knowing and doing what is morally right. Integrity implies trustworthiness and incorruptibility to a degree that one is incapable of being false to a trust. Responsibility, becomes his or her watch words. Integrity, as a leadership construct, was the single moral qualification that President Mohammadu Buhari claimed to have; and used it to ride to power in 2015. Barring any other proof, the war against indiscipline he embarked upon with Tunde Idiagbon (1943 -1999), his deputy, during his military dictatorship (1983-1984), gave him the label of a leader with integrity, and attracted Nigerians to him.
Another defining construct in Tupocracy is the concept of justice. The concept is identified by being just, lawful, mindful of doing the right things, and equitable. Justice share common characteristics with equity- the act of being fair and impartial. The concept of equality can be easily defined by freedom from being bias and favouritism. When a leader who was democratically elected resorted to the practice of nepotism, then such a leader cannot be counted among Tupocratic leaders. In terms of the construct of fair-play, emphasis will be on respect, friendship, tolerance, care, and equity. Such building blocks of Tupocracy are also used in the definition of the concept of integrity (Horwitz,2005). In the argument of Amaowoh (2010), a Tupocrats is not only known in the possession of these qualities, but also, and most importantly, in ability to teach the followers (citizens, family members, political followers), good values; and model them in life (Ikoh, 2018). Modelling is very important because even when leaders must have explained and teach these moral values, the followers will only pick up the ones that the leaders have put to practice through their own behaviours.

CONCLUSION
The main concern of the paperwas on curbing indiscipline in the family through Tupocracy. In other words, how the principles underlining Tupocracy can help to checkmate indiscipline in the family. In the discussion, the chapter took on two related issues: analysis the construct-variables of Tupocracy, and applying them to the inculcation of discipline in the family. Since the family is seen as the microcosm of the society, it was safe to argue that Tupocartic leadership at the family level will exert significant impact on the leadership at the community, state, and national levels.
The paper concludes with the argument that indiscipline thrives in Nigeria and will continue to grow because of the lack of existence of national values that can guide the moral compass of the citizens. It therefore calls for a vision that will embrace “transparency, accountability, probity, justice, equity, and fair play. These are Tupocratic principles that can checkmate the culture of corruption and embezzlement, and above all, enhance the emergence of leaders that can inspire and lead by example.

REFERENCES
Achebe C (1983). The trouble with Nigeria. Enugu: Fourth DimensionPublishing Co Ltd.
Amaowoh, G. A. (2010). The history and origin of Tupocracy. Available at: rttps://cdu-af.feednews.com/news/detail/708ec3b6feaa4569c77de8ce6f8f59b. Access: 7th July,2020.
Amaowoh, G. A. &Chinwokwu, E. N. (2018). Tupocracy: Leadership by example for the church and civil society. Nsukka: University Press.
Amato, P. R.&Fowler, F. (2002). Parenting practices, child adjustment and family diversity. Journal of Marriage and Family. 64 (3), 703- 721.
Ashish, J. (2012). Six steps for parents so your child is successful. Available at: humanenrich.com. Assessed: 6: 5: 2019.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social learning through imitation. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (10), pp. 211-274).Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1959). Adolescent aggression. New York: Ronald Press.
Brooks, J. B. (2012). The process of parenting, Ninth Edition. London: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Bruno, F. J. (2002). Psychology: A self-teaching guide. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Charles, J. O. &Ikoh, M. U. (2012). Values conflict and social order in contemporary Nigerian Society: Survey of issues and programmes. In U. M. Ivowi; A. K. Orubite& W. W. Wodi(Eds.). Value education and national development. Port Harcourt: Otonti Nduka Foundation for Values Education.
Cook, T. D. & Campbell, D. T (1979).Quasi-Experimentation:Design & Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Chicago: RandMcNally.
Edet, E. O. (2016). Knowledge and awareness of juvenile delinquency services by the residenceof Nsukka Local Government Area. A Research Project Submitted to the Departmentof Social Work, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
Eleanor, E. M. (1992). The role of parents in the socialization of children: An historical overview.Developmental Psychology, 28 (6),1006-1017.
Gambo, M. A. &Mburza, A. (2018). Relationship between juvenile delinquency and background ofchildren in remand home in Maiduguri metropolis, Borno state, Nigeria.
Journal of Education and Practice, 9 (5), 120 – 126.
Grusec, J. E., & Kuczynski, L. (1980). Direction of effects in socialization:A comparison of the parent's versus the child's behaviour asdeterminants of disciplinary techniques. Developmental Psychology,16, 1-9.
Heyes, C. (2002). Transformational and associative theories of imitation. MIT Press.
Horwitz, S. (2005). The functions of the family in the great society. Cambridge Journal of Economic, 29, 669-684.Oxford University Press.
Ikoh, M. U. (2018). Nigerian corruption complex: Rethinking complementarities to curative measures. Journal of Financial Crime, 25 (2), 576 – 588.
James, K. C. (1996, February). Transforming America. Imprimis, 25 (2), 1 - 6
Kandel, D. (1983). The role of parents and peers in adolescent marihuanause. Science, 181, 1067-1070.
Kochanska, G. (1991). Socialization and temperament in the developmentof guilt and conscience. Child Development, (62),1379-1392.
Lewis, R. (1997). The discipline dilemma, 2nd edition. Melbourne, Australia: The Australian Council for Educational Research Ltd.
Lucifora, C., & Meurs, D. (2012). Family values, social needs and preferences for
welfare. IZA DP No. 6977. Discussion Paper.
McConville, S. (2003). The use of punishment. Devan: Willan Publishing.
Okorodudu, G. N. (2010). Influence of parenting styles on adolescent delinquency in Delta Central Senatorial District. Edo Journal of Counselling, 3 (1), 59 – 86.
Parenting in Africa Network (PAN) (2016). Good practices from positive disciplineand family strengthening interventions. Nairobi, Kenya: Author.
Parker, G., Tupling, H., & Brown, L. B. (1979). A Parental Bonding Instrument. British
Journal of Medical Psychology, 52, 1-10.
Peterson, R. D., Lauren, J., &Krivo, L. J. (2010). Divergent socialworlds: Neighborhood crime and the racial-spatial divide.New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Roostin, E. (2018). Family influence on the development of children. Journal of Elementary Education. 2 (1), 1 – 11.
Santrock, Johm W.,(1996).Child Development. Boston, Massachusetts.Mc.Graw Hill Companies.
Schwartz, S. H. (1995). Value priorities and readiness for outgroup social contract. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 437 – 448.
Sampson, R., & Groves, W. B. (1989). Community structure andcrime: Testing social disorganization theory. American Journalof Sociology, 94, 774-802.
Smith, R. B., & Stephens, R. C. (1976). Drug use and “hustling”:A study of their interrelationship. Criminology, 14, 155-176.
Spera, C (2016). A review of the relationship among parenting practices, parenting styles, and adolescent school achievement, Educational Psychology Review. 17 (2), 125–46.
Stacey, P., Raj &Vaishali, V. R. (2013). Parenting and family socializationwithin a cultural context. In:E. L. Anderson & S. Thomas (Eds.). Socialization: Theories, Processes and Impact. (chapter 3). Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281589235; Accessed: 5th may, 2020
Sutherland, E. H., & Cressey, D. R. (2004). Criminology (12th ed.).Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott.
Wiatrowsk, M. D., Griswold, D. B., & Robert, M. K. (1981).Social control theory and delinquency. American SociologicalReview, 46, 525-541.
Yoshikawa, H. & Kabay, S. B. 2015. The evidence base on early childhood care and education in globalcontexts. Background paper for EFA Global Monitoring Report 2015.
Yunus, G. Fatima, T. S., & Haktan, D. (2012). Functions of the family:Family structure and place of residence. Energy Education Science and Technology Part B: Social and Educational Studies. 4(1), 549-556
Zentall, T. R. (2006). Imitation: Definitions, evidence and mechanisms. Animal Cognition, 9 (4), 335–53. doi:10.1007/s10071-006-0039-2.

Interesting

When is the book coming out?