Chapter One

Introduction

1.1 Background of the Study

Nigeria is a multi-ethnic nation-state with socio-cultural differences among its component ethnic
groups all of which have resulted into cultural dissimilarities. These cultural dissimilarities have
been manifested by, the differences in culture which may include language, diet, dress and type
of social system. 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 politico-economic development of the country (Otite1990).
The term ethnicity and ethnic group are derived from the Greek word ethnos normally translated
to mean nations. The term refers currently to people thought to have common ancestry who share
a distinctive culture.
An ethnic group is a group of people whose members identify with each other through a common
heritage consisting of a common culture including a shared language or dialect. The process that
results in the emergence of ethnicity is called ethno genesis.
Among the first to bring the term “ethnic group” into social sciences was the German sociologist
Marx Weber (1922) who defined it as those human groups that entertain a subjective believe in
their common descent because of similarities of physical type or of customs or both, or because
of memories of colonization or migration; this belief must be important for group formation,
furthermore, it does not matter whether an objective blood relationship exists. Weber maintained
that ethnic groups are artificial i.e. a social construct because they were based on subjective
belief.
Nnoli (1978) defines ethnicity as a “social phenomenon associated with (communal) competition
among members of different ethnic groups”. While ‘ethnic groups’, are social formations
distinguished by the communal character of their boundaries and membership especially
language, culture or both, with language constituting the most crucial variable in Africa.

1
Nnoli points to the following features of ethnicity: i Ethnicity exists when a nation-state is
characterized by multiple ethnic groups; ii Ethnicity is characterized by an element of common
consciousness vis-à-vis other ethnic groups; iii Ethnicity leads to the formation of
inclusive/exclusive groups and attitudes; iv This in turn leads to prejudice, discrimination and
outright hostility (Nnoli, 1988).

Cox (1970) sees ethnicity or ethnic group generally as a socio-cultural entity “while inhabiting
the same state, country or economic area, consider themselves biologically, culturally,
linguistically or socially distinct from each other and most often view their relation in actual or
potentially antagonistic terms” Azeez (2004) sees ethnicity as a sense of people hood that has its
foundation in the combined remembrance of past experience and common aspiration.

1.2 Statement of the problem

Unarguably, Nigeria is a country that is blessed with enormous human and material resources,
but ironically, the same country has become the bastion of inequitable state policies, injustice,
barefaced corruption, social decay, poverty-ridden, etc., where ethnicity has pervaded every facet
of the Nigerian life, and more fundamentally determines who gets what, when and how
(Lassswell,1950).

Ethnicity has been considered to be the cause of the 1967-1970 Civil War in Nigeria, elections
which have been rigged and those which have failed can be blamed on ethnicity, the
manipulation of census figures can only be understood from the ethnic dimension. The problem
of ethnicity is inherent in the Nigerian political system. This factor of ethnicity developed as a
result of the colonial activities which isolated the public and masses from the benefits and
convenience/security of the system, thus, leaving the people with little or no choice than to seek
comfort, security and material as well as socio-psychological support and sense of belonging
from their various ethnic organizations/associations. This spate of ethnic arrangement led to the
formation of ethnic driven political parties and militia groups to promote, represents and protect
their primordial interest.

2
Furthermore, competition for scarce resources has been the more common bases of ethnic
consciousness and tensions. This competition include in areas like land, boundary, natural
resources and also for political power and control. In the political sphere and in relation to
political development, especially in areas like elections, formation of political parties, voting in
elections and support for candidates, the impact of ethnicity cannot be over emphasized.
Politicians seeking mass support found out that the only platform on which they can win the
votes of the masses or appeal to the interest of the populace is to appeal to communal cries and
sentiments rather than universalistic appeal and ideology. This explains the process of political
party formation over the years.

1.3 The objectives of this research work include

i) To assess the impact of ethnic politics in Nigeria’s political development
ii) To investigate and recognize the role of ethnicity in Nigerian politics
iii) To proffer possible solutions to the menace of ethnic politics in Nigeria.

1.4 Research Questions

Therefore, this study seeks to provide answers to the following questions
i) What are the effects of ethnic politics in Nigeria’s political development?
ii) Why has ethnicity persisted in Nigerian politics?
iii) What factors encourage ethnicity and ethnic politics in Nigeria?
iv) In what practical ways could this ethnic coloration be contained?

1.5 Scope and Limitation of the Study

This study intends to evaluate the role of ethnicity in the security challenges of Nigeria’s fourth
republic. The study is limited to the entire nation; specifically during fourth republic.
In the course of the research work, the researcher encountered some problems. One of the
problems is the uncooperative attitude of some respondents. The researcher found it difficult to
gain access to the respondents so as to distribute questionnaires during research. Some
respondents were reluctant in filling the questionnaires and this affected their responses. The
other problem the researcher encounter is the financial constraints.

3
1.6 Significance of the Study

The results of the study may add to the existing body of knowledge on the Nation’s security
policy. More specifically the study may assist the government with policy recommendations that
may be applied to improve on how Nigeria will regain its lost thrust, respect and relevance back
in the eyes of international communities.

The study opines that there was a major shift insecurity policy during the fourth republic than the
previous republics.

4
 Chapter Two
Literature Review

2.0 Introduction
This chapter introduces the literatures reviewed in this study. There are as follow:
The amalgamation of Nigeria, Ethnicity in Nigeria’s Democracy Ethnicity and the Struggle for
participation in Nigeria, Participatory Democracy in Context, over centralization and the
Defective Federal State, Security and theoretical Frame of Work

2.1 The Amalgamation of Nigeria

The nation Nigeria is the brain child of the amalgamation of the northern and southern
protectorates by the British colonial administration under the watch of Sir Fredrick Lord Lugard
in 1914. This process brought about the merging of people of diverse belief and culture into a
single entity. The amalgamation of the northern and southern protectorates was done in the
“wisdom” of the colonial power masters to promote national unity and integration. However, the
decision to amalgamate the protectorates have been criticized by authors, commentators and
researchers as being ill advised and self -serving of the British. It is believed that members of the
protectorates were not consulted on the planned merger (Nwaoga, Nche & Olihe, 2014). This
view is echoed in the comment of Awolowo (1947) who said that “This proclamation goes a long
way to portray the frustration of persons of divergent cultural and religious beliefs who are
forcefully and unwillingly joined in an unholy union. In consonance, Thompson in Achebe
(2012) opined that “….the amalgamation of the southern and northern protectorates, inextricably
complicated Nigeria's destiny. Animists, Muslims and Christians alike were held together by a
delicate, some say artificial lattice”. According to Ojo (2014), “ The result of this unholy union
have resulted in the continuous state of disunity, political instability, general insecurity of lives
and property, mutual suspicion and distrust among the diverse ethnic nationalities that make up
the geographical entity called Nigeria.

In line with the above, Adetoye and Omilusi (2015) observed that
Nigeria is not a nation. It is a mere geographical expression. There are no “Nigerians” in the
same sense as there are “English,” “Welsh” or “French.” The word 'Nigerian' is merely a

5
distinctive appellation to distinguish those who live within the boundaries of Nigeria from those
who do not.” the systemic forceful unappealing catastrophic and uncongenial institutionalized
querulous cementation of divergence caste artificially orchestrated and certificated by the
British colonialism mainly to ease the challenge of onerous task in socio-political milieu of
Nigeria has underscored sore Achilles heel engraved with irrevocable creation of indelible
pauperization of Nigerian political web consequent in a state of passivity and fait accompli. The
incompatibility of multi-diverse ethnic configuration has fuelled the acidulous ember
manifestation of rigmarole, cataleptic, catatonic and chaotic political arrangement of Nigeria
while identity politics becomes a prodigious threat to the sustenance of Nigerian.” The result of
this unholy union have resulted in the continuous state of disunity, political instability, general
insecurity of lives and property, mutual suspicion and distrust among the diverse ethnic
nationalities that make up the geographical entity called Nigeria.

In line with the above, Adetoye and Omilusi (2015) observed that the lack of cohesiveness in the
nation's polity has been demonstrated by the trenchant call for Sovereign National Conference in
some parts of the country, resource control as well as persistent wave of political, inter-ethnic
and sectional violence. The authors further averred that some groups saw the return to
democracy as an opportunity to express grievances. These expressions of grievances has led to
the occurrence and re-occurrence of ethno-religious and political conflicts. In consonance, Ojo
(2014) opined that the unjust and unequal sharing of socio-political and geographical landscape
Intentionally manufactured by British administration that called for Northern region domination,
leaving the southern region in lassitude in political investment of Nigeria has generated a
longstanding debate. The author further observed that the southern region has lagged behind in
the cringe worthy political representation which called for cautionary tale in the political
processes of Nigeria. This has recently led to the increased agitation of the Biafran state through
the broadcast of radio Biafra. The subsequent arrest of Nnamdi Kanu who is adjudged to be the
operator of radio Biafra has heightened the political protest in most towns in the South-East and
South-South geopolitical zones of Nigeria.

6
In the North East geopolitical zone of Nigeria, Boko haram have continuously and persistently
slaughtered and killed thousands of Nigerian citizens in cities and villages in Adamawa, Borno
and Yobe states. Despite the December deadline given to the Nigerian
Military by President Mohamed Buhari, the insurgent group have continuously attacked the
populace in the Nigeria especially in the states in the North East. The most disheartening is the
use of innocent and young females as suicide bombers in their mindless and senseless actions. In
a separate development in Benue state, the cattle breeders and farmers have constantly been at
loggerhead.
These situations have claimed the life of hundreds on both side of the divide. It is disheartening
to note that the parlance “One Nigeria” is a mere farce that is not imbedded in the heart of many
Nigeria. It is sad to note that the country Nigeria is just the amalgamation of different ethnic
groups who are detached in believes and moral, hence the “we versus them” attitude.

Conflict is a universal feature of human society. It takes its origins in economic differentiation,
social change, cultural formation, psychological development and political organization all of
which are inherently conflictual and becomes overt through the formation of conflict parties,
which come to have, or are perceived to have, mutually incompatible goals. This is why Adetoye
and Omilusi (2015) stated that conflict entails struggle and rivalry for objects to which
individuals and groups attach importance. In their description of components of conflicts;
Osagbae and Suberu (2005) opined that the material objects in relation to conflict may include
scarce resources like money, employment, and position including political ones, promotion in
both the private and public organizations. The non-material objects include culture, tradition,
religion and language. The identity of the conflict parties, the levels at which the conflict is
contested, and the issues fought over (scarce resources, unequal relations, competing values)
may vary over time and may themselves be disputed. Conflicts are dynamic as they escalate and
de-escalate, and are constituted by a complex interplay of attitudes and behaviours that can
assume a reality of their own.

Third parties are likely to be involved as the conflict develops, and may themselves thereby
become parties in an extended conflict. In another vein, Galtung (1967) proposed an influential
model of conflict that encompasses both symmetric and asymmetric conflicts. He suggested that

7
conflict could be viewed as a triangle, with contradiction (C), attitude (A) and behaviour (B) at
its vertices.

In a symmetric conflict, the contradiction is defined by the parties, their interests and the clash of
interests between them. In an asymmetric conflict, it is defined by the parties, their relation- ship
and the conflict of interests inherent in the relationship. The conflictual attitude includes the
parties' perceptions and misperceptions of each other and of themselves. This can be positive or
negative, but in violent conflicts parties tend to develop demeaning stereotypes of the other, and
attitudes are often influenced by emotions such as fear, anger, bitterness and hatred.

Attitude covers emotive (feeling), cognitive (belief) and conative (desire,will) elements.
Behaviour is the third component. It can involve cooperation or coercion, gestures signifying
conciliation or hostility. Violent conflict behaviour is characterized by threats, coercion and
destructive attacks. Analysts who emphasize objective aspects such as structural relationships,
competing material interests or behaviours are said to have an instrumental view of the sources
of conflict. All the three components have to be present together in a full conflict. A conflict
structure without conflictual attitudes or behaviour is a latent (or structural) one. Galtung saw
conflict as a dynamic process in which structure; attitudes and behaviour are constantly changing
and influencing one another. As the dynamic develops, it becomes a manifest conflict formation,
as parties' interests clash or the relationship they are in becomes oppressive. Parties then organize
around this structure to pursue their interests.

They develop hostile attitudes and conflictual behaviour. And so the conflict formation starts to
grow and intensify. As it does so, it may widen, drawing in other parties, deepen and spread,
generating secondary conflicts within the main parties or among outsiders who get sucked in.
This often considerably complicates the task of addressing the original, core conflict. Eventually,
however, resolving the conflict must involve a set of dynamic changes that mean de-escalation of
conflict behaviour, a change in attitudes, and a transformation of the relationships or clashing
interests that are at the core of the conflict structure. A related idea due to Galtung (1990) is the
distinction between direct violence (children are murdered), structural violence children die
through poverty) and cultural violence (whatever blinds us to this or seeks to justify it). We end

8
direct violence by changing conflict behaviour, structural violence by removing structural
contradictions and injustices, and cultural violence by changing attitudes.

2.2 Ethnicity in Nigeria's Democracy

Ethnicity should be seen as arising in any situation where a group of people, no matter how
small, with different cultural and linguistic attributes from those of its neighbours; uses this as
the basis of solidarity and interaction with others. In so doing, the group sees itself not only as
distinct, but as a "group in itself and for itself (Anugwom, 200). In other words, socio-cultural
consciousness of oneness develops and forms the basis of interaction with and participation in
other socio-cultural processes, especially in power and resource allocation, within a larger social
group or state. And this consciousness is most crucial in the definition of an ethnic group.
Ethnicity implies the fact that the group feels ethnocentric towards others; that is, it sees other
groups as relatively inferior and more or less as rivals. This feeling brings about certain attitudes,
which distort reality and breed subjectivity in the evaluation and perception of events. Ethnicity
is also characterized by a common consciousness of being. And this factor, more than any other,
defines the boundary of the group that is relevant for understanding ethnicity at any point in time
(Nnoli, 1978). Ethnicity, in addition, often contains an obscured class component.

In this sense, it becomes a tool for the elite members of society to hold on to their privileges.
Ethnicity, according to Nnoli in Akindiyo (2013) is a social phenomenon that is associated with
interactions among members of different ethnic groups. Nnoli explained that ethnic groups are
social formations distinguished by the communal character of their boundaries. The author noted
that such groups may be distinct in terms of language, culture, or both. According to Nnoli,
language has clearly been the most crucial dividing factor in Africa and Nigeria in particular.
Nigeria is undoubtedly a plural society with different ethnic groups, religions, languages,
cultures and institutional arrangements. As a heterogeneous society, 374 ethnic groups have been
identified each interacting with one another in competition for power and wealth. This has
resulted into ethnic conflict (Salawu & Hassan, 2011). The history of ethnic conflict in Nigeria
can be traced back to the colonial and post- colonial era.

9
Ojo (2014) posited that the colonial tripartite division of Nigeria prevented a Nigerian
nationalistic movement, manipulating geographical boundaries to reinforce separation between
ethnic groups and transforming ethnicity into an identity by which to gain political power; this
structure along with other administrative decisions emphasized ethnic nationalism and regional
politics, resulting from significant uneven development within each region.

According to Ebegbulem (2011), colonial division of Nigeria that reinforced ethnic groups, the
rise of ethno-political consciousness, and the development of ethnic/regional political parties
demonstrated that the British administration intentionally prevented the rise and success of
Nigerian nationalism, instead promoting ethnic nationalism as a means to gain political power. It
is believed that Lord Frederick Lugard's 1914-18 constitutional exercises, which resulted in the
amalgamation of the separate protectorates of Southern Nigeria and Cameroon with the
protectorate of Northern Nigeria, were carried out without any explicit consent from Nigerians.
As a result of this action, Okoye (2005) opined that provinces and other divisions were created
according to the wisdom and convenience of imperial British officials. This influenced the ethnic
consciousness of Nigerians.
The wave of ethnic crisis in the country can also be traced to the creation of three regions by the
British government using the two major rivers, the Niger and the Benue rivers to divide the
country into three geographical units, namely, the North, East and West.
The unjust nature of the division is encapsulated in the words of Ojo (2014) who averred that the
“division exacerbated the country's ethnic problems. Firstly, the regions were not equal; the
Northern region was the size of the Eastern and Western regions combined.

Secondly, the three regions were created without due consideration of minority groups that
abound in these regions”. The division of Nigeria into three regions in 1946 by Richard
Constitution for administrative convenience was directly associated with the three major ethnic
groups – Yoruba, Hausa and Igbo. 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. It was still the AG, NCNC, NPC and other minor parties like the
Northern Elements Progressive Union (NEPU) by Aminu Kano; and United Middle Belt

10
Congress (UMBC) led by Joseph Tarka. There was no radical departure 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 Second Republic that regionalism was played down a bit. And it was
because the 1979 constitution stipulated that for a political party to be registered, it must be
national in outlook. 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 AG
which metamorphosed into Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN), Nnamdi Azikiwe controlled the Igbo
speaking areas under Nigeria's People Party (NPP), which is an offshoot of the old NCNC.
National Party of Nigeria (NPN) dominated the Hausa-Fulani areas; Peoples Redemption Party
(PRP) in Hausa speaking while Great Nigeria Peoples Party (GNPP) led by IbrahimWaziri
controlled the Kanuri speaking area. Therefore, ethnic affiliation played out in political party
formation and operation during the 2nd Republic.

James (2011) asserted that voting patterns equally followed ethnic lines in the elections. It
Akindiyo (2013) pointed out that political parties formation had a different dimension in the
Third Republic which was led by President Ibrahim Babangida's 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. In the Fourth
Republic, ethnic colouration has reared its ugly head. The All Nigeria's Peoples Party (ANPP),
Alliance for Democracy can still be traced to Hausa-Fulani and Yoruba ethnic groups. 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. The amalgamation of political parties like the Action Congress of
Nigeria (ACN), All Nigeria's Peoples Party (ANPP), Congress for Progressive Change (CPC)
and a faction of the (APGA) gave birth to All Progressive Grand Alliance (APC) in February
2013.APCcame on board as a party of unity, the goal of which is to change and wrestle power
from the Peoples Democratic Party. It appeared that majority of Nigerian bought the political
manifestos of the APC, this resulted in the emergence of President Mohamoud Buhari in the

11
2015 presidential elections. However, this union has not dulled the feeling of ethnicity in
Nigeria's politics.

2.3 Ethnicity and the Struggle for Participation in Nigeria

That the Nigeria state as a composition of so many identities is not a coincidence, rather it is as a
result of its historical construction by the colonial master. Although, the Nigerian nationalist
were pessimistic on the foundation on which the Nigerian state was built. The fact that Nigerians
were forcefully integrated by the British against their wish and the lack of understanding of
identities by the different ethnic groups further confirms this pessimism. According to Arazeen
and Saka (2007), the union of ethnic groups in Nigeria through the 1914 amalgamation was a
marriage of inconveniency because the whole process was conceived and executed without due
respect to and for social-cultural and political differences embedded in the political, economic
and social structures of the wedded couple. The pessimism observed was reinforced by the
reality of pre-colonial identity construction where identity was mobilized along ethnic and sub-
ethnic line against migrant settlers who were displaced either by natural occurrence, war,
artificial boundary and lack of resources which continue to generate conflict due to the
discrimination against the immigrants by the original settlers (Osaghae & Suberu, 2005). For
example Modakeke migration to Oyo due to the internecine wars in Yoruba land crisis, Urhobo
and Ijaw into Warri where the Itsekiri people claimed to have been the original settler; the
migration of the Jukun-Chamba from Cameroun to the present day Taraba state, originally
settled by the Kuteb and the settlement of Hausa merchants in Zangon-Kataf within a territory
occupied by the Kataf (Isomounah, 2003). As earlier stated, colonialism was the cradle of
ethnicity in Nigeria (Nnoli,1978), and a key factor in the crystallization of contemporary
identities. (Osaghae & Suberu, 2005)

The amalgamation of the Northern and Southern Nigeria in 1914 was basically for the economic
interest of the British rather than a deliberate attempt at integration of identities. This has
generated blame on colonialist as being responsible for the woes of the country. Whether
colonialist are to be blamed for ethnicity problems in Nigeria or not the truth however is that the
amalgamation of Nigeria promoted modern economic opportunities in emerging colonial centre

12
leading to the influx of people from the Yoruba and Igbo into northern cities such as Kano, Jos,
Kaduna and Zaria and also people from the North to the southern cities like Lagos and Ibadan.
The British reaction was to prevent inter- ethnic tension by creating a culturally artificial political
entity called “Strangers Quarters” or “Sabon- Gari” for preventing non-Muslims immigrants
from interacting with Muslims in the North. Similarly, the same policy also applied to Muslim
from interacting with Christians in the South. The sense in this is to prevent the destabilizing
effect of the cultural incursion of other identities. Coleman (1958) characterizes this new
artificial colonial construction as “aggregation of tribal unions” where these associations
provided members of their ethnic group with social security and welfare generally denied them
by the colonialists and equipped them to compete with other members of other ethnic group. This
eventually allows the ethnic group to coalesce into panethnic national organization such as the
Igbo Federation Union (later Igbo state Union), Egbe Omo Oduduwa (organization of the
descendant of Oduduwa and the mythical founder of Yoruba race) and the Jamiyyah Mutanen
Arewa (Northern People's Congress).

The implication of this transformations and ethnic alienation from one another became one of the
strong bases for conflictual identity formation and discriminatory practice as could be seen in the
ethno- religious crisis inKano in 1953 and 1966,Maitatsine religious crisis in 1980, Faggae inter-
religious violence in 1982, Behead the Infidel-Allah Akbar conflict in1994, Jos-Pleateau
Carnage in 2001, In support of Afghanistan” the ethno-religious killing in 2001, Sharia crisis in
2000.(Abdu, 2011). In Southern part of Nigeria, the Shagamu reprisal attack in 1999 and myriads
of ethno-religious conflict in Lagos, Ibadan and many other places in the southern part of the
country. The ethnic segregation strategy of identity integration of the colonialist was further
exacerbated by the establishment of federal structure of three units. That is the North region,
West region and East region. The regional structure was constructed to accommodate the
identities of the major ethnic formation, Hausa-Fulani, (North) Yoruba (West) and Ibo (East)
without adequately capturing the ethnic minority components in the major ethnic group.

In another vein, the establishment of the federal structure led to the incessant minority agitation
for their own autonomy and the growing feelings of nationalism among these groups. Since the
federal structure does not ensure the protection and security of the minority interest, their

13
agitation became deepened. According to Osaghae and Suberu (2005), the federal arrangement
encouraged an enormous degree of ethno-regional polarization as the imbalances tripartite ethno-
regional structure even with the creation of Mid-Western state) collapsed into bipolar north-south
confrontation. The post- colonial Nigeria had witnessed two contradictory tendencies.

The first is the continuation and aggravation as well as proliferation of colonial conflict legacies.
The second is the tendency in post- colonial Nigeria to manage identity conflict through
federalist practice. The aggravation of ethnic identity after independence in Nigeria was due to
the lopsided federal structure which eventually implicated on the violent ethno-political
discontent prevalent during the post-colonial Nigeria. Indeed the incessant disenchantment and
frustrations of the ethnic minority under the federal structure accounted for the Tiv riot 1962
1964 the secessionist campaign of Isaac Adako Boro and his Ijaw group.

Other ethno-regional conflicts were also expressed through the Census crisis of 1963/63, 1964
federal election, sectional military intervention and the counter coup of 1966. Rather than the
lopsided structure of the Nigerian federalism to be restructured by addressing the minority
question through the creation of sub-federal regional units, the crisis of the federation was
deepen with unification decree leading to the attempted secessions of the Biafra republic and the
eventual outbreak of 30 month civil war. The aftermath of the civil war was the relative period of
peace and stability for the country in terms of ethnic conflict. The stability was a measure of
transformation of the federation into a horizontally balanced union.

The dissolution of the four region into twelve state and nineteen respectively, the use of oil
revenue to douse inter-group resource conflict through ethno-distributive measures, including
(provision of infrastructure in the new state administrative capital and the expansion of the
general distributive pool account (DPA) under the revenue allocation system) and innovative
statutory mechanism of ethnic conflict accommodation (federal character principle and the
interregional distribution requirement for the election of the federal republic). In spite of the
measure of stability during this period, it was still mark by semblance of sectional tension as
dispute over 1973 and 1975 killing of the head of state was the flash point.

14
However, the relative peace and stability enjoyed during the period was broken by the Maitatsine
which claimed lot of lives and the Kafanchan-Kaduna ethno-religious crisis which reawaken the
age long Muslim and non-Muslim tension in the North. The Nigeria military as a stabilizing
force to the manifestation of ethnic nationalism were able to curtailed and bottle up the
aggravated ethno-religious and regional diversities in the country between 1983-1999,
suppressing the diverse tendencies and maintain the corporate existence of the country through
creation of more states and review in revenue allocation formula as well as the sub-regional
creation of the six geographical zone. The military however were not immune from the ethno-
nationalist aggravation which has remained a dominant factor in Nigeria politics (Duruji, 2010).
The perception of some section of the society is that the military is serving the interest of the
Hausa- Fulani major ethnic group since they dominate the military institution of Nigeria
exercising hegemony over its major institutional structure of the security apparatus of the state
(Fatai, 2012). This has further exploded and increased contemporary ethnic tension and identity
relation in Nigeria.

Fatai (2012) believed that the emergence of democracy in 1999 opened up the democratic space
for ethnic expression and transformation which hitherto had been bottled up by the Military and
authoritarian regime before 1999 Nigeria. One of the most appealing aspects of democracy as a
system of governance is the expendable system of rights that must be guaranteed, even though it
brings with it its peculiar sets of problem (Duruji, 2010) The peculiar problem becomes more
obvious in a multicultural compositional society because while managing identities problem in a
multi-ethnic society poses a challenge, the truth however is that democracy offers opportunities
for groups to express their feelings and putting their demand across to the state irrespective of
their diversities. By this democracy is seen as the instrumentality for addressing monopolization
of power by 'single ethnic group' or a 'group of ethnic groups' in the country as well as the
restoration of political stability in a multi-ethnic society. The Hausa-Fulani hegemony and the
marginalization of other ethnic group during the military era was the issue that dominates the
national political discourse prior to 1999.Of the 50 years rule, the military had rule for 29years
and the Hausa-Fulani ethnic extraction has, had more benefit from the federal power at the
expense of other ethnic groups.

15
The tactical alienation of the Ibo in the federal power on account of their suspicion after the
Biafra attempt at secession by the federal government had continue to be a source of agitation on
the part of the Ibo major ethnic group. More generally the North/South divide shows a picture of
a marginalized south given the control of the political machinery of the state by the North over a
long period of time: for instance the annulment of the June 12 1993 election acclaimed to have
been won by MKO Abiola believed to be Yoruba's opportunity for the presidency also raises
issues on the deliberate scheme of the Hausa-Fulani major ethnic group to hold on to power at
the expense of other major ethnic group. The event of 1993-94must be seen in the context of an
enduring pattern of ethnic antagonism and inequality where the Hausa-Fulani is perceived as
'other' (Adebanwi, 2004). Duruji (2010) asserted that this situation is a negation of democracy
which gives equal opportunity for political contestants without restricting anyone. This view
goes to argued that democracy is not a panacea for resolving ethnic contestation, for democracy
will be undermine in a multi-ethnic society where majority interest are as important as those of
the minority interest. The democratic opening therefore provides the plat form and space for the
resurgence of long- repressed demand for the restructuring of the Nigeria federation on a more
equitable basis and calling to question the domination of the Hausa-Fulani hegemony. The
emergence of ethnic militant organization was seen as platform for bringing into the open
complaints that were previously mouthed with hushed tones, thanks to the transition to
democracy (Ubani 2006). The manifestation of insurgencies in the name of ethnic militia such as
Oodua People's Congress (OPC),

Egbesu Boys of Africa (EBA) Arewa People's Congress (APC) (While the first two were keen
on the restructuring of the Nigerian federation (based on the outcome of sovereign national
conference) to allow for autonomy, self-determination, resource control and social emancipation
(Fatai, 2012), the third APC is keen on maintaining the status quo and preventing the
marginalization of the North. The impoverish condition due to the neglect and marginalization of
the Niger-delta region where the country major resources-oil is been generated has also spiraled
minority ethnic militant groupings, such as the Ijaw Youth Council (IYC)-which arose from the
Ijaw National Congress), the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger-Delta (MEND) which
arose from the Niger-Delta Volunteer Force (NDPVF) and the Federated Niger Delta Ijaw
Communities (FNDIC). These militant groups predicated their struggle on resource control and

16
regional political autonomy. The phase of their struggle has however changed with time as their
struggle against the Multinational Corporation later change to targeting the state and its national
heritage. Apart from the prevalence of ethnic militant, there was also flashpoint of sectarian and
communal clashes. Hardly as the democratic government settled down that Ijaw/Itsekiri clashes
exploded, Ife/Modakeke, Kaduna and Jos were all evidence of communal and identity clashes in
1999. These crises were further compounded by the Sharia crisis in the North, pitching the
Christians against the Muslims and put to test the secularity of the Nigerian state (Obi, 2000). As
Obi suggested, Nigerian democratic space is hotly contested terrain, which partly feeds into the
interrogation of the hegemonic nation state project and the escalation of violent conflict across
the country.

While some of these ethnic group have been appeased with innovative federal principles such
principle of derivation (13percent as in the case of the Niger-delta state, Development
Commissions and Amnesty) and power sharing quota system to foster equitable distribution and
opportunity among diversities in the country, the government has sustained a long pattern of
repression of local resistance demanding for autonomy, by unleashing the might of the state to
suppress these ethno-nationalist manifestations. The incidence of Odi Massacre, Zaki-biam,
Onitsha Gbaramutu Nigerian troops raze down the town in a manner not conformities with rule
of law, were indicative of the repressive tendencies of ethnic agitation by the state. The story is
not different in the South East were the agitations of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) is
getting stronger and violent each day. More recently is the clash between Fulani herdsmen and
farmers in villages in Agatu Local Government of Benue State where over 300 persons were
confirmed. These ethnic conflicts have heightened the feeling of miss giving between the masses
and select political class. A scenario were citizens of the country are feeling left out and out of
touch with the goings and policy direction of the country. This situation calls for a democratic
system that encourages participation of its citizenry in issues of governance.

2.4 Participatory Democracy in Context

Democracy generally can be defined as government of the people by the people. This is
intricately linked with the participation of the people. According to Offor (2006), democracy is a
system of government in which every individual participates in the process of government

17
maximally or minimally. Young (2000) cautioned that in principle each member of society in a
democracy should be able to exercise his or her vote in broader terms when it comes to affecting
change: 'Only in a democratic political system, do all members of a society in principle have the
opportunity to try to influence public policy' (Young, 2000). This orientation takes cognisance of
the reminder by Fung (2006) that when in contemporary democratic contexts 'there is no
canonical form or institution of direct public participation' the task becomes to understand the
feasible and useful varieties of participation.

This means that participatory democracy would entail that democracy entitles each individual
citizen to speak and be heard – a notion that is not necessarily conducive to determining the
running of a state. It may also be out of tune with the complexities of running contemporary,
complex national political systems. Participatory democracy cannot be viewed without referring
to the process of deliberative democracy. Participation is one matter, ability to influence another.
The process of deliberation entails that all parties are allowed sufficient time within which to
argue its particular viewpoint. In this regard, Abayomi (2010) opined that participatory
democracy is a process emphasizing the broad participation of constituents in the direction and
operation of political systems.

However, participatory democracy tends to advocate more involved forms of citizens

participation than traditional representative democracy. In another vein, participatory democracy
is used with reference to a community in which every citizen is recognized as both enabled and
encouraged to participate directly and actively in the dialogues and practices which define, build,
and sustain the common life, the general will' (Roelofs, 1998). Roelofs further noted that
participatory democracy encompasses deliberation and action. In this sense, deliberation involves
participants taking positions, exchanging information, and possibly changing their minds.
Roelofs nevertheless still recognizes that the individual's right to exercise his or her political
power is more about 'community' within a state, than about direct influence on the power
machinations of the upper echelons of decision making. Yet, part of the appeal of this
participatory democracy is in being acknowledged as part of the process, or as active in the
process of exercising democratic muscle. It is important to note that participatory governance is
not equal to representative democracy, which is understood as the regular election of members of

18
Parliament, of provincial legislatures or councils. Rather, it refers to the manner in which the
elected bodies, and in particular the locally elected ones, govern between elections. It also refers
to a set of structural and procedural requirements to realize 'community participation' in the
operation of local government. Thus, 'community participation', more commonly known as
'public participation', is one of the objectives of the legislation, and 'participatory governance' is
the mechanism through which this is to be realized.

Pithouse (2006) supported those who argue for protest to be regarded as public participation. Part
of his argument is anchored in the reality of structural violence that is manifested in massive
poverty and inequality. He refutes common perceptions that public participation requires
transformation into civil society organizations that aim at professionalized engagement in official
opportunities for public participation. He also goes further and suggests that the road to
successful public participation is closely linked to establishing democratic protest outside of the
organizations of party and state.

The author notes that participative democracy can be achieved through the following modes:
1. Community-engagement participation. This mode of participative democracy relates to a
range of important phases of the policy process and governance, and has a bearing on
engagement with members of both the political and the bureaucratic spheres of government. It is
also extended participation, because these initiatives often involve participation that helps bolster
the conventional channels of representation. It brings executives, legislatives, bureaucrats and
citizens together to help address developmental issues that might have become neglected in the
processes of more conventional representation and participation.

This mode of participative democracy may be manifested upon request and initiative by
government, or be of a more spontaneous nature. It may emanate from community and/or NGO
initiatives. It relates to the notion of indirect or representative democracy. In this situation, the
populace might be satisfied with having their interests represented by their elected members of
government, across the respective spheres.

19
In this mode, civil society members could regard the formal processes as ineffectual, and feel
that pressure, protest and mobilization are the required forms of policy participation.
. Most citizens, in some form or another, receive government and policy-related information.
This would be either directly from government media, or from the mass electronic and print
media on government. Citizens may use this information to try to become more active
participants in public affairs. The author holds that an assessment of participatory democracy in
Nigeria needs to take account of, in broad terms, (a) conventional 'participation in democratic
processes and institutions' (including elections), (b) participation in deliberative, specifically
designed processes to add to the impact of conventional political participation, and (c)
unconventional processes of public participation that further supplement and complement the
more mainstream activities. This will create a feeling of belongingness amongst the diverse
ethnic affiliations in the country.

2.4.1 Pre-Independence period (1914-1959)

During colonialism, the colonial masters relied and made use of force as an instrument of Sub-
during and subjecting the local people in exercising and furthering their parochial interests.
This consequently was threatening to the indigenous people who were compelled to seek and
seek and look for assistance and survival in the traditional solidarity groups such as the ethnic
and national groups thus: the beginning of ethnic identification, affiliation, and nationalism.
The ethnic groups at this time served as the only way or stand of resistance to colonialism.
“Nigerians individually and collectively tend not to have allegiance to the state imposed by the
British in 1914…Hence, most Nigerians irrespective of their nationalist claims have the tendency
to first identify with their ethnic root before identifying themselves as Nigerians” (Kalu, 2004).
Ethnic consciousness gradually graduated into political consciousness because, ethnic /urban
associations were able to provide the required leadership to the rural dwellers and above all
political enlightenment. Also, these ethnic associations provided a platform for nationalist
activities in the country as the first nationalist movement to oppose British colonialism.

2,4. 2 Post –Independence period (1960-2011)

Ethnicity still dominated the political scenario after the 1960 independence on Nigeria. The
political parties remained regionally based and when the then leader of the Action Group (AG)

20
Chief Obafemi Awolowo attempted to expand the horizon and reach of the party to a national
level, he received opposition from his very own deputy Chief S. L. Akintola who believed that
the party should continue to maintain their regional symbol and sustain their grip on the ethnic
factor and sentiments. This conflict of ideology eventually led to the breakup of the party and the
formation of the United People’s Party (UPP) by Chief S. L. Akintola which later aligned with
the NCNC and became the regional premier. The entry of the military after the military coup of
15 Jan. 1966 which brought Major General Aguiyi Ironsi as the new Head of States was believed
to be ethnically inspired. The July 1966 coup was perceives as ethnocide against the Igbo
residents in the Northern region. The two coups apparently led to the civil war in 1967

The second republic was not free from ethnicity, though military doused ethnic tensions, but it
failed to suppress ethnic consciousness among the populace. Ake opines that the military failed
to stem the tide of ethnic consciousness partly because of its blockage to democracy.
Contrarily due to the coercive nature of military rule and its arbitrary power people were
generally alienated from the state and cleave to traditional solidarities and this was also
transferred into the second republic.

Another major event which portrayed ethnicity in Nigeria was the annulment of the 1993 general
elections by General Babangida which was widely believed to have been won by Chief Abiola.
This annulment was widely interpreted as a calculated attempt to sideline the Southerners from
the corridor of power in Nigeria by the Hausa/Fulani ethnic group. This was greeted by a
widespread rage and civil unrest in the Southeast and led to the transfer of power to the interim
government of Chief Ernest Shonekan a Yoruba.
The bloodless coup of 1993 took over power and abolished all democratic institutions. The
resistance to the Abacha junta served as a unifying factor for various ethnic groups in Nigeria.
In recent times, when looking at the political scenario of Nigeria, we can see ethnicity as
apparently a negative value, given that it has contributing nothing but disunity in diversity as
ethnic groups are regarded closer and ethnic interest are seen as utmost priority over national
interest. Yet ethnicity when viewed in a different perspective could be regarded as a positive
value because it exemplifies unity in diversity. The Nigerian existence points to the fact that

21
despite numerous and varying ethnic groups, ethnic militia movements, and recurring ethnic
violence for over fifty years, the country still operates and there is still political continuity.

Across the length and breadth of Nigeria, ethnic factor and consideration in politics, economic,
social and academic matters cannot be avoided. Politics in Nigeria is ethnic oriented; political
parties have ethnic consciousness and pursue ethnic interest differently from the national
interests. The ethnic factor or ethnicity is more often than not the ground on which presidents are
elected, governors voted, ministers appointed, contracts awarded and even national policies
decided. The socio-political belief is that one can only get himself or herself to power at the
centre through ethnic connections or by fanning the embers of ethnicism. This has led to the
formation of ethnic militia which refers to the extreme form of ethnic agitation for self
determination as various ethnic groups assume militant posture and gradually metamorphose into
militia groups with each having its own unique problems, plans, strategy, aims/objectives as well
as ethnic identity and acts as the machinery through which the desires of its people are
articulated and sought to be realized.

2.5 Over centralization and the Defective Federal State

The overconcentration of power and resources in the federal government is perhaps the most
widely lamented feature of the Nigerian federal system today. This over centralization has
resulted from the extended periods of military rule in the country, the heavy reliance of the
political economy on centralized oil revenues, the popularity of centralist philosophies and
strategies of development and the weak commitment of key elites to the practice of democratic
decentralization. Among other consequences, this ”extreme centralization” has led to the virtual
abrogation of truly federalist institutions and values, the destructive competition for the control
of the central governmental machinery (especially the federal presidency), the loss of financial
coherence and discipline at the federal level, the extreme dependence of the states and localities
on federal developmental patronage and financial largesse and, consequently, the persistent
communal pressures for new, federally-funded units of state and local government (Olowu,
1990).

22
For the ethnic minority communities, in particular, over centralization has led to such
inauspicious and obnoxious outcomes as the erosion of the autonomy and security that genuinely
federalist arrangements assure for minorities, the inordinate appropriation by the centre of the
resources of the oil-rich Delta minority communities, and the direct and often counter-productive
intervention of central authorities in those local and regional issues, such as the determination of
local government boundaries, that are best left to subnational authorities or communities.

MOSOP, for instance, claims that the fundamental problem of Nigeria is the centralization of
state and economic powers which has led to the abject marginalization and impoverishment of
minority groups and to some extent other non-ruling groups” (The Guardian, 27 June 1994:5).
Similarly, a communique issued, during February 1994, by S.A. Asemota, Graham Douglas,
Edwin Clark, George Innih and other prominent southern ethnic minority elites, advanced the
”general opinion...that repeated military intervention and dictatorship had fully established
unitary government in Nigeria, which was exploited by the three largest ethnic nationalities to
the utter neglect of the interest of the small nationalities, especially the Southern minorities” (The
Guardian, 6 February 1994:A20).

It is sometimes argued that a strong central state apparatus is needed if government is to

intervene decisively to enforce, or prevent abuses of, ethnic minority rights at the subnational
level. This argument would appear to be validated by Nigeria’s experiences during the late
sixties, when the abrogation of the centrifugal regional system, and the consolidation of
centralized federal powers, helped to secure the autonomy and dignity of Nigeria’s marginalized
regional minorities. Nevertheless, the unchecked concentration of powers at the federal level has
opened up the political process to excesses and abuses which invariably have harmed politically
excluded or inadequately included segments, especially the ethnic minorities. Furthermore, given
Nigeria’s relatively centralized ethnic structure (with three ethnic groups predominating), it is
inevitable that political processes at the federal level will revolve largely around the
accommodation of the interests of the ”big three”, at the expense of the consideration and
conciliation of the interests of the more fragmented ethnic minority groups.

In essence, it is on a decentralized structure of federalism, rather than upon a hegemonic central

state apparatus, that Nigeria’s minorities must rely for the protection and promotion of minority

23
rights. Genuine decentralization at all levels of governmental authority would give minority
communities the autonomy and security they need to protect their rights from being eroded by
the hegemonic machinations of the bigger ethnicities. To be effective in the Nigerian setting,
such decentralization should encompass both political and economic devolution.

2.5.1 Political Decentralization: This would entail a comprehensive decentralization of the

federal system in order to endow the nation’s constituent segments with the opportunities and
resources needed for self-governance. Such decentralization does not imply an endorsement or
legitimation of ethno-confederal, secessionist or other destructive and divisive centrifugal
formulas. As many of the ethnic minority communities themselves have acknowledged, given
their small size and extreme heterogeneity, the minorities may have little to gain from ethno-
confederal or secessionist arrangements, which tend to favour only homogeneous large ethno-
regional groups. Moreover, because ”ethnic identities are multiple and fluid, shifting up or down
in scale depending on the political context, the problems of ethnic conflict in developing
countries are rarely solved by changing the composition of the nation” (Diamond, 1987:212).
Hitherto subtle differences within minority communities can be manipulated to engender new
and unending cycles of destructive fragmentation and dissolution. Furthermore, as Amitai
Etzioni (1992-93) has eloquently argued:

The world may well survive the creation of many more toy states... But what meaning does self-
determination have when minuscule countries are at the economic and military mercy, even
whim, of larger states—states in whose government they have no representation at all...? As a
rule,...we should encourage groups to work out their differences within existing national
communities.... Governments that face ethnic challenges ... should be urged to provide more
local autonomy and more democratic federalism in order to prevent dissolution.

In essence, political decentralization in the Nigerian setting would entail the politico-economic
empowerment of the country’s anaemic and virtually moribund state and local governments, the
divestment of the central government of many of its current ”extraneous” responsibilities which
derogate from the autonomy of the subnational governments, and the transformation of the
present barely concealed unitary system into a more authentic system of federalism.

24
This decentralist political reform should extend beyond the formal structures of federalism to
embrace the system of traditional governance. In other words, traditional authority systems
which institutionalize or entrench relations of unequal exchange and internal colonialism
between communities should be reconstituted and reformed in order to give greater freedom,
protection and dignity to the inequitably incorporated communities. Thus, ongoing agitations for
new chiefdoms and/or districts among minority communities in northern Nigeria should be
treated with far more sensitivity and sympathy by the government than is currently the case.

2.5.2 Economic Decentralization: Political decentralization must be complemented with

economic decentralization. The tight control which the federation currently exercises over oil
revenues should, for instance, be relaxed to give the oil producing communities a greater share of
the resources exploited in their regions. Mineral rents, in particular, should accrue directly to the
oil-producing communities involved, rather than to the central government. Furthermore,
revenue sharing arrangements should not only devolve greater resources to the subnational
authorities, but should give greater weight to the principles of internal revenue generation effort
and derivation in sharing revenues among these authorities. Such horizontal revenue sharing
principles should help not only to reduce the grievances of the oil-producing sections, but also to
encourage a greater degree of economic coherence and efficiency among Nigeria’s financially
anaemic state and local government units. In the words of some southern ethnic minority
delegates at the 1994 National Constitutional Conference:

To release the resource potentials of states and propel them towards self-actualisation, emphasis
must shift from the politics of allocation to the reality of generation. In this regard, the rights of
the states to exploit and develop their resource potentials must be guaranteed by the Constitution.
Accordingly, the notion of looking up to the centre for succour in terms of ’need’, ’population’,
size of landmass’ or ’water mass’ must now be laid to rest [in favour of the derivation principle]
(Vanguard, 2 October 1994).

All this is not to say that resource-poor regions will be penalized, and further impoverished, or
that the central government will relinquish its responsibility for ensuring even regional
development in the country. Rather, it is to say that emphasis should be placed on the need to
reward truly economically efficient subnational units, mobilize the productive resources of the

25
nation and endow the oil-producers with the resources necessary to redress almost forty decades
of criminal neglect, while the current divisive sectional struggles over national ”cake-sharing”,
which have done a lot to distort the operation of the Nigerian federal system, should be officially
discouraged.

While the oil producing communities must be allowed to control a larger share of the resources
exploited in their regions, the Federal Government should continue to respond to the special
ecological circumstances and concerns of these communities. Indeed, the achievement of long-
term stability in the oil-producing areas will require a concerted campaign by the Government
and the oil companies to ensure that oil exploration activities conform to minimum universal
standards of ecological safety. Furthermore, the constant struggle and contest for state control in
Nigeria- between and among ethnic groups wearing the masks of political parties corresponds
with the claim and idea of the group theory that no group has a claim on the general will of the
people.

2. 6. Security

According to Omoyibo and Akpomera (2013), security is a concept that is prior to the state, and
the state exists in order to provide that concept. Security is the prime responsibility of the state
(Thomas Hobbes, 1996). The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria specifically
states that “The security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government”.
Unfortunately, government on this constitutional responsibility has failed to provide a secured
and safe environment for lives, properties and the conduct of business and economic activities.
The alarming level of insecurity in Nigeria has fuelled the crime rate and terrorists attacks in
different parts of the country, leaving unpalatable consequences for the nation’s economy and its
growth. To address the threat to national security and combat the increasing waves of crime the
federal government in the 2013 budget made a huge allocation to security, and the national
assembly passed the Anti-Terrorism Act in 2011 (Ewetan, 2013). Despite these efforts, the level
of insecurity in the country is still high, and a confirmation of this is the low ranking of Nigeria
in the Global Peace Index (GPI, 2012). Despite the plethora of security measures taken to
address the daunting challenges of insecurity in Nigeria, government efforts have not produced
the desired positive result. This has compelled the Nigerian government in recent time to request

26
for foreign assistance from countries such as USA, Israel, and EU countries to combat the rising
waves of terrorism and insecurity.

Amidst the deteriorating security situation in the country, Nigeria is also confronted with
daunting developmental challenges which pose serious threat to socio-economic development.
These developmental challenges include endemic rural and urban poverty, high rate of
unemployment, debilitating youth unemployment, low industrial output, unstable and
deteriorating exchange rate, high inflation rate, inadequate physical and social infrastructure,
very large domestic debt, and rising stock of external debt (Ewetan, 2013)

According to the National Bureau of Statistics, Nigeria’s unemployment rate increased to 23.9
percent in 2011 compared with 21.1 per cent in 2010 and 19.7 per cent in 2009. The country has
a youth population of 80 million, representing about 60 per cent of the total population with a
growth rate of 2.6 per cent per year, and the national demography suggests that the youth
population remains vibrant with an average annual entrant to the labour force at 1.8 million
between 2006 and 2011. In 2011, 37.7 per cent of Nigerian were aged 15-24 years and 22.4 per
cent of those between ages 25 and 44 were willing to work but did not get jobs. The current level
of social insecurity is alarming and unacceptable. The United Nations Children’s Fund reports
that every day, Nigeria loses about 2,300 under-five year olds and 145 women of childbearing
age, making the country the second largest contributor to the under-five and maternal mortality
rates in the world. A greater proportion of the population do not have access to pipe borne water,
health care facilities, electricity and affordable quality education. Although Nigeria is a signatory
to the UN resolution on the MDG goals the attainment of these goals by 2015 remains elusive
and doubtful (Ewetan, 2013).

There are divergent approaches to conceptualizing security which is the antithesis of insecurity.
The failure of economic growth in most developing and developed countries of Latin America
and Africa, in the late 1970s, to deliver corresponding social goods and solve problems of
unemployment, poverty, disease, hunger, illiteracy and ever increasing crimes and wars,
necessitated the new thinking, and redefinition of development from economic growth centered
perspective to human centered approach (Nwanegbo and Odigbo, 2013). In this light Chandler

27
(2007) sees development as a broader concept that recognizes psychological and material factors
that measure human well-being. Development therefore is a multifaceted phenomenon and man
centered. It is the process of empowering people to maximize their potentials, and develop the
knowledge capacity to exploit nature to meet daily human needs (Rodney, 1972; Nnoli, 1981;
Ake, 2001). The transformation of the society and the emergence of new social and economic
organizations are critical indicators of development (Stiglitz cited in Nwanegbo and Odigbo,
2013).

28
Socio-economic development is a product of development and can be defined as the process of
social and economic transformation in a society. Socio-economic development embraces
changes taking place in the social sphere mostly of an economic nature. Thus, socio-economic
development is made up of processes caused by exogenous and endogenous factors which
determine the course and direction of the development. Socio-economic development is
measured with indicators, such as GDP, life expectancy, literacy and levels of employment.
Changes in less-tangible factors are also considered, such as personal dignity, freedom of
association, personal safety and freedom from fear of physical harm, and the extent of
participation in civil society. Causes of socio-economic impacts are, for example, new
technologies, changes in laws, changes in the physical environment and ecological changes.

Scholars have identified strong links between security and development since the cold war ended
(Nwanegbo and Odigbo, 2013; Chandler, 2007). They argued that development cannot be
achieved in any nation where there are conflicts, crisis and war. There is a consensus in the
literature that security and development are two different and inseparable concepts that affect
each other, and this has naturally triggered debates on security-development nexus (Chandler,
2007; Stan 2004).

2.6.1 Origin and Causes of Insecurity in Nigeria

According to Ali (2013) the fear of insecurity in Nigeria is on the increase and this has been
compounded by the rising waves of terrorism since the country returned to democratic rule in
1999. Violent crime has a root and history in Nigeria, and could be traced back to the period
from 1960 to 1970. At independence in 1960 a federal structure was imposed on Nigeria by the
British. Wheare (1963) conceptualizes federalism as a constitutional division of power between
two levels of government which are independent and coordinating in their respective spheres of
influence. Unfortunately, the federal structure bequeathed to Nigeria at independence did not
conform to Professor K.C. Wheare‟s tenets of federalism as a system of government where two
levels of government exist each sovereign in its sphere of jurisdiction (Awotayo et al, 2013). The
incursion of the military into governance, and the consequent imposition of military command
structure in a federation set the tone for the distortion of Nigeria’s federalism. Thus the practice

29
of federalism in Nigeria no doubt has been distorted by overwhelming dominance of the federal
government that distributes national resources to lower level government at its own whims and
caprices (Ewetan, 2011).

Since independence, the demand for true federalism, fiscal and political restructuring by different
ethnic nationalities in Nigeria has not abated. These agitations have contributed to violent
rebellious reactions by aggrieved ethnic groups in the country, endangering the security, unity,
and corporate existence of Nigeria as one country. Federalism that undermines the independence
and autonomy of its federating units will only bring about conflict, threat to national cohesion
and peace, and ultimate disintegration (Ali, 2013; Adamu, 2005)

Insecurity challenges can be traced to the early years of military rule when large quantities of
arms were imported into the country for the use of the military during and after the Nigerian civil
war, some of which got into the hand of the civilians. Soon after the civil war these arms were
used by civilians and ex-military men for mischievous purposes such as armed robbery. There
was also the army of unemployed youths some of whom lost their job during the civil war. The
level of insecurity assumed dangerous dimensions in the prolonged years of military rule
beginning from 1970 during which people procure arms and light weapons for personal defence.
Some of these arms and light weapons got into the hands of unemployed youths who used them
for deviant purpose. While some researchers attribute youth violence to peer group influence and
other psychological factors associated with growing up, others emphasized the impact of
political and economic factors such as ethnic agitation, political agitation, unemployment,
Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) as triggers of violent reaction among the youth.

30
Many scholars have identified several causes of conflict and insecurity in Nigeria that are
inimical to socio-economic and national development (Ali, 2013; Okorie, 2011; Jega, 2002;
Salawu, 2010; Onyishi, 2011; Ezeoba, 2011; Lewis, 2002). These causes have been classified
into external and internal causes. In Nigeria the internal causes of insecurity pose major
challenge to socio-economic development than the external causes of insecurity. This paper
therefore focuses on the internal causes of insecurity in Nigeria. These causes include:

Ethno-religious Conflicts: These conflicts are caused by suspicion and distrust among various
ethnic groups and among the major religions in the country. Ethno-religious conflict is a
situation in which the relationship between members of one ethnic or religious and another of
such group in a multiethnic and multi-religious society is characterized by lack of cordiality,
mutual suspicion and fear, and a tendency towards violent confrontation (Achumba et al. 2013;
Salawu, 2010). The frequent and persistent ethnic conflicts and religious clashes between the two
dominant religions (Islam and Christianity) is a major security challenge that confronts Nigeria.
Since independence, Nigeria appears to have been bedeviled with ethno-religious conflicts.
There are ethno-religious conflicts in all parts of Nigeria and these have emerged as a result of
new and particularistic forms of political consciousness and identity often structured around
ethno-religious identities (Ibrahim and Igbuzor, 2002).

Ethno-religious violence is also traceable to the inability of Nigerian leaders to tackle

development challenges, and distribute state resources equitably. Other causes are accusation,
and allegation of neglect, oppression, domination, exploitation, victimization, discrimination,
marginalization, nepotism and bigotry. In all parts of Nigeria, ethno-religious conflicts have
assumed alarming rates. It has occurred in places like Shagamu (Ogun State), Lagos, Abia,
Kano, Bauchi, Nassarawa, Jos, Taraba, Ebonyi and Enugu State respectively. These ethno-
religious identities have become disintegrative and destructive social elements threatening the
peace, stability and security in Nigeria (Eme and Onyishi, 2011).

31
Politically Based Violence: Nigeria has a long history of politically based violence since the
collapse of the first republic on January 14, 1966, and the incursion of the military into
governance that same date. The electoral politics in Nigeria right from 1960s till date have been
characterized with violent conflicts, political thuggery, assassinations, and arson. Politicians in
Nigerian do not accommodate dialogue, negotiation and consensus (Eme and Onyishi, 2011).
Political contests are characterized by desperation, and violent struggle for political power
among politicians. Recurring political violence in Nigeria could be attributed to over-zealousness
and desperation of political gladiators to win elections or remain in office at all cost. These
misadventures have often been catastrophic leading to decimation of innocent lives, disruption of
economic activities, and the destruction of properties among others.

Systemic and Political Corruption: This is a twin evil and hydra-headed monster that has held
the Nigerian state captive. This has contributed to government failure and breakdown of
institutional infrastructures. The state of insecurity in Nigeria is greatly a function of government
failure, traceable to systemic and political corruption. It has added another dimension of violent
conflicts which has eroded national values. Corruption is bad not because money and benefits
change hands, and not because of the motives of participants, but because it privatizes valuable
aspects of public life, bypassing processes of representation, debate, and choice. It has been
described as cancer militating against Nigeria‟s development, because corruption deeply
threatens the fabric of the Nigeria society (Nwanegbo and Odigbo, 2013). Corruption hampers
economic growth, disproportionately burdens the poor and undermines the effectiveness of
investment and aid (Iyare, 2008).

Economic-Based Violence: It is also referred to as “political economy of violence”. Eme and

Onyishi (2011) note that, in recent writings in the mass media, much emphasis is laid on the role
of resources in generating conflict which is a major cause of economic-based violence across the
globe and across political divide. Cries of resource control and revenue sharing regularly rent the
air between proponents and opponents also leading to violent agitations among the contending
actors and between the state and proponents. The Niger-Delta crisis in Nigeria presents a classic
case of this violent struggle that has been on since the end of the Nigerian civil war in 1970.
These violent agitations have claimed many lives of Nigerians and foreigners, military and para-

32
military personnel, and properties worth billions of naira. It has also resulted in economic
misfortune in Nigeria through loss of oil revenue as a result of shortfall in crude oil exports by
the oil companies occasioned by disruption of oil exploration activities by the Niger-Delta
militants.

Although by no means limited to oil in the Niger Delta, the most prevalent campaign about the
link between resources and conflict in Nigeria focuses on oil and the Delta region. No doubt oil
has given rise to vertical and horizontal conflicts between National, State and society or between
dominant and subordinate geopolitical zones, classes and groups across Nigeria, given the
pivotal role that oil plays in the political economy, and power relations in Nigeria.
It is however true those other types of resource driven conflicts have received less attention in
the debate. Assets such as grazing and farming, and water resource, have tended to give rise to
horizontal conflicts that involve communities across the geo-political zones.

Pervasive Material Inequalities and Unfairness: A major factor that contributes to insecurity
in Nigeria is the growing awareness of inequalities, and disparities in life chances which lead to
violent reactions by a large number of people. There is a general perception of marginalization
by a section of the people in areas of government development policies, political patronage, and
these are triggers of disaffection, resentment, and revolt (Achumba, et al. 2013). The incessant
strikes by labour, professional groups and demonstrations by civil society groups are mainly due
to pervasive material inequalities and unfairness. Their agitations are aimed at drawing public
sympathy for their struggle for just and fair treatment by the government.

Unemployment/Poverty: According to Adagba et al (2012) unemployment/poverty among

Nigerians, especially the youths is a major cause of insecurity and violent crimes in Nigeria. In
particular youth‟s unemployment have contributed to the rising cases of violent conflict in
Nigeria. Also, one of the major causes of insecurity in the country is the failure of successive
administration to address challenges of poverty, unemployment, and inequitable distribution of
wealth among ethnic nationalities.

33
Organized violent groups: Organized violent groups such as ethnic militia, vigilantes, secret
cults in tertiary institutions and political thugs contribute significantly to security challenges in
Nigeria in different dimension and forms. Their emergence have been linked to a number of
factors which include the culture of militarism that has its antecedents in military rule, the failure
of the state and its institutions, economic disempowerment, the structure of the state and
Nigeria‟s federalism, non-separation of state and religion, politics of exclusion, culture of
patriarchy, ignorance and poor political consciousness (Ibrahim and Igbuzor, 2002 as cited in
Eme and Onyishi, 2011).

Weak Security System: This is a major contributory factor to the level of insecurity in Nigeria,
and this can be attributed to a number of factors which include inadequate funding of the police
and other security agencies, lack of modern equipment both in weaponry and training, poor
welfare of security personnel, and inadequate personnel (Achumba et al. 2013). According to
Olonisakin (2008) the police-population ratio in Nigeria is 1:450 which falls below the standard
set by the United Nations. The implication of this is that Nigeria is grossly under policed and this
partly explains the inability of the Nigerian Police Force to effectively combat crimes and
criminality in the country.

Porous Borders: Achumba et al. (2013) observe that the porous frontiers of the country, where
individual movements are largely untracked have contributed to the level of insecurity in
Nigeria. As a result of the porous borders there is an unchecked inflow of Small Arms and Light
Weapons into the country which has aided militancy and criminality in Nigeria (Hazen and
Horner, 2007). Available data show that Nigeria host over 70 percent of about 8 million illegal
weapons in West Africa (Edeko, 2011). Also, the porosity of the Nigerian borders has aided the
uncontrollable influx of migrants, mainly young men, from neighboring countries such as
Republic of Niger, Chad and Republic of Benin responsible for some of the criminal acts
(Adeola and Oluyemi, 2012).

Terrorism: The most fundamental source of insecurity in Nigeria today is terrorism which is
traceable to religious fanaticism and intolerance particularly in Islam dominated states of Nigeria
(Achumba et al. 2013). Terrorism is a global phenomenon and it is ravaging the whole world. It

34
has been defined by Sampson and Onuoha (2011) as “the premeditated use or threat of use of
violence by an individual or group to cause fear, destruction or death, especially against unarmed
targets, property or infrastructure in a state, intended to compel those in authority to respond to
the demands and expectations of the individual or group behind such violent acts‟.

Terrorism in Nigeria is not a recent phenomenon, it started with the notorious Islamic sect in the
Northern part of Nigeria called Mataisine during Alhaji Shehu Shagari civilian regime of the
second republic which was aborted by a military coup in December 1983 led by General
Muhammadu Buhari. Terrorism rears its ugly head again during the Obasanjo civilian regime of
the fourth republic which witnessed religious riots in Plateau state in Northern Nigeria. In recent
times terrorism has assumed a political undertone and is been spearheaded by a faceless Islamic
insurgents based in the Northern region of Nigeria called Boko Haram, that has claimed
thousands of lives in the North since 2009.

Terrorism in Nigeria has been linked to religious, socio-political, economic and cultural factors.
Even though terrorism originated from Islamic fanaticism, it is now driven by factors such as
inequalities within the country and lack among Nigerians, in terms of livelihood (economic)
resources, education or access to education and good values. The current challenge of terrorism
to physical security is threatening the Nigeria society on all fronts. Some foreign observers have
linked terrorism in Nigeria to a number of factors which include, political conflicts, unbalanced
development that involves horizontal inequalities, religious/ethnic distrust, poor governance
linked to leadership failure, and high level corruption (Kufour, 2012; Oluwarotimi, 2012).

2.6.2. Insecurity Situation and Socio-Economic Development in Nigeria.

After fifty three years of nationhood Nigeria still ranks among the poorest countries in the world,
also ranks low in all socio economic indicators such as life expectancy, death rate, access to
water, poverty rate, mortality rate, and crime rate, and still carries the tag of a developing
economy. Nigeria is a classic illustration of an oxymoron, a poor country in the midst of
abundant human and natural resources. This scenario has contributed to security challenges that
have bedeviled the country since independence till now with grave consequences for socio-

35
economic development. There is no nation that can achieve socio-economic development in an
environment of socio and physical insecurity. The increasing challenge of insecurity in Nigeria
has also been linked to failure of leadership to deliver good governance, and secure the welfare
of persons on the principles of freedom, equality, and justice. The ruling elites in Nigeria in both
the military and democratic dispensation are dependent, parasitic, and very corrupt in nature, and
mal-administration (Ali, 2013).

The various constitutions that Nigeria has operated including the 1999 constitutions make
provisions for the rights of citizens to include; right to life, right to social security, right to work,
right to livelihood, just and favourable remuneration, right to a standard of living adequate for
the health, and well-being of individual and his family, including food, clothing, housing, and
right to education. No doubt, Nigeria is blessed with abundant human, and natural resources to
guarantee the attainment of these rights (Ali, 2013; Bako, 1998). Regrettably previous and
present governments have failed to guarantee these rights and thus the onus is on individuals to
seek for means to provide the basic necessities of life for him and his family. 53 Journal of
Sustainable Development Studies

36
The inability of government to provide a secure and safe environment for lives, properties and
the conduct of business and economic activities has led to resentment and disaffection among
ethnic groups. This has resulted in ethnic violence, communal clashes, and religious violence in
different parts of the country that has destroyed lives and properties, disrupted businesses and
economic activities, and retarded economic growth and development of Nigeria. There is no
investor whether local or foreign that will be motivated to invest in an unsafe and insecure
environment. In a globalized world investors are not only looking for high returns on their
investments but also safe haven for their investments. Thus the alarming level of insecurity in
Nigeria has made the economy unattractive to foreign investors, and this has impacted negatively
on economic growth and development.

37
It is against this background that this study tends to evaluate the role played by the ethnicity in
the security challenges of Nigeria’s fourth republic.

2.7 Theoretical Framework

A theoretical framework forms the basis on which the purpose of a research work is based.
Wilson (1985) posits that: research work must be one that is founded on other peoples’
experience, knowledge and past paper work or experimental research. It must have a foundation
on what has already been tested. For the purpose of this research and study, the Group theory is
employed.
The major proponents of the group theory are Arthur F. Bentley who is regarded as the father of
group theory in “The process of Government” (1908), David Truman in his book “Social Order
and Disturbances” others are Olson M., David Garson among others. The group theory
encompasses the elitist perception and the pluralist conception of the society. Bentley (1908)
argues that there are no effective individual interest, that every group has its interests, that these
interests always result in group action and that there is no one group interest that includes
everyone in the society.
Bentley (1908) also believes that all things involving government are determined by the
conflicting group pressures and these group pressures are the determinants of the course of
government policy. The activity of people fighting to attain their goals takes place not
individually but through groups in which they are united by common interest. Truman argues
that individuals join groups because this activity is a natural action of people with similar beliefs
and interest.
In Group Theories of Politics, G. David Garson (1978) constructs a history of interest groups as
participants in the policy process. Garson examines the historical tension between two rival
theories of groups in the context of political science: Pluralism and Elitism.
The beginning of group theory is really the acknowledgement that “the State” is composed of
actors, institutional and non- institutional, and these actors are a product of their historical, socio-
economic, and political and various other contexts. Implicit in this concept is the idea that groups
have competing sets of interests and the State acts as a control mechanism.

38
As Arthur Bentley, the founder of the "group theory" of modern political science put it, "there is
no group without its interest."

39
 Chapter Three
Methodology

3.0 Introduction

In this chapter detailed descriptions of methods and procedure that will be used in gathering
information for this study is given in order to enable the reader(s) understand how the research
will be carried out.

3.1 Research Design and Method

This research work is carried out to evaluate the role of ethnicity in the security challenges of
Nigeria’s fourth republic. Attempt shall be made to describe the steps, process and methods used
in the conduct of this research work. This study utilizes secondary sources of data for the
research; this includes journals, relevant books, periodicals, newspapers reports, internet sources,
government releases, and pronouncement. The simple percentage and Chi-square methods were
employed to arrive at the conclusion. To advance in this field of study, research design and
method will be define.

3.2 Survey Research Design

For the purpose of this research, survey research was adopted which was used in small and large
population on the people that the idea on the issue that will constitute the sample size.

3.3 Method of Data Collection

Method that was to collect data for this study was the secondary sources; which deals with
bibliography, references, materials and documents recorded by someone else. Therefore, the
researcher chooses to use all the methods in getting more information vis-à-vis this research.
However, it was obtained from the review of related literature. In other words, the researcher
consulted published and published books journal, workshops, newspapers, magazines and
official documents to mention but a few.

40
3.4 Method of Data Analysis

The research work will use simple sampling percentage for data analysis that involve tabular
presentation and interpretation of fact figures and other information obtained from the field
survey which will facilitate easy understanding.

41
 Chapter Four

Data Presentation, Analysis and Interpretation

This chapter presents the data, how it was analyzed and interpreted for the purpose of this study

The table below shows available data on the level of some of the crimes from 2000-2008.
Table 1: Level of Crimes from 2000 to 2008
Year Theft Armed Robbery Kidnapping Assassination Fraud
2000 29127 1877 243 1255 7927
2001 40796 2809 349 2120 10234
2002 35231 3889 337 2117 9134
2003 33124 3497 410 2136 9508
2004 37289 3142 349 2550 9532
2005 46111 2074 798 2074 9580
2006 41901 2863 372 2000 6395
2007 21082 2327 277 2007 5860
2008 23927 2340 309 1956 5058
Source: Adapted from Achumba et al. (2013)

Table 1 shows that on the average the rate of all the insecurity variables increased between 2000
and 2008 with the exception of fraud which decreased within the same period. In recent time
there has been an increase in the rate of theft, armed Journal of Sustainable Development Studies
54 robbery especially in the banks, kidnapping and assassination in different parts of the country.
However these vices are not equally distributed in the country. For instance, the South East states
of Nigeria have the highest incidence of kidnapping, the South South and South West states of
Nigeria have the highest incidence of armed robbery and fraud, while the Northern states are
characterized by bombing by the Islamic sect, Boko Haram (CLEEN, 2012).

Available data on the violent attacks of Boko Haram from2009 to 2012 are reported in Table 2
Table 2. Attacks by Boko Haram Sect in Nigeria from 2009 to 2012

42
S/N Date of Attack State Location of Impact
Attack
1 July 27, Yobe Attack on Potiskum, Yobe 4 people killed
2009 State Divisional
Headquarters.
2 March 13, Plateau Another sect operation in the 300 people killed
2018 northern part of Jos, Plateau
State.
3 Oct. 1 Abuja Explosions near the Eagle 12 people killed
2010 Square, Abuja. and many injured
4 Dec. 24, Plateau A bomb attack, in Barkin 8 people killed
2010 Ladi, Jos, Plateau State.
5 Dec, 31, Abuja Explosions in Mogadishu 10 people killed
2010 Mammy Market, Abuja.
6 Jan. 21, Borno Attack on Borno state 7 people killed
2011 Governorship candidate of all
Nigeria Peoples Party
(ANPP), for the 2011
election, Alhaji Modu Gubio.
7 Mar. 2, Kaduna Boko Haram killed policemen 2 people killed
2011 attached to the Residence of
Mustapha Sandamu, at Rigasa
8 Mar. 30, Yobe Bomb planted by Boko 1 injured
2011 Haram in Damaturu, Yobe
State, exploded and injured
police officer.
9 April 8, Niger Bomb at INEC office in 8 people killed
2011 Suleja
1 April 26, Bauchi Army Barracks in Bauchi bombed 3 people killed
0 2011 And many injured

43
11 May 29, 2011 Abuja Bauchi Multiple bombings in different 13 people killed
And Zaria locations in Northern Nigeria. And 40 injured

12 June 7, Borno Series of bomb blasts occurred in 5 killed and

2011 Maiduguri several injured

13 June Abuja and Nigerian Police Headquarters, Abuja, 7 killed and many
16, Borno bombed by A suspected suicide Vehicles damaged
2011 bomber. A bomb blast also
Occurred at Damboa town, Maiduguri

14 June20,2011 Kaduna Boko Haram stormed Kankara Police 7 policemen killed

station in Katsina state. and 2 security men

15 July 9, Borno and A clash between Boko Haram and 35 killed and many
2011 Niger the military in Maiduguri, Borno injured
State, also in Suleja, Niger State, a
bomb was targeted at a church.

16 July 12, 2011 Borno Boko Haram threw an explosive 5 people killed
device on a moving Military patrol
vehicle

17 July Borno Explosion in 5 people injured

15, Maiduguri.
2011

18 July 25, Maiduguri Bomb explosion near the palace of 8 people killed
2011 traditional ruler in Maiduguri.

19 Aug. 26, Abuja A suicide Bomber drove into The 25 people killed
2011 United Nations building in Abuja and 60 injured

20 Sep. 12, Bauchi A bomb attack on a police station 7 people killed

2011 in Misau

21 Sep. 17, Borno Brother in-law of Mohammed 1 person killed

2011 Yusuf, the slain leader of Boko
Haram, Babakura Fugu, shot
dead in front of his house in
Maiduguri by two members of
the sect two days after he was
visited by former President
Olusegun Obasanjo.

22 Oct. 3, 2011 Borno Boko Haram attacked Baga Market 3 people killed
in Maiduguri

23 Nov. 4, Yobe Attack by Boko Haram in 150 people killed

2011 Damaturu, Yobe state.

24 Nov. 27, 2011 Yobe Attacks in Gendam. 7 people killed

44
25 Dec. 24 Plateau Bombings in Jos. 80 people killed
2011

26 Dec. 25, Niger Christmas Day bombing in 50 people killed

2011 Madalla.

27 Dec. 25, Niger Christmas Day bombing in 50 people killed

2011 Madalla.

28 Jan. 6, Adamawa Christ Apostolic Church as 37 people killed

2012 attacked and Igbo People were
also killed in Mubi in the same
state

29 Jan. 20, 2012 Kano Multiple attacks in 150 people killed

Kano.

30 Jan. 26, Kano The Sabon Gari of Kano State Many injured and
2012 witnessed another Explosion, Someluxury buses
which caused another damaged
pandemonium in the state.

31 Feb. 7, Kano A bomb blast in Kano market and 5 people killed

2012 military barracks

32 June 17, Kaduna Multiple attacks on churches. 12 people killed

2012 and 80 injured

33 Aug. 7, Kogi Deeper Life Church. 19 people killed

2012

Source: Adapted from Achumba et al. (2013)

The data in Table 2 above illustrate graphically the high level of insecurity in Nigeria from 2009 to
2012, and this situation has not improved but rather it is getting worse. The worsening security
situation in the country has caused enormous loss of life and property and created general atmosphere
of fear and social tension in the country.

45
Table 3. Data on Global Index/Rank, Human Development Index and Corruption Perception
Index For Nigeria

YEAR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT GLOBAL GLOBAL CORRUPTION

INDEX(HDI) PEACE PEACE BANK PERCEPTION
INDEX(GPI) INDEX
2000 0.462 1.2
2001 0.463 1.0
2002 0.466 1.6
2003 0.453 1.4
2004 0.448 1.6
2005 0.434 1.9
2006 0.444 2.2
2007 0.448 2.898 117th 2.2
2008 0.453 2.724 129th 2.7
2009 0.457 2.602 129th 2.5
2010 0.462 2.756 137th 2.4
2011 0.467 2.743 142nd 2.4
2012 0.471 2.801 146th 2.7

Global Peace Index (2012) Retrieved from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia; Transparency
International.

The data in Table 3 above show that between 2007 and 2012 there is a significant decline in peace in
Nigeria in terms of the Peace Index and Rank in the Global Peace Ranking. The Peace Index
declined from 2.898 in 2007 to 2.801 in 2012. Also Nigeria‟s position on Global Peace Ranking
dropped from 117th in 2007 to 146th position in 2012. Also the values of the Corruption Perception
Index between 2000 and 2012 increased from 1.2 in 2000 to 2.7 in 2012 indicating an increase in the
level of corruption during this period. The implication of this is that since Nigeria returned to
democratic system of government in 1999 corruption has been on the increase despite the

46
establishment of a number of anti-corruption agencies such as Economic and Financial Crime
Commission (EFCC) and Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC). Thus the high level of
insecurity between 2007 and
2012 was accompanied by high level of corruption indicating a positive correlation between
insecurity and corruption in the country. During this same period data on Nigeria‟s Human
Development Index, an indicator of socio-economic development, on the average is below 0.5
indicating low level of socio economic development. Thus a high level of insecurity and corruption,
was accompanied by a low level of socio-economic development, confirming a negative correlation
between insecurity and socio-economic on one hand, and negative correlation between corruption
and socio-economic development.
Thus from the above analysis insecurity, and corruption have contributed to low level of socio-
economic development in Nigeria between 2007 and 2012. The year 2007 marked the inception of
President Yar‟dua/Jonathan administration which is still on. From 2007 till date the security situation
in the country has worsened, and a major contributor to this serious security challenge is the menace
of Boko Haram insurgents.
Insecurity in Nigeria has retarded socio economic development in Nigeria in various ways. These
include:
Social dislocation and population displacement

Social tensions and new pattern of settlements which encourages Muslins/Christians or members of
an ethnic group moving to Muslim/Christian dominated enclaves.

Heightens citizenship question which encourages hostility between “indigenes” and “settlers”.

Dislocation and disruption of family and communal life.

General atmosphere of mistrust, fear, anxiety and frenzy

Dehumanization of women, children, and men especially in areas where rape, child abuse and neglect
are used as instruments of war.

Deepening of hunger and poverty in the polity.

Discourages local and foreign investment as it makes investment unattractive to business people.

47
Halts business operations during period of violence and outright closure of many enterprises in the
areas or zones where incidence of insecurity is rife and are on daily occurrence.

Increases security spending by business organizations and governments.

Migration of people from area or region where there is prevalence of insecurity.

48
 Chapter Five

Summary, Conclusion and Recommendations

5.1 Summary

The findings of this study can be summed up under the idea that there is without doubt a
relationship between ethnicity and political development in Nigeria and this has had a reflective
impact on various other sectors and institutions of the society, but also has proven that ethnicity
and the opinion of people on ethnicity has nothing to do with their sex, or their level of
education, but is however, influenced by religion.

5.2 Conclusion
From the numerous literatures reviewed and from the data collected, analyzed and from the
hypotheses tested, the following conclusions have been drawn. The problem of ethnicity is
inherent in the Nigerian political system. This factor of ethnicity developed as a result of the
colonial activities which isolated the public and masses from the benefits and
convenience/security of the system, thus, leaving the people with little or no choice than to seek
comfort, security and material as well as socio-psychological support and sense of belonging
from their various ethnic organizations/associations. This spate of ethnic arrangement led to the
formation of ethnic driven political parties and militia groups to promote, represents and protect
their primordial interest.

Furthermore, competition for scarce resources has been the more common bases of ethnic
consciousness and tensions. This competition include in areas like land, boundary, natural
resources and also for political power and control. In the political sphere and in relation to
political development, especially in areas like elections, formation of political parties, voting in
elections and support for candidates, the impact of ethnicity cannot be over emphasized.

49
Politicians seeking mass support found out that the only platform on which they can win the
votes of the masses or appeal to the interest of the populace is to appeal to communal cries and
sentiments rather than universalistic appeal and ideology. This explains the process of political
party formation over the years.
The Action Group (AG) leaders for instance were quick to find out that they could best get
Yoruba backing, only by focusing on anti -Ibo images. The idea was that if the people were not
ready or comfortable with the domination by strangers, then they should give their support to
AG.

From the findings, it has been discovered from the opinion of Nigerians that ethnicity and ethnic
politics are impediments to the political development in Nigeria. However, this discovery was
not influenced by the sex, or the educational qualification of the respondents.
Finally, for Nigeria to develop politically and in all spheres, the stranglehold and grip of
ethnicity in the lives of the Nigeria masses must be changes. Unity in diversity must be promoted
and proper education must be the order of the day and the pursuit of the government.

5.3 Recommendations
The following recommendations are advanced by this study:
i. To build a virile state the ruling elites should encourage national discourse to enable the
various groups’ air their grievances and fears.
ii. Removal of column showing ethnic backgrounds or state of origin in forms like bank account
opening or loans forms, scholarship forms, employment forms, job application forms, school
admission forms etc in a bid to unify us as Nigerians not using ethnic background as criteria for
qualification.
iii. Recognizing the heterogeneous nature of the Nigerian society, our leaders should look
beyond ethnic differences and formulate unifying national goals which will hence, put ethnic
sentiments as second place in terms of priority.
iv. Nigeria should discard the belief and notion of three (3) main ethnic groups officially
recognized (Hausa, Igbo & Yoruba) in order to give the numerous ethnic groups identity.
v. Federal character commission should be scraped and employment and appointment should be
made on the basis of merit not ethnic background

50
 References
Adele, J. B. & Oloruntele A. (2001) “Ethnic agitation and conflict in Nigeria, 1999 – 2000”
Development Policy Management Network Bulletin Vol. 12, No.3

Alulo, M. A. O (2003) “Ethnic Nationalism and the Nigerian Democratic Experience in the
Fourth Republic. Anthropologist, Vol. 5 No.4.

Attoh, & Soyombo (2001) “The politics of ethnic balancing in Nigeria” International
Journal of sociology and Anthropology Vol. 3 No.2

Azeez, A. (2009) “Ethnicity, Party politics and Democracy in Nigeria” Peoples’

Democratic Party (PDP) Agent Consolidation, Ilorin stud Tribes Tribal’s, Vol. 7No.1

Badmus, I. A. (2006) “Ethnic militia Movement and the Crises of political Order in
Post- Military Nigeria” Journal of Social Science Vol.13 No.3.

Badmus, I. A. (2009) “Under Reconstruction: Ethnic Nationalism and the future of the
Nigerian State” Journal of Alternative Perspective in the Social Sciences working paper No: 4
Blench, R. & Dendo M. (2003) “Position Paper: the dimensions of Ethnicity, Language and
Culture in Nigeria, Cambridge.

Dowd, R. A. & Driessen M. (2008) “Ethnically dominated Party system and the quality of
Democracy: Evidence from Sub-Sahara Africa” AfroBarometer working Paper No. 92.

Dukor, M. (2003) Philosophy and Politics: Discourse on values Politics and Power in
Africa Malthouse Press limited.

Elischer, S. (2008) “Ethnic Coalitions of Convenience and Commitment: Political

Parties and Party Systems in Kenya” GIGA Research Programme: Violence, Power and Security.

51
Faforowa, D. (2011) “The Ethnic factor in Nigerian Politics” Google 29/9/2003.

Fearon, J. D. (2004) “Ethnic Mobilisation and Ethnic Violence” Stanford University, department
of Political Science.

Kirshner, S. A (2007) “Fear and Ethnic Civil war duration” University of Michigan, Journey’s
workshop.

Mahmudat, M. O. (2009) “Intra- Class Struggle in Nigeria” Osun, Journal of public

administration and policy research Vol. 2 No.7.

Mclean, I. & McMillan A. (2003) Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics New York, Oxford
University Press.

Mustapha, A. R. (2004) “Ethnic structure, Inequality and Governance of the public sector in
Nigeria” UNRISD (United Nations Research Institute for Social Development).

Nnoli, O. (1980) Ethnic Politics in Nigeria Enugu, Fourth Dimension Publishers.

Nwaobi, G. C. “The Nigerian wars, Regional crises and Ethnic disturbances: Policy responses
and Democratic implications, Abia state” Quantitative Economic Research Bureau.

Obianyo, N. E. (2007) “Citizenship and Ethnic militia politics in Nigeria- marginalisation or

identity question?- the case of MASSOB” Salzburg Austria: Paper presented at the 3rd Global
conference on Pluralism inclusion and citizenship. November 18-19, 2007.

Osaghea, E. E. & Suberu, R. T. (2005) “A history of Identity, Violence and Stability in Nigeria”
University of Oxford, CRISES (Centre for Research for Inequality, human Security and
Ethnicity).

52
Osinubi, T. S. & Osinubi O. S. (2008) “Ethnic Conflict in Contemporary Africa: the Nigerian
Experience” Journal of Social Science, Vol. 12 No.2.

Salawu, B. & Hassan O. A. (2011) “Ethnic Politics and its Implication for the survival of
Democracy in Nigeria” Ilorin: Journal of Public Administration and Policy Research Vol. 3No.2.

Salawu, B. (2010) “Ethnic factor and Development question in Nigeria: A consideration of its
Implication for the Transformation of rural Nigeria” European Journal of scientific research.
Eurojournal publishing Inc. 2010.

Ukaeje, I. (2001) Issues in African Government and Politics Abuja, Munascripts Noetic
Associates Ltd.

Ukiwo, U. (2003) “Politics, Ethno-religious Conflict and Democratic consolidation in Nigeria”:

The journal of modern African studies, Cambridge University press.

Ukiwo, U. (2005) “On the Study of Ethnicity in Nigeria” University of Oxford: CRISES
Working paper No. 12

William, I. (2004) “Ethnicity, Ethnicism and Citizenship: A Philosophical Reflection on the

African Experience” A Journal of social science Vol.8 No.1.

53
 APPENDIX

Department of International Relations

and Strategic Studies College of
Social and Management
Sciences

Adamawa State Polytechnic, Yola.

P.M.B 2146,

Adamawa State

9/8/2019.

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Dear sir/madam,

‘An Evaluation of the Role of Ethnicity in the Security Challenges of Nigeria’s

Fourth Republic’

We are final year students of Diploma, studying international relations and

strategic studies from Adamawa State Polytechnic Yola.

We are conducting a research on the above mentioned subject matter; any

information required is purposely for academic purposes.

Please assist us by providing available materials and guide to enhance success of

the research.

Thanks for your assistance.

54
 Yoursfaithfully
………………….
Researcher(s)

55