CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Ethnicity generates its origin
from the Latin word ethnos, meaning “people of the same ancestry.” The
concept ‘ethnic’ is associated with race, culture and tradition, and ancestral
connection of people with common descent, meant to enhance one’s image and
group membership in the society (Giddens, 1971). This relates to Kendall’s
conception of ethnic group, when she defines it as “…a collection of people
distinguished by others or by themselves, primarily on the basis of cultural or
nationality characteristics” (Kendall, 2007).
Ethnic groups denotes “human
groups that entertain a subjective belief in their common descent because of
similarities of physical type or of customs or both, or because of memories of
colonization and migration…it does not matter whether an objective blood
relationship exists (Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, 2010).
Ethnicity for most African countries
remain the most contested outcome of intense political struggle, in which
socio-economic and political characteristics of statehood has been transformed
to respond to dynamic of powerful and often, disruptive forces of social and
political changes. For example, Nigeria represents multi-ethnic state where
ethnocentric values are used by elite to display ethnic group pride, and to
also indulge in the glorification of their own culture to the scorn of others’
way of life. This character exacerbates ethnic sentiments and fuel mutual
distrust, suspicion, hatred, strife and rancour among ethnic nationalities
(Odeh, 2009). These sentiments underpin issues associated with citizenship
question motivated by “struggles over values, claims to status, power and
scarce resources around the world” (Coser, 1956).
The
nature, content and focus of inter ethnic relationship is therefore, at the
core of the cultural outlooks which set a particular group of people apart from
others (Giddens, 1971). These outlooks may obviously include cultural traits
such as language, clothing or religious practices, ethnocentrisms and the
tendency of occupying a distinct geographical area by choice, or for the sake
of identification (Rex and Masson, 1986), or otherwise; to enhance ones’ ethnic
competitive efficiency in the political marketplace (Nnoli, 1978). Ethnicity
therefore, enforces mutual connection amongst people of the same ancestry. It
encourages internal cohesion and solidarity and enforces the need to provide
natural security for each other, and also promote a sense of identity (Nnoli
1994). On the other hand; it generates inter ethnic stru-ggles over power and
resources allocation (Nnoli 1995).
Thomas Hodgkin (1960),
describes the Nigerian past
as many pasts, not one the past histories of the various peoples and civilizations which
constitute modern Nigeria. By this is
meant that Nigeria, as we know it today, is a conflation of several ethnic
nationalities that have coexisted as one nation. A remarkable aspect of their collective
history is that the parts of these nationalities were linked at many points and
over several periods of time in myths of origin, commercial activities across
borders, crafts, marriage, trade, religions, and other issues that welded them
into a unified entity (Babawale, 2007).
Notwithstanding Babawale’s
submission suggesting the
prevalence of boisterous inter-group relations among peoples
in the pre-colonial Nigeria area, the various nationalities could
yet be rightly described as having peculiar values and orientations, idiosyncrasies and
traditions, which in many instances were
diametrical and antagonistic by modus
vivendi and modus operandi.Nigeria is a multiethnic society
consisting of about 300 ethnic
groups. It is a well known fact that
Nigeria is a colonial creation. Awolowo
(1947) pointed out that Nigeria was "a mere-geographical expression". This means that in terms of social relations and national identification, Nigeria
was not yet a nation by 1947. As a
multi-national society, one of the sociological problems of building Nigeria as a nation is multi-ethnicity
with its concomitants such as multi-lingualism and
competitive ethnicity. Prior to the
coming of the Europeans to Nigeria, the indigenous Nigerian societies were not
static and they were not in equilibrium relations. There
were varieties of links which existed between
the various states and peoples which were
the predecessors of modern Nigeria, For example, there were links among Kanem-Bornu,
the Hausa States, Nupe, the Jukun
Kingdom, the empires of Oyo and Benin, the Delta States and the loosely
associated Ibo communities (Hodkins, 1960:2)
These various
societies, though inter-dependent, apparently did not set up the
process to constitute themselves into one society. Yet, they provided
socio-cultural frame-work for all Nigerian society, their relations with
one another; according to Otite (1976) were as important as their relations with
societies outside the modern boundary of Nigeria,
Ethnographers estimate that over 250
ethnic groups make up Nigeria. Each of these
consists of smaller social groups for example the Yoruba consists of the
Ekiti, Ijesha, Oyo and so on. The Ibo
consists of Oguta etc, the Urbobo of Agbarho, Agbon, Ugheli and others. The Hausa have their various
indigenous states none of these
groups however large was a nation in any sense before the colonial regrouping. It was the colonial
government that merged them together
in 1914 and later Balkanized Nigeria into three regions in 1947 along ethnic lines.
According to
Mezieobi (1994), from 1947, the multiethnic composition of Nigeria continued to be
a bane to Nigeria's national unity and development. Mezieobi claimed that whatever is
done or anticipated in
Nigeria, particularly at government's quarters had ethnic
undertone. In employment, admissions into schools, distribution
of social amenities and in social relationships, ethnic affiliations
and attachments are very strong and conspicuously manifest.
Attachment of a Nigerian first to his ethnic group before the nation is a
bane to Nigeria's national unity, national consciousness and socio-political integration (Mezieobi;
1994).
There have been
cases of multi-ethnic vices such as allegiance to ethnic-group, intra-cultural and
inter-ethnic antagonism, hostility, aggression, bitterness, hatred, mistrust in
the country which have
not augured well for the building of a virile Nigerian nation. Rather than harnessing our diversities towards
viable nation building, we have become slaves to our ethnic origin to
which our allegiance is largely focused at
the detriment of nation building.
Interfaced with religion, statism
and class, ethnicity is a potent reality in
the Nigerian federal equation. Almost invariably, minority group problems and
other related to them in Nigeria, are assumed to have their roots, in. 'ethnicity', Both concepts - 'minority' and 'ethnicity' according to Inya (1996) are seen to
be inseparable. The collapse of nation
building experience in a majority of cases in Africa in general and in Nigeria
in particular, has resulted from rugged
ethnic particularizes of given constituent units of these nations.
CHAPTER TWO
CONCEPTS OF ETHNIC GROUP AND ETHNICITY
IN NIGERIA
The concept of ethnic group has been
variously defined as
based on nationality, race and religion in
the United States, Gordon'(1964)
defined an ethnic group as any group which is defined or set off by race, religion or defined origin or some combination of these categories. This definition
is of limited utility especially when
Nigerian materials are under consideration. In Nigeria, the sense of identification with an ethnic group is by far
different from that with either race or a
religious group as far as Nigeria is
concerned.
Seibel
(1964) and Clignets (1967) used the terms ethnic group and tribe synonymously Rose (1965)
defined ethnic group as those whose members
share a unique social and cultural heritage, passed from one generation to the other. According to
her, ethnic groups are frequently
identified by distinctive patterns of family life language, recreation,
religion and other customs which cause them to
be differentiated from others.
Ukpo
calls an "ethnic group" a "group of people having a common
language and cultural values". These common factors are emphasized by
frequent interaction between the people in the group. In Nigeria, the ethnic
groups are occasionally fusions created by intermarriage, intermingling and/or
assimilation. In such fusions, the groups of which they are composed maintain a
limited individual identity. The groups are thus composed of smaller groups,
but there is as much difference between even the small groups; as Chief Obafemi
Awolowo put it, as much "as there is between Germans, English, Russians
and Turks". Nigeria has about three hundred ethnic groups comprise the
population of Nigeria and the country's unity has been consistently under
siege: eight attempts at secession threatened national unity between 1914 and
1977. The Biafran
War was
the last of the secessionist movements within this period.
Combining the
various definitions for the purpose of bringing the various dimensions under a single
definition, Sanda (1976) defined an ethnic group as consisting of interacting
members, who defined themselves as belonging to a named or labeled social group with whose
interest they identify, and which manifests certain aspects of a
unique culture while constituting a part of a wider society.
Ethnicity in Nigeria involves the identification of Nigerians with the
dominant or subordinate majority or minority ethnic groups, all of which
co-exist within the same society. The co-existence of these ethnic groups within the same
polity has frequently led to the description
of Nigeria as an accident of history.
Competitive
ethnicity started in Africa since the colonial days. In search for
the crumbs from colonial production, competition among Africans created or reinforced
common consciousness among the various competing ethnic groups At times the historical and competitive aspects of this consciousness were contemporary
competition which may create a common warring section among previously and historically hostile and
warring sections of the same ethnic group. Exclusiveness is an attribute of ethnicity, in group-out, group-in bounding emerged with it and, in time,
become mark more distinct than
before and jealously guarded, by the various ethnic groups. Acceptance and
rejection on linguistic-cultural grounds
characterizes social relations. These are expressed inevitably through interethnic discrimination in
jobs, housing, admission into
educational institutions, marriages, business transactions or the distribution of social services. This factor of
exclusiveness is usually accompanied by nepotism and corruption,
Conflict according to Okwudigba (1978)
is an important aspect of ethnicity. This is inevitable under conditions of
interethnic competition for scarce valuable resources particularly in societies where inequality
is accepted as natural, and wealth is greatly esteemed. The fear of being confined to
the bottom of the interethnic ladder of inequality generates divisive and
destructive. Socio-economic competition which has anti social effects. Demonstrations, rioting and various
forms of violent agitations become instruments in interethnic relations. The scarcity
of much highly valued resources encouraged destructive competition.
Nigeria
party politics has been polluted by ethnic chauvinism. This problem is one of
the major qualms confronting the progress of liberal democracy in Nigeria since
1960, to the extent that ethnic sentiment has gradually crept in to find a
place in every faced of Nigerian political activity. Ethnic sentiment has been
one of the factors responsible for most of the inefficiencies and low
productivity in Nigeria. The major focus of this paper is to trace the
historical origin, growth and development of ethnicity and the effects it has
had on post-colonial governance in Nigeria. In the findings of this paper, it
was discovered that ethnic sentiment was deliberately introduced and propagated
in the polity by the British colonial government to realize colonial and
imperialist economic and political objectives. It was also found that since the
end of colonialism in 1960, Nigeria has carried forward the spirit of ethnicity
into the post-colonial Nigeria, this vice has been discovered to have been
responsible for most of the political, administrative, economic, social and
cultural maladies in Nigeria. The data that was used to support this argument
was got from the secondary method of data acquisition. At the concluding
remark, it is suggested that, indigene-settle phenomenon should be strong
discouraged while the Federal Character principles be genuinely implemented at
the federal, state and local government levels in other to remove the age long
ethnic unrest in the governance of Nigeria. It is incontrovertible that Nigeria
is multi-ethnic and the inter-play of this ethnic factor pose a centrifugal and
daunting challenge to the corporate existence of Nigeria as a nation.
Expectedly, politics by its nature and character is to give birth to a
democratic structure capable of engendering development.
However,
in Nigeria, owing to incessant military coups coupled with the ethnicisation of
politics even before independence, it has assumed a dangerous dimension by
becoming a barometer for measuring contribution to nation building. It is now
an instrument for allocating and distributing power and national resources. As
Nigeria experiences a new democratic drive with the rising spate of insecurity,
pundits believe this has ethnic as well as political undertone but dressed in Boko
Haram garment. It is therefore trite to handle it with utmost caution and
sincerity. Thousands of lives not to mention properties have gone as a result
of this insurgence.
In
the pre-colonial era and since the independence of Nigeria, ethnicity played
and still playing manifest and latent roles in the body politics of Nigeria. As
Otite (1990) observed and quite rightly too, the ethnic virus has been one of
the most important causes of social crisis and political instability in
Nigeria; and ethnicity has been perceived in general as a major obstacle to the
overall political and economic development of the country. Nnoli (1978) defined
ethnicity as a "social phenomenon associated with interactions among
members of different ethnic groups." He further explained that ethnic
groups are social formations distinguished by the communal character of their
boundaries and that an ethnic group may not necessarily linguistically or culturally
homogenous. Osaghae (1995) defined ethnicity as the employment of mobilization
of ethnic identity and difference to gain advantage in situations of
competition, conflict or co-operationâ. However, Azeez (2004) views ethnicity
as a sense of people hood that has its foundation in the combined remembrance
of past experience and common aspiration. Nigeria is a plural society and it is
made up of over 250 ethnic groups with many sub-groups three ethnic groups -
Yoruba, Hausa and Igbo - dominate the political landscape. All other ethnic
groups are swept under the carpet. This has created sub-nationalism. Ekeh
(1973) has argued that ethnicity has flourished because the Nigerian elite who
inherited the colonial state have conceptualized development as transferring
resources from the civil public to the primordial pubic it is against this
background that this writer would x-ray in a laconic manner the interplay of
ethnicity in the body politics of Nigeria in pre-independence era and from
independence till date.
In
pre-independence era, party politics in Nigeria was based on ethnic factor thus
one can say that it was during this period in question that the seed of ethnic
politics was sown, germinated in the first republic and the products started
spreading during the 3rd and 4th republics. For example, the Action Group as a
party developed from a Yoruba Cultural Association, Egbe Omo Oduduwa; the NCNC
was closely allied with the Igbo Union while the NPC developed from Jamiyyar
Arewa. Thus the leadership of the aforementioned parties was along ethnic
cleavages. The A.G. was led by Chief Obafemi Awolowo, a Yoruba; the NCNC
leadership fell on Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, an Igbo while NPC was led by Sir Ahmadu
Bello, the Sarduna of Sokoto, a Fulani. Even to a large extent, the colonial
administrative arrangement in Nigeria during the colonial period encouraged
ethnic politics. The 1946 Richard Constitution had divided Nigeria into three
regions for administrative convenience which are directly associated with the
three major ethnic groups - Yoruba, Hausa and Igbo. In the current political
dispensation of the Fourth Republic ethnic colouration has reared its ugly
head. With ANPP considered as a party predominantly occupied by the
Hausa/Fulani and AD as direct successor to Chief Obafemi Awolowo's Action group
and Unity Party of Nigeria and as a result dominated the six Yoruba speaking
states of Lagos, Ekiti, Ogun, Ondo Osun and Oyo until 2003 when it lost all the
states except Lagos. The ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) is being
perceived as to have deviated a bit from the usual ethno-religious dominated
party politics of the past with their membership and formation cutting across
the clime of Nigeria. However in the 2011 general elections, ethnic and
regional politics started to play itself out. With the demise of Alhaji Umar
Musa Yar'adua some people in the North felt power should not shift to the south
and they started kicking against the presidency of Dr. Goodluck Jonathan. The
new parties on contest like APGA is seen as Igbo party; ACN as a re-incarnation
of A.G. or UPN which is Yoruba based, CPC and ANPP are seen as the party of
Hausa/Fulani affiliations.
CHAPTER THREE
THE IMPACT OF ETHNICITY TO NATION DEVELOPMENT
Ethnicity has flourished because
the Nigerian elites who inherited the colonial state have conceptualized
development as transferring resources from civil public to primordial public.
It is in this view that Cletus Umezinwa argued that Nigeria is a failed state,
backing his opinion up with a number of factors that included cultural and
value decadence, fragile political structure, poor leadership and frequent
ethno-religious crisis. Conflicts in Nigeria most often link with religion or
ethnicity, and mostly deplored to settle economic and political imbalances;
breeding the evolution of ethnic militias such as the Bakkasi Boys; Movement
for Actualization of Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB); Odua People’s Congress
(OPC), Egbesu Boys; Movement for Emancipation of Niger Delta (MEND.
POSITIVE IMPACT OF ETHNICTY IN NIAGERIA DEVELOPMENT
POSITIVE IMPACT OF ETHNICTY IN NIAGERIA DEVELOPMENT
Ethnical diversity brings about
cultural consideration and developing awareness for differences and developing
similarities between the race/ethnicity
v It
bring various viewpoints into one place making the possibilities of discovering
something new nearly an everyday thing
v Cultural
Resources: When group maintaining identity and practice, Multi-ethnic societies
often a wealthy pool of culture. Individual get to learn about others way of
life and even exchange some practice
v Economic
development: People from different background have different things to offer in
terms of idea, experienced and expertise
v Globalized
economy: The world’s economy today is becoming more and more inter-connected.
This means that people different races and ethnicities will have to interact
with one another more and more for better preparation to function in the
globalized world ( Operate worldwide)
v Strong
Societies: A diverse society is
stronger than a homogenous society for
e.g during war the heterogeneous society will defeat the homogenous society
because they are two many.
The
Negative impacts of ethnicity to national development include:
v Escalation
of corrupt practices:
There
is a tradition in Nigeria that forbids citizens from exposing or prosecuting
fellow tribesmen for corrupt practices. Corrupt tendencies are exhibited and
laws violated, yet such individuals invoke ethnic sentiment to get away from,
or prevent prosecution. For example, recently, a private jet belonging to the
president of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) – Bishop Ayo
Oritsajafor, was apprehended in South Africa over possession of $9.3 million
allegedly meant for purchasing arms. Before the South African government could
conclude investigation, his ethnic region and kinsmen were already in the media
defending and exonerating him, and declaring war if their son is prosecuted.
v Politics
of Division:
Current
political tension in the country is mainly as a result of avoidable clash
between forces of democracy and that of tribal interests. The political
power-play in the name of building consensus within political party structures
have negatively influenced a tradition or emerging mentality of political
office rotation between the North and the South. In fact, an analyst posits
that this form the fulcrum of scaling of Boko Haram insurgency. That the ethnic
elements in the North felt cheated when the seat of power didn’t returned to
them in 2011 as agreed within the ruling party.
v Distrust:
A
fundamental impact of tribalism in Nigeria is a culture of distrust amongst
various ethnic groups in the country. Due to distrust, confidence on objective
and legitimate issues of poverty and environmental pollution in the Niger Delta
is trivialized as ‘Ijaw’ issues or as ‘Ogoni’ issues.
v Promotion
of mediocrity and suppression of justice:
Tribalism
flourishes in Nigeria mainly because it is an effective tool that gives the
user an edge in the eternal struggle to gain government patronage (i.e.
political appointments). After getting the appointment, tribal sentiment is
again used as a cover to abuse the office, and then to escape justice after
leaving the office.
v Unemployment:
Guarantee
of employment or award of contract in public service is a function of one’s
tribesperson in position of authority. The phrase “it is our turn was coined
from this practise”. Merit and excellence are sacrificed on the altar of
primordial thinking.
v The Impact Of Ethnicity In Nigeria
Body Politics
It is not surprising therefore that
the first political parties were formed along ethnic lines. During the first
republic, politics was organized in the same way as during the pre-colonial
era. The three political parties that existed during the pre-independence era
also came into lime Light and dominated the landscape; although other parties
sprang up. These included Northern Elements Progressive union (NEPU) by Aminu
Kano; United Middle Belt Congress (UMBC) led by Joseph Tarka, NPC by Sir Ahamdu
Bello; A.G. by Chief Obafemi Awolowo and NCNC led by Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe. There
was no radical department from those of the pre-colonial era as the parties had
ethnic colouration in terms of leadership and regional affiliations. However,
it was in the 2nd republic that regionalism was played down a bit. The 1979
constitution stipulated that for a political party to be registered, it must be
national in outlook i.e. wide geographical spread across the country. The new
political parties that were registered had their leadership replicated along
ethnic lines as in the first republic. Thus, Obafemi Awolowo retained the
leadership of A.G. which metamorphosed into UPN; Nnamdi Azikiwe controlled the
Igbo speaking areas under NPP which is an offshoot of the old NCNC. NPN
dominated the Hausa/Fulani areas; PRP in Hausa speaking while GNPP led by
Ibrahim Waziri controlled the Kanuri speaking area. Therefore, ethnic
colouration and affiliation played out in political parties formation and
operation during the 2nd Republic. Voting patterns followed ethnic lines in the
elections. It should be pointed out those political parties formation had a
different dimension in the third republic which was midwives by President
Ibrahim Babangida government. Two political parties were formed and funded by
the government. These were the Social Democratic Party (SDP) and the National
Republican Convention (NRC). Even though these parties were established by
government, ethno-religious cleavages were visible in the membership and
composition of the two parties. While the SDP favoured the southerners, NRC was
a party for the Hausa Fulani North as could be observed from their operation.
v The National language Issue:
A major problem facing the developing nations of the world especially those
which are multi-ethnic and multilingual in their composition is how to
integrate their diverse ethnic- linguistics groups it has been generated a lot of crisis in
Nigeria. Attempt to replace English with an indigenous language as a national
official language in Nigeria started in igbo after independence.
v Rippled Education system:
The education system of Nigeria has collapses to the extent that nothing in the
name of functional education goes on in the educational system According to
some people; some of the school in Nigeria is empty of the right quality and
quantity human and material resources.
v Political instability lending to
Ethnic crises: Right from the first three Jeans independence
in Nigeria there was Crisis everywhere because of Communal Clashes between
ethnic groups and it have been increased even in recent years. For e.g ethnic
clashes in 1977 arising from either deliberate marginalization, differential
opportunity
v The warri ethnic war:
This crisis which started in the month of March 1997 went on for over six
months, the crisis broke out between the Ijaw and the Itsekiris two of three
major ethnic groups in Warri because of this Crisis there is loss of life and properties in the crisis
CHAPTER FOUR
Nigeria is a multi-ethnic nation with diverse cultural groups that are
about three hundred in number. Rather
than harnessing our diversities towards viable national development, we have become slaves to our ethnic origins to
which our allegiance is largely focused at the detriment of nation building.
Fanatical ethnic consciousness has resulted
into ethnic prejudice and mistrust, religious and political problems, and socio-cultural conflicts These vices have
pervaded all spheres of life in Nigeria, be
it employment, education, religion and admission into federal Institutions. This paper has highlighted some of the factors
needed in nation building and how Nigeria
has fallen short in meeting them due to competitive ethnicity. The paper recommends what role social studies
education should play in teaching multi-ethnic issues in our
schools so as to enable students understand
other ethnic groups outside theirs and be able to co-exist peacefully in the country to bring about a virile
nation
Nigeria's pervading multi-ethnic
vices such as allegiance to ethnic group,
inter-ethnic antagonism, hostility, aggression etc may have been promoted by the monoculture nature of
most Nigerian school and absence of
well-conceived and articulated multi-ethnic
education programme. Multi-ethnic education is necessary m a country like Nigeria so as to enable students to understand other ethnic groups outside their own
and in so doing, ethnic tolerance,
understanding and mutual interrelationships across ethic boundaries would be enhanced.
Nigeria is yet
to meaningfully address multi-ethnic education in a multicultural nation and world
Social studies educators are therefore urged to redirect some of their teachings to multi-ethnic studies As
highlighted by Armstrong (1980) Mezieobi (1994), some of the useful
tips for teaching multi-ethnic education effectively in social studies should be
taken into consideration by teachers and some of these tips are:
(1) Teach the
identified peculiar feature of the individual ethnic groups.
(2) Teach their
common experiences or commonalities.
(3) Highlight differences.
In teaching multi-ethnic issues, the four
major approaches which nave potential for multi-ethnic instructions should be
implored and they are: assimilation, cultural pluralism, multiethnilism and
critical pedagogy (Zevin 1992, Appleton, 1983; Banks 1988; and Mcharen, 1990),
It is hoped that
if multi-ethnic education is properly addressed in our institutions right from the
primary schools, much of the multi-ethnic vices, which are debarring the process of nation-building
will be drastically reduced if not totally eradicated. The way out of tribalism in Nigeria shall be discussed using
mainly dual facet approaches drawn from two schools of thought. This section
intends to pitch a preference on the two views of Nigerians when the issue of
ethnicity is discussed, with the motive of proffering ideas that would address
the diverse challenges retarding the country’s progress. One of the directions
of this discussion is a structural solution, which advocates for further degree
of autonomy to component ethnic groups. The second way forward perspective is
the human behaviour and attitude school that jettisons primordial instincts and
focus on an individual person’s characteristics, irrespective of places of
origin or ethnicity.
The structural solution does not see Nigeria as a nation by using a very narrow and abstract definition of nation, and does not recognise the degree of integrations that has already taken place between the different ethnic groups through, marriage, religion, commerce and internal migration. This school advocates for a new constitutional arrangement on the basis of ethnicity and argues that multi-ethnic states are unstable and unviable. In fact, they dismiss the unstable mono-ethnic states of Middle East, and fail to acknowledge that there are other constructs on which human beings can segregate even in mono-ethnic countries.
The structural school of thought refuses to recognize that the present constitution is abused by legislators and executives from all ethnic groups and that corruption, abuse of power and criminality are human and not ethnic traits. Secondly, it ignores the error in its conclusion about problems of Nigeria being caused by ethnic groups rather than individuals. The school fails to see that the mono-ethnic and multi-ethnic countries have the same human problems (corruption, impunity, police brutality, lack of respect for the rule of law, intolerance, injustice and unfair distribution of resources, discrimination of minorities, etc.). Third, it fails to see a multi-ethnicity society as strength which had contributed to the success of countries like India, Canada, United States, Indonesia, Switzerland, South Africa, Britain, Brazil, etc. The fact about Nigeria is that there is no truly mono-ethnic group in the purest sense. For example, there are significant internal ethnic differences between a Yoruba man of Ife and Modakeke or an Igbo woman of Onitsha and Obosi, which are comparable to the difference between a Sunni and Shi’ite Bahrainis or catholic and protestant from Northern Ireland. If Nigeria breaks up today, which is not likely, I do not see an end to the number of countries that will emerge from it; since there are over 250 ethnic groups and within the major ethnic groups, there are several minorities. The second set of Nigerians are those in the school of thought that believes the behaviour and attitude of the people must be reborn, rather than division along ethnic nations which promote conflicts. It lays its credence against the illusion that multi-ethnicity is Nigeria’s problem and source of conflicts. It is against this assumption General Yakubu Gowon created more states (12) in 1976 from the original 3 regions, and the spiral continues to the current 36 states. Rather than solve the problems of bad leadership and corruption, it assumed creating more states along ethnic orientation will foster unity and accelerate development. However, the result is an over-bloated governance and more agitations. In spite of 36 states along ethnic lines, there are still minorities in several states who clamour for autonomy on the basis of ethnicity. This was manifested in the just concluded national conference, where 18 more states were proposed. This school argues that the solution to the problems that fuel conflicts and the desire for mono-ethnic ‘states’ are good governance, justice and equal opportunity, rule of law and other civil values and not structural balkanization of the country on the basis of ethnicity. The behaviour and attitude school says corruption and tyranny are not ethnic traits, but individual oness. Therefore, the country must evolve a system to deal with the issues and the people promoting this negative behaviour, and not their ethnic origin. That the way out of tribalism is emphasizing civilized values, addressing discrimination and injustices and building a common national identity. The question that begs for an answer according to the structural school is this: Would General Sani Abacha and Mr. Bode George (two known convicted corrupt leaders) be treated as heroes if their crimes were committed in Arewa Caliphate of the Hausa/Fulani North or Oduduwa Kingdom of Yoruba West or Biafra of the Igbo East? The answer is obvious. They are criminals irrespective of their origin, and their behaviour was not informed by ethnic orientation. However, they incite inter-ethnic conflict in order to evade justice. The school sees their behaviour (embezzlement of public funds) as the source of conflict and not their ethnicity. When a part of an unhappy union embarks on self-determination without addressing the root problems that are common to all the people of the country, they end up recreating the same problems that inspired their nationalism amongst the minorities of their new nation. This is exactly what the creation of states has shown in Nigeria.
There is enough evidence of the devastating effect of ethnic nationalism to convince most people that it would be a monumental mistake for Nigeria to ignore the damage ethnic nationalists are doing to her dreams of building a country united by civil values, equality and rule of law. The way out therefore, is that Nigerians need to be well-enlightened about the values that make for peaceful coexistence, whether or not they finally end up in Arewa Caliphate, Oduduwa Nation or Biafra Republic. The way out of tribalism in Nigeria, besides the above-mentioned, includes cultural reorientation on the beauty of diversity. This article calls on Nigerians, the government, and the African communities to focus on addressing the human factors (advanced above by behavioural and attitude schools) that are contributing to conflicts, underdevelopment and bad governance as against vilifying the beauty of their diversities. The current experience of South Sudan following her cessation from Sudan had created more internal conflicts along ethnic lines than she had anticipated.
OTHER PROPOSED WAYS FORWARD ARE:
The structural solution does not see Nigeria as a nation by using a very narrow and abstract definition of nation, and does not recognise the degree of integrations that has already taken place between the different ethnic groups through, marriage, religion, commerce and internal migration. This school advocates for a new constitutional arrangement on the basis of ethnicity and argues that multi-ethnic states are unstable and unviable. In fact, they dismiss the unstable mono-ethnic states of Middle East, and fail to acknowledge that there are other constructs on which human beings can segregate even in mono-ethnic countries.
The structural school of thought refuses to recognize that the present constitution is abused by legislators and executives from all ethnic groups and that corruption, abuse of power and criminality are human and not ethnic traits. Secondly, it ignores the error in its conclusion about problems of Nigeria being caused by ethnic groups rather than individuals. The school fails to see that the mono-ethnic and multi-ethnic countries have the same human problems (corruption, impunity, police brutality, lack of respect for the rule of law, intolerance, injustice and unfair distribution of resources, discrimination of minorities, etc.). Third, it fails to see a multi-ethnicity society as strength which had contributed to the success of countries like India, Canada, United States, Indonesia, Switzerland, South Africa, Britain, Brazil, etc. The fact about Nigeria is that there is no truly mono-ethnic group in the purest sense. For example, there are significant internal ethnic differences between a Yoruba man of Ife and Modakeke or an Igbo woman of Onitsha and Obosi, which are comparable to the difference between a Sunni and Shi’ite Bahrainis or catholic and protestant from Northern Ireland. If Nigeria breaks up today, which is not likely, I do not see an end to the number of countries that will emerge from it; since there are over 250 ethnic groups and within the major ethnic groups, there are several minorities. The second set of Nigerians are those in the school of thought that believes the behaviour and attitude of the people must be reborn, rather than division along ethnic nations which promote conflicts. It lays its credence against the illusion that multi-ethnicity is Nigeria’s problem and source of conflicts. It is against this assumption General Yakubu Gowon created more states (12) in 1976 from the original 3 regions, and the spiral continues to the current 36 states. Rather than solve the problems of bad leadership and corruption, it assumed creating more states along ethnic orientation will foster unity and accelerate development. However, the result is an over-bloated governance and more agitations. In spite of 36 states along ethnic lines, there are still minorities in several states who clamour for autonomy on the basis of ethnicity. This was manifested in the just concluded national conference, where 18 more states were proposed. This school argues that the solution to the problems that fuel conflicts and the desire for mono-ethnic ‘states’ are good governance, justice and equal opportunity, rule of law and other civil values and not structural balkanization of the country on the basis of ethnicity. The behaviour and attitude school says corruption and tyranny are not ethnic traits, but individual oness. Therefore, the country must evolve a system to deal with the issues and the people promoting this negative behaviour, and not their ethnic origin. That the way out of tribalism is emphasizing civilized values, addressing discrimination and injustices and building a common national identity. The question that begs for an answer according to the structural school is this: Would General Sani Abacha and Mr. Bode George (two known convicted corrupt leaders) be treated as heroes if their crimes were committed in Arewa Caliphate of the Hausa/Fulani North or Oduduwa Kingdom of Yoruba West or Biafra of the Igbo East? The answer is obvious. They are criminals irrespective of their origin, and their behaviour was not informed by ethnic orientation. However, they incite inter-ethnic conflict in order to evade justice. The school sees their behaviour (embezzlement of public funds) as the source of conflict and not their ethnicity. When a part of an unhappy union embarks on self-determination without addressing the root problems that are common to all the people of the country, they end up recreating the same problems that inspired their nationalism amongst the minorities of their new nation. This is exactly what the creation of states has shown in Nigeria.
There is enough evidence of the devastating effect of ethnic nationalism to convince most people that it would be a monumental mistake for Nigeria to ignore the damage ethnic nationalists are doing to her dreams of building a country united by civil values, equality and rule of law. The way out therefore, is that Nigerians need to be well-enlightened about the values that make for peaceful coexistence, whether or not they finally end up in Arewa Caliphate, Oduduwa Nation or Biafra Republic. The way out of tribalism in Nigeria, besides the above-mentioned, includes cultural reorientation on the beauty of diversity. This article calls on Nigerians, the government, and the African communities to focus on addressing the human factors (advanced above by behavioural and attitude schools) that are contributing to conflicts, underdevelopment and bad governance as against vilifying the beauty of their diversities. The current experience of South Sudan following her cessation from Sudan had created more internal conflicts along ethnic lines than she had anticipated.
OTHER PROPOSED WAYS FORWARD ARE:
·
Constitutional
amendment is needed to adequately address clauses that abrogate powers to
ethnic or regional structures. For example, the constitutional provision
(Section 147, subsection 3 of the 1999 constitution) mandates the appointment
of at least a minister per state. This has unleashed mini tribal wars in many
states.
·
There
is need for a fairer resources management formula that would be acceptable to
those who pay the human and environmental prize for Nigeria’s oil powered
economy;
·
Nigeria
must control corruption by making stealing impossible and prosecution swift and
certain. Meanwhile the judiciary must wake-up to the 21st century justice
system administration of criminal cases, particularly those that threaten
national security, such as corruption;
·
The
country must enthrone transparency and accountability in governance.
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSION
Nigeria is a multi-ethnic nation
with diverse cultural groups that are about three hundred in number. Rather
than harnessing our diversities towards viable national development, we have
become slaves to our ethnic origins to which our allegiance is largely focused
at the detriment of nation building. Fanatical ethnic consciousness
has resulted into ethnic prejudice and mistrust, religious and political
problems, and socio-cultural conflicts These vices have pervaded all spheres of
life in Nigeria, be it employment, education, religion and admission into federal
Institutions
Multi-ethnicity
is Nigeria’s problem and source of conflicts. It is against this assumption
General Yakubu Gowon created more states (12) in 1976 from the original 3
regions, and the spiral continues to the current 36 states. Rather than solve
the problems of bad leadership and corruption, it assumed creating more states
along ethnic orientation will foster unity and accelerate development. However,
the result is an over-bloated governance and more agitations. In spite of 36
states along ethnic lines, there are still minorities in several states who
clamour for autonomy on the basis of ethnicity. This was manifested in the just
concluded national conference, where 18 more states were proposed. This school
argues that the solution to the problems that fuel conflicts and the desire for
mono-ethnic ‘states’ are good governance, justice and equal opportunity, rule
of law and other civil values and not structural balkanization of the country on
the basis of ethnicity.
REFERENCES
Aluko MAO (2003). Ethnic Nationalism and the
Nigerian DemocraticExperience in the Fourth
Republic. Anthropologist, 5(4): 253–259.
Babangida (2002). Ethnic Nationalities and
Nigeria State. Excerpts from a Lecture delivered at NIPSS, Kuru, Jos.
Cohen A (1974). Urban Ethnicity. London.
Taristock Publications Ltd.
Crawford Y (1993). The Politics of Cultural
Pluralism. London. The University of Wisconsin Press.
Nnoli O (1978). Ethnic Politics in Nigeria.
Enugu. Fourth Dimension Publishing Co. Ltd.
Osadolor OB (1998). “The Development of the
Federal Idea and the Federal Framework, 1914 – 1960.” In Amuwo K et al. (eds). Federalism
and Political Restructuring in Nigeria. Ibadan.
Spectrum Books Ltd.
Osaghae EE (2001). “Ethnic Mapping Project: A
Brief Concept” In
Osaghae eds.) Ethnic Group and Conflict in
Nigeria. Ibadan PEFS,
Vol. 1.
Pepple IA (1985). Ethnic Loyalty and National
Identification. Conference Paper Proceedings on
Rural Resources and National Development University of Maiduguri, Nigeria.
Peil M (1977). Consensus and Conflict in
Africa Societies: An Introduction to Sociology Addison-Wesley
Longman Ltd.