CHAPTER ONE
1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
In Africa, colonial administration carved out boundaries that divided territories inhibited indigenous societies and brought together a diversity of ethnic communities within unitary administrators. Nicole (2002:7) noted that in Nigeria, between 1914 and 1915 the British colonial administrators created three regional territories that explained ethnic genesis and inter ethnic tensions: the Northern Nigeria occupied by Hausa/ Fulani, the Eastern Region habited by the Igbo, and the Western Region inhibited by the Yorubas.
Within this divisive colonial structure, ethnic tensions emerged between these unequally developed groups primarily in the 1950s. The colonial tripartite division of Nigeria prevented a Nigerian nationalist movement, manipulating geographical boundaries to reinforce co-operation between ethnic groups and transforming ethnicity into an identity by which to gain political power, this structure along with other administrative decision emphasized ethnic nationalism and colonial politics, resulting from significant uneven development within each region. (Cooper: 2002:10). The colonial division of Nigeria that reinforced ethnic groups, the rise of ethnic political consciousness, and the development of regional political parties demonstrated that the British administration intentionally prevented the rise and success of Nigerian nationalism, instead of promoting regionalism as a means of gaining political power.
Prior to the Nigerian independence in 1960, ethnic consciousness has infiltrated the Nigeria politics. For instance in 1951, the Yoruba converted the Egbe Omo Oduduwa which was Yoruba cultural organization to political party. Similarly in the same year the Northerners converted their Jamiyya Mutenen Arewa which was also a cultural organization to political party.
Years after Nigerian independence, the manifestation of this consciousness changed shape. There became an intense struggle for state power especially starting with the 1966 military coup. Different regional militaries have arisen to pursue their political interest. However, the emergences and violence in the pursuance of regional groups in Nigeria increased rapidly.
Boko Haram was founded as an indigenous salafist group, turning itself into a salafist jihadist group in 2009. It proposes that interaction with the Western World is forbidden, and also supports opposition to the Muslim establishment and government of Nigeria. The group publicly extols its ideology despite the fact that its founder and former leader Muhamed Yusuf was himself a highly educated man.
In the wake of 2009 Crackdown on its members and its subsequent re-emergence the growing frequency and geographical range of attacks attributed to Boko Haram have led some political and religious leaders in the North to the conclusion that the group has now expanded beyond its original religious composition to include not only Islamic militants but criminal elements and disgruntled politicians as well. No wonder Borno State Governor Kashim Shettima asserted that Boko Haram has become a franchise that anyone can buy into. Dr. Muazu Babangida Aliyu, the Niger State Governor has criticized the group saying “Islam is known to be a religion of peace and does not accept violence and crime in any form” and Boko Haram does not represent Islam. Similarly, the Sultan of Sokoto Sa’adu Abubakar, the spiritual leader of Nigerian Muslims has called on the sect “anti-Islamist” and as reported by the website allafriaca.com,“an embarrassment to Islam”.
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Nigeria is an unstable and volatile country. It is an amalgam of disparate nationalists with differing and contentions aspirations, hence regional militants and other problem associated with it has continued to be a major problem in Nigeria politics. It has been noticed that the fragility of the postcolonial states like Nigeria is so pronounced to the extent that it cannot mediate in the struggle between the contending regional group of state power. There has neen an intense struggle for state power in Nigeria since her independence especially starting with the 1966 military coup. Different regional militias have arisen to pursue their political interest including Boko Haram whom their activities or actions towards the acquisition of state power seem to have increased since the death of the former President Umaru Yar’Adua
There has been puzzles on who sponsor these terrorist group and why there is lack of consistency in what seem to be their aims and objectives which was first to fight the ills of Western education and Islamization of some Northern states. Recently following the actions of Boko Haram , one could say that disorganization of the present government and acquisition os state power for the North is one of their objectives.Some researchers have questioned the inability of Jonathan’s administration to curb or mitigate the Boko Haram actions . Scholars have made effort to link the relationship between the forces behind this group and the inability of Jonathan to mitigate their actions.Other researchers have concentrated their efforts on the level of violence in Nigeria political arena. This work however is an attempt to look at the causes of this intense political stuggle among and between the various regional groups in Nigeria Boko Haram as a case study. This attempt has necessitated the following research questions.
Do most actions of Boko Haram since the death of the former President of nigeria Umaru Yar’Adua
portray them as a political group?
Are the differences among the different ethnic goups in Nigeria implicated in the inability of Jonathan’s administration to mitigate the Boko Haram terror?
1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The broad objective of this study is Regional based militia and struggle for the state power in Nigeria: a case of Boko Haram, 2009-2014 . The specific objectives are as follows:
To ascertain if the activities of Boko Haram since the death of the former President Umaru Yar’Adua
To ascertain if different ethnic groups in Nigeria have beenaffected by the inability of Jonathan’s administration to mitigate Boko Haram terror in Nigeria.
1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY
Theoretically, this study is that it would contribute to the existing literature on power struggle among the major ethnic groups in Nigeria. The study will state with instances how ethnicity , power struggle and structural imbalance, monopoly of political power by a section of the ethnic groups and unequal distribution of economic resources in Nigeria has continued to pose a great problem to the political stability in Nigeria.
Empirically , it will try to proffer solution and recommendations to the social phenomenon of power struggle among the regions in Nigeria. Practically , these solutions if heeded by the President and heads of Federal Ministries and Parastals, senators , governors, legislators, government officials , students of political science, will serve as curative measure to the malady under discourse.
1.5 LITERATURE REVIEW:
The concepts or regionalism , ethnicity or ethnic nationalism are not new in the Nigerian context, however, it has taken new dimension. With the introduction of regional and ethnic militia in the Nigerian political system, a new method of terror and violence has been introduced in the pursuance of regional interest by various regions and ethnic group in Nigeria.
With this background, this review will look at the writings of different authors on the context of regionalism in the Nigerian politics and its latest development, regional militias and their contribution to the political instability, which dominated Nigerian political system over the years.
Regionalism and other problems associated with it have been a major threat to in Nigeria. This problem has its taproot from the colonial era and has persisted and grown tremendously. According to Madiebo (1980:3):
“The federation of Nigeria as it exists today has never really been a homogenous country, for its widely differing people’s tribes are yet to find out any basis for true unity. This unfortunate,yet obvious fact notwithstanding the former colonial master had to keep the country one in order to effectively contact his vital economic interst concentrated mainly on the more advance and “politically” unreliable South. Thus for administrative convinence Northern and Southern Nigeria became amalgamated in 1914 . therafter, the only thing those people had in common becomes the name of their country. That alone was an insufficient basis for true unity .
From the above assertion, one will understand or trace the origin of regionalism and ethnicity in Nigerian politics that has been the root cause of potent disunity in Nigerian politics . There was never an intention among the various ethnic groups to unite as one country rather they were covered into it. Prior to this period of unification, the various groups exist peacefully on their own and sticking to their various culture and traditions.
However , the forced unity brought competition, hatred and disunity between and among various groups as they were forced to interact and relate in purely stance manner. The discovery of oil changed the nature of competition for power in Nigeria to include wealth. The wealth of its oil deposits makes Nigeria particularly attractive for investment for Texaco, Shell and other foreign companies. This internal power struggle is largely dependent on the phenomenonof ethnicity . which has been the bone of contention as it affects the federal structure in Nigeria.
Ikejiani and Ikejiani (1986:1) , observed that it has been the practices, of anthropologists popularized by colonial official journalists and missionaries , to define the ethnic national inhabitants of Africa as they define those of Nigeria as “tribes” . The word tribe connotes a primitive small group of people ruled by a chief.
In ethnological literature , ‘tribe “ designates a small unit enmeshed in one kingship network and organized for collective auction. In describing the ethnic/national groups in Nigeria, they have abstained from the use of the word “tribe” for indeed Nigeria is inhibited by various ethnic/national groups who themselves are nations in their own right .
Nnoli (1978:9) went further in asserting that ethnicity is a social phenomenon associated with some form of interaction between the largest possible cultural linguisitic communal groups within political societies such as nation states, arises when relations between ethnic groups are competitive rather than co-operative . It is characterized by cultural prejudice and socio-economic and political discrimination. According to him (1978:10) underlying principles of ethnicity or ethnocentrism, identify, and a common consciousness of the group and exlusiveness of its members is a phenomenon linked to terms of affiliation and identification built around ties of real or putative kingship.
Nichele (1996:6) noted that after the British left Nigeria, tensions surfaced among ethnic groups , which persist till today. The government , which succeeded the British, was headed by the Hausa, who resided in the Northern section of Nigeria. The Hausa has a feudal system of government closely resembling that of British monarchial system , which lead to some doubts of the true and of colonial influence.
The result of this tension that existed among the ethnic groups resulted to regional strife and political conflicts, which wrecked the first republic , culminating in the assassination of two regional premiers, which precipitated a military takeover in 1966. From the earliest times, it could be seen that ethnicity has been viewed in terms of groups setting and associated with the idea of nationhood , which more or less poses a greath threat to Nigerian federation
Peterson, Novak and Gleasor , (1982:1) , argues that the word ‘ethnic”, is derived via latin from the Greek “ethnos” which means “ nation” or “race”. Various definitions of ethnicity build this by adding the idea of common denominators , so to speak, that underlies this option.
Suberu (1996:7) sees ethnicity generally as a :
Social collectivism whose e members not only share such objective characteristics as language ,core territory, ancestral myths, culture , religion and /or political organization, but also have some objective consciousness or perception of common descent or identify.
This subjective sense of common identity is however almost always developed only in context involving relationship among two or more ethnic groups. In other words , ethnic unity result from contact rather than isolation.
Thomson (2000:58) defined an ethnic group as a “ community of people who have the action that they have the conviction that they have a identity and common fate bases on issue of origin of relationship or ties, traditions, cultural uniqueness, a shared history and possibly a shared language. Toland (1993) basically agrees with Thomson in her coneption of an ethnic group but takes it in a more step further by adding a sense of belonging on the individual level “ethnicity is the relationship of people hood held by members of a group sharing a common culture and history within a society.
Diamond and Plattner(1994:x vii ) regards ethnicity as a :
High inclusive (and relatively large –scale ) group identify based on some notion of common right recruited primarily from kingship and typically namifesting some measure of cultural distinctiveness.
Folala ( 1999:5) observed that as a result of boundary demarcations during the colonial period , Nigeria as a political entity was created in 1914-a multi-ethnic nation consisting of more than 2000 ethnic groups speaking over 250 languages. The three main groups are the Hausa/fulani, Yoruba, and Igbo, who comprise roughly 28% , 20% and 17% of the population respectively. Although these groups interact with one another before the colonial era, they were not primordial societies, and the artificiality of the British-drawn boundaries contributed to the social construction of these ethnic groups so much so that, the creation of these ‘tribes’ are entirely linked to the era of British colonial rule (Thomson , 2000:66) . Each of these groups stabilizes in a distict geographical region that closely resembles the administrative boundaries of the colonial period. The Northern region is home to the Hausa, and as the Northern Protectorate, was administered through indirect rule with Fulani emirs as intermediaries.
Faola (1999:68) observed that after previously being run as two separate administrative groups, the Western region dominated by the Yoruba and Eatern region, mainly populated by the Igbo, were combined in 1906 to form the Southern protectorate and eventually joined with Northern protectorate to establish a single Nigeria. Given this distinct regional administrative pattern, and identify with these separate regions, as this was rational way to lobby the colonial parties for recourses.
Suberu in Diamond a Plattner (1994: 57) noted that the uneven modernization and differential administration of the protectorate under colonial rule ( coupled with artificial boundaries ) engendered strong regionalist pressures for the introduction of full-fledged federalism” to replace the unitary (albeit decentralized ) colonial administration in 1954, this transition finally occurred with inauguration of a federal framework, which secured autonomy and hegemony for the Hausa /Fulani , Yoruba and Ibo in the Northern ,Western and Eastern regions respectively.
From the above discussion and in line with the purpose of this work, it is clear that the question of regionalism, ethnicity ethnic conflict , and power struggle among the major ethnic groups in Nigeria underlies the problems that Nigeria has faced and currently continues to face. Whoever, discussing the activities of regional militias towards the acquisition of state power is major concern especially as it concerns BOKO HARAM. Scholars have continued to address this as religious groups while others blame poverty and unemployment as the root cause of BOKO HARAM attacks on Nigerian state. For instance, according to Femi (2011:35), Poverty and Unemployment;
Poverty and unemployment increase the number of people who are Prepared to kill or to be killed [suicide bombers] for a given course at a taken benefit. [vanguard, 10 march, 2012]
The above assertion, stressed that unemployment creates avenue for people who are ready to form dirty work for rich and powerful people in the society. Similarly, the Research director of the Nigeria Economic summit group, Dr. Sope Williams Elegbe (Oxford Research Group 2013:12), summarized the root causes of the crises in the North.
The increasing poverty in Nigeria is accompanied by increasing unemployment. Unemployment is higher in the North than in the South. Mix this situation with radical Islam, which promises a better life for Martyrs, and you can understand the growing violence in the North. Government statistics show that the Northern states have the highest proportion of uneducated persons. If you link the lack of education and attendant lack of opportunities to the male youth population, you can imagine that some areas are actually a breeding ground for terror.
The above arguments summarizing the incidence of BOKO HARAM and high insecurity in the North as only a product of poverty, unemployment and radical Islamism.
Similarly Jonah Onuoha [2008:73].stated that;
Since the state is the main employer of labor and distributor of social amenities, lack of access to it means losing everything.
Thus, inter-group wars are reflections of the competing materials interests of the various groups in society within the context of scarce resources. In competing for the seizure of state power ethnic or tribal identity and solidarity are merely used by the elite members of ethnic groups as a means of mobilizing groups for cooperate actions against other groups. Jonah
This view by Jonah Onuoha shows that he understand that most ethnic crises in Africa in general and Nigeria in particular is caused by political interests projected by different ethnic groups which clashes at the centre. However, he still toed the lines of other scholars when he concluded that unless the issue of mass poverty is urgently addressed, inter-group wars will remain endemic in Africa.
He further argued that;
State disengagement and economic liberalization as recommended by the SAPS resulted in the emergence in most African countries, ethnic oriented politics-financial mafia groups.Each trying to control the economy , imposes conditions on the activity of multinational corporations as a form of reparation for their unemployment and woes. Thus Rwanda, Burundi, Angola, Mozambique , Congo Brazzaville, training, equipping and deploying their own ethnic militia as a strategy for survival.
This position also shows that ethnic strife cannot be explained outside globalization. In Nigeria, the three main ethnic groups have quietly developed and supported their own militia. In North, there exists the APC i.e. Arewa people’s congress, in the West, they have the OPC i.e. Oodua People’s Congress, and in the East, there exists the Bakassi’s boys.
Conclusively, while different scholars have suggested different reasons for the emergence and proliferation of ethnic militia, such as poverty, unemployment, radical Islamism and globalization etc.this work will however close a gap in literature by exposing the hidden political interests in the Boko Haram activities.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The group theory is used for analysis in this study. The intellectual roots of the group theory lie in the doctrine of pluralism as developed by a number of writers.
The origin of the group theory in the present goes back to Arthur F. Bentley, the success of government, 1908…. It was also revived in the later forties and early fifties by Daniel uman , Earl Lathan and other writers as the possible basis for a theory of politics and was used in the analysis of legislative actions (VarmaS.P.1975:247).
Group theorist focused on the collection and not upon individual in their attempt to cover the real basic forces of politi al life. They see power interest, and conflict as the main rambles in the systematic systematic study of politics. They argue that the interest is the primary propelling race and that every action is based upon sharing of interest power configuration is seen as physically the configuration of competing interest organixed into groups.
In this connection, ideology, values, the state, the formal organixation of political vision making and the content of decisions are determined by the dynamic interplay of interest group forces. Group theorist believes that society comprises of dynamic process (activities and merely specific institutions (structures or substantive content values). The study of politics and political behaviour for them is all about the analysis of these groups and their competing interests. As Bentham put it when the groups are adequately stated, everything is red means that wheb groups are stated, their interest will be adequately attended to but that does not mean that all group interest can be attended to but the most important one will be attended to.
Legislation, politics and administration are the product of group conflict. Lathen , puts it succinctly: the legislature referees the group struggle, ratifies the victory of the success and records the lost in forms of the surrenders, compromises and the conquest in the form of status . S.P Varma (VarmaS.P.1975:247).supports this view and maintains that administration is the process of carrying into effect the treaties that the legislature have negotiated and ratified and the bureaucrats can be compared to armies of occupation left in the field to police the rule, won by the victorious coalition
TO GET THE FULL PROJECT , PROCEED TO PAY:
#5000
TO ACCOUNT NO: 6171742627
BANK: FIDELITY
FOR BARGANININ OR FURTHER ENQUIRIES CALL OR WHASTAP +23407064532617