Governance of Cultural Diversity and the Shaping of National Unity in Nigeria: A Historical Overview, Challenges and Possibilities

Introduction

Africa is home to over 800 ethnic groups divided into 54 independent countries. Although most of these ethnic groups are found in multiple countries often with differing colonial legacies, they have retained most of their unique identities, and most times, share similarities and camaraderie with their ethnic relatives in other countries than other ethnic groups in the same country. With all African countries still regarded as developing, the importance of national unity in attaining socio-economic development is most pertinent. Unfortunately, the cultural diversity, which if properly managed and harnessed, can be a catalyst to socio-economic developed, has been poorly mismanaged, and has been the most significant contributor to the advent of civil wars in most African countries.

Citing Nigeria and Cameroon as examples, with over 250 ethnic groups, a population of over 196 million, and over 289 ethnic groups totalling over 25 million respectively, recent occurrences in the political landscape is worthy of note. The large cultural diversity of the Nigerian State has been a major component in the make-up of the policy environment, as well as policy frameworks of national leadership from independence (Folarin et. al., 2014). Over the past 59 years however, we have seen how this diversity has been mismanaged by successive leaders, culminating in a civil war (1967 – 1970), agitations for state creation, sovereign national conference, rotational presidency, and zoning. In more recent times, ethnic and religious insurgency as well as terrorist violence have reared their heads on the national landscape. Cameroon on the other hand with the linguistic and cultural diversity of the country laced with a colonial legacy of French and English cultures and languages, as well as remnants of a German sub-stratum, is precariously placed at the tipping point where the slightest mismanagement of such diversity will lead to unrest (Sama, 2014).

From the foregoing, it is evident that the diverse cultural nature of these countries have suffered from poor governance. This has greatly inhibited national unity, and stunted their socio-economic development. The case of Nigeria, my country, is even more saddening when considered vis-à-vis the vast human and natural resources that abound. National integration is therefore unattainable as it yet remains a perennial goal by successive administrations and other stakeholders. This paper examines the historical and contemporary issues of cultural diversity, the challenges of managing diversity, its importance to national development, as well as strategies for harnessing the diverse cultures of African nations for national development.

Methodology

1. The method employed for this research is a review of literature by scholars on relevant topics.

Objectives

Objectives are as follows:

1.     To provide a historical synopsis of Nigeria’s vast cultural diversity and the inter-ethnic rivalries pre colonialism.

2.     To highlight the bane of poor governance in harnessing cultural diversity for national development.

3.     To prescribe strategies that can be utilised in effective management of cultural diversity for enhancing national unity.

Results

A Synopsis of Inter-Ethnic Rivalries in Nigeria during Pre-Colonial Times

It is common knowledge that Africans hold their cultures in the highest regard, which in turn is the single greatest influence over the perception/worldview of Africans, it is quite perplexing that inter-cultural/inter-ethnic relations has not been given pride of place in building national unity and the attainment of socio-economic development (Brown, 2001). The Global Policy Forum aptly defines a nation as “a large group of people with strong bonds of identity - an imagined community, a tribe on a grand scale. The nation may have a claim to statehood or self-rule, but it does not necessarily enjoy a state of its own. a community of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history”. This definition invariably means ethnic groups can be alternatively referred to as ethnic nationalities, without a loss in the meaning conveyed. This means that exists a more complex nation-state where multi-nations are linked under a single political and economic organisation as opined by Ekanola (2006).

Further citing the example of Nigeria, many scholars have alluded to the fact that ethnic and cultural conflicts are rooted in the 1914 merger of the Northern and Southern Protectorates by the colonial administration of Lord Frederick Lugard (Edewor et. al., 2014; Folarin et. al., 2014; Uwa et. al., 2013; Ekanola, 2006). As highlighted by Ajayi and Alagoa, (1980) this merger resulted in the spontaneous fusion of culturally and historically diverse ethnic groups, some of which had been rivals and overlapping imperialists in the pre-colonial times. For instance, the Benin Kingdom during the 15th Century which marked the height of its power had established imperial control over some states in the fringes of present-day Northern Nigeria, including but not limited to the Igala and Nupe-speaking areas. Consequently, by virtue of their vassalage, they were compelled to pay tolls and tributes as vassals to the Benin monarch (Folarin et. al., 2014). Also, the Benin Kingdom had extended control to the South and enjoyed suzerainty over several Yoruba states, including Lagos (Eko). This led to constant friction and clashes with the declining Oyo Empire before British colonization (Ajayi and Akintoye, 1980).

Likewise, the Oyo Empire prior to its decline and fall, had wielded considerable influence in the entire Western part of Nigeria, in addition to overturning the Benin hegemony to exert control over significant Benin provinces and former vassal states. Furthermore, as highlighted by Ikime (1985), Oyo’s influence also resonated in Ilorin, Ebiraland, Igalaland and Nupeland. Thus, the relationship between the Yoruba and Edo-speaking people before colonialism had been fraught with mutual suspicion and disdain, which in turn had led to a cold war and constant tension in diplomatic ties. In the North, the fourteen Hausa states (Hausa Bekwai and Hausa Banza) were similarly embroiled in a prolonged and chaotic relationship of overlapping imperialism. Even the seven legitimate states (Bekwai) could not seem to totally trust and relate with one another, let alone establish cultural or political synergy with the illegitimate states (Banza). Consequently, Kano rose to power at the expense of Gobir. In like manner, Kororofa and Kebbi besieged Kano and Rano to rise to power and fame and it is on record that it was during the imperial reign of Kebbi under Kotal Kanta that the Hausa states reached their height of disunity (Balogun, 1980). Down south, the reality was not much different from other regions despite the seeming cultural homogeneity. In this wise, the Efik and Ibibio were constantly at loggerheads, while the Urhobo and Itsekiri had ceaseless confrontations (Edewor et. al., 2014).

It is therefore safe to conclude after Osaghae (1991) that the 1914 amalgamation was a marriage of convenience; that is, it was undertaken to serve the sole purpose of easing administration of the colony, as well as exploitation of the vast natural resources. The union of the over 250 ethnic nationalities was therefore coerced and bound by a very weak bond. This bond is only being held together by brute strength, although most times subtle and extremely hard to identify. Thus, Nigeria and indeed most African nation-states differ markedly from other nation-states, especially in Europe whose unification was by the freewill or choice of the people under dynamic leadership. The act of merger by the European colonial powers merely forced the diverse ethnic groups of Northern and Southern Protectorates into a single entity without consultation with the various ethnic groups or their leaders. This therefore, marked the origin of ethnic conflicts in the country (Edewor et. al., 2014).

Poor Governance and Mismanagement of Nigeria’s Cultural Diversity Post-Independence.

It is pertinent to note at this juncture, that the primeval ethnic foundations in the creation of the Nigerian State resonated way before independence. For instance the nationalists in 1953 when representing Nigeria could not agree on a date for independence due to ethnic sentiments and insecurity. The Northern (Hausa-Fulani) delegates at the constitutional conference objected to a 1956 date proposed by the Southern delegates (Ikime, 1985:15). The fear of Southern dominance in a post-colonial Nigeria was the major reason given by the Hausa-Fulani leaders in their objection to the motion moved by Chief Anthony Enahoro. Likewise as the set date for independence drew near, political parties emerged from ethnic unions. In this wise, the Northern People’s Congress (NPC) was a cultural movement for furthering the Northern peoples’ development, The Action Group (AG) was a pan-Yoruba socio-cultural group; while National Congress of Nigeria and the Cameroons morphed into the National Council of Nigerian Citizens (NCNC), a Southeastern group led by Igbo ethnic unionists. Other clear ethnic unions that changed to “national” parties included the Northern Elements People’s Union (NEPU) and the United Middle Belt Congress (UMBC), (Taiwo, 2000).

It is quite remarkable to note that these regional cum ethnic parties had internal disagreements due to the fact that they were composed by the same ethnic groups that constantly engaged one another in warfare in the pre-colonial times in search of conquests and glory. For instance, the NCNC was distrusted by the South-South groups and would prefer to be politically insulated from the former (Ikime, 1985:22). Incidentally, one of the tribal parties, the NPC won the elections and constituted the national government in 1960, thus crystallizing an ethnic-based leadership.

In hindsight, it is evident that the events of 1960 to 1966 were a critical test of an evolving nationhood. The NPC and NCNC subsequently formed a coalition government, which technically meant that the Hausa-Fulani and Igbo had reached an understanding while the Yoruba (AG) had been pushed to the political margins as opposition. The power equation between the ethnic nationalities had left the ethnic minorities in the cold, but the understanding between the Igbo and Hausa-Fulani soon broke down with the military coup of January 15, 1966 (Edewor et. al., 2014). As submitted by Ademoyega (1981), the subsequent coup roused a perception of ethnic motivation because of the Hausa-Fulani elements that were the major casualties, and the events that followed, including a Northern Nigeria-led countercoup, ethnic cleansing in military barracks and the North in which Igbo elements were the victims, culminating in  the 30-month Civil War, demonstrated an outburst of the deep-seated ethnic resentment and hate that had etched into the polity before and shortly after independence (Edewor et. al., 2014).

Attempts at Addressing the Ethnicity Conundrum in Nigeria.

From 1970 up to now, rather than abate, the ethnic equation has gained unprecedented traction in every sphere of national life in Nigeria. Consequently, issues such as appointment and promotion in the public service, employment in the public service, political appointment into public offices, and admission into institutions of learning, revenue allocation, infrastructural development and formation of political parties as well as coup plots are largely driven by ethnic considerations (Omoruyi, 2008). For instance, all students are expected to write and pass the Unified Tertiary Matriculation Exams in order to be able to gain admission into a higher institution of learning. However, the cut-off marks vary, with the Northern region, especially with students from the North West and North East requiring much lower marks to get admitted. Thus, in a Department in a Federal tertiary institution in Nigeria, it is commonplace to find students who got admitted with cut-off marks differing by as much as 60.

Furthermore, the federal character principle and quota system, initiated in 1976 and institutionalized by the Babangida administration in the mid-1980s became schemes to ensure ethnic balancing in public life. In addition to the foregoing, the extremely high level of separatism and unpredictability of ethnicity led to the conception and establishment of the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) in 1973 (Taiwo, 2000). However, it is enlightening to note that in spite of the plethora of ethnic crisis from 1966 to date, the basic underlying factor in election, allocation of resources, party formation and political appointment is ethnic consideration.

Discussion

Ethnic Consideration and the 2019 Presidential Elections in Nigeria.

The 2019 Presidential elections in Nigeria went down as one of the most anticipated, ever, and perhaps the most ethnically-biased in the history of the Nigerian Presidential elections. It is pertinent to note that although both candidates are of Northern extraction, the incumbent and winner is from the North West and has a running mate from the South West, while the major challenger is from the North East and has a South Eastern running mate. Voter turnout in this election was much lower than the last, a phenomenon credited to voter-apathy.

According to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the incumbent, President Muhammadu Buhari won the election with 15, 191, 847 votes to his nearest challenger Atiku Abubakar with 11, 262, 978 votes. An analysis of the voting pattern showed that the bulk of Muhammadu Buhari/Yemi Osinbajo’s win was in the North Western and South Western States, while the bulk of Atiku Abubakar/Peter Obi’s win was in the North Eastern and South Eastern states. This shows a clear division of votes along ethnic and regional lines. The heated polity prior to the elections and the voting pattern that subsequently emerged shows strong ethnic considerations. This was most likely exacerbated by the unrest, leading to the call for secession by the proscribed Independent People of Biafra (IPOB), the resulting actions by the Federal Government of Nigeria, and the perception of the actions taken thereof.

The actions taken by the Federal Government in launching Military operations in the South East region of the country was not welcomed by majority of South Easterners. Furthermore, the incumbent who gave the directive, being a Hausa-Fulani, a retired General in the Nigerian Army and an active participant in the 1966 counter coup and subsequent civil war had a history that did not elicit much hope by South Easterners. Also, the perceived soft approach towards Boko Haram (a predominantly Northern group) in the form of Amnesty for members who were willing to lay down arms against the Nigerian state heightened tension in the polity. Finally, the ravaging Herdsmen-Farmer crisis where armed Fulani herdsmen sacked Middle Belt and Southern communities ending in the massacre of people, as well as the inactivity of the Federal Government to address the issue bred distrust between Southerners, especially South Easterners and the administration led by a Hausa-Fulani.

All these considerations, alongside the perceived lopsidedness in political appointments, the absolute domination of the top echelons of military and para-military agencies by people of Hausa-Fulani extract, the rumours of massive recruitment into the choicest Ministries, Departments and Agencies of the Federal Government from predominantly one ethnic group, and the general perceived social injustice all combined to provide a perfect storm which the major challenger sought to capitalize on.

Consequences of Poor Governance of Ethnic Diversity in Nigeria.

At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the elite or leadership often times appeal to tribal sentiments, and manipulate tribal loyalties in the struggle for power, dominance and resources. Nigeria being a “Federal Republic” on paper has never truly practiced the principles of Federalism since the unification decree of General Aguiyi-Ironsi in 1966.  This perceived injustice of taking resources from one region and using it to develop another region has fueled so much agitation as well as crimes against the Nigerian state. To worsen matters and further increase competition and distrust, the Niger-Delta region from which petroleum is produced has suffered several consistent environmental degradation to its land and water, abruptly cutting off several thousand from their livelihoods.

Historically, poor governance culminating in a disconnect between successive leaders and the people, development and implementation of inappropriate policies to mention a few has greatly eroded trust and heightened suspicion amongst ethnic states in Nigeria. Thus, there is an inability to foster togetherness and unity amongst the ethnic states/groups. This is further exacerbated by the concentration of power at the center, making competition for the Presidency of Nigeria a winner-takes-all and do-or-die-affair. Finally, perceived injustice either through the action or inaction of successive administrations with regards issues of ethnic considerations has not done anything to diffuse the latent tension amongst ethnic groups. This in turn has hindered national unity and cohesion, stunting Nigeria’s development.

It is quite educating to note that cultural and economic diversities are capitalised on by politicians and power brokers in their pursuit of political dominance and control over resources. By so doing, they whip up ethnic sentiments in careless and often times insulting manners to other ethnic groups, especially those of geographic contiguity. In this wise, it is not far-fetched to witness unhealthy ethnic rivalries within a state. At the national level, the totalitarian power of the Office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria means the Presidential election always has an ethnic colouration to it. In this wise, it is commonplace for Presidential aspirants to be propped up primarily by their ethnic group, and their final nomination by political parties based on ethnic considerations. This further foments distrust amongst ethnic groups, especially between the ethnic groups whose candidate loses. Thus, deep ethnic fears generated by in-built structures that promote unequal access to power and resources are continuously being exploited to the detriment of national unity.

Managing Ethnic and Cultural Diversity for National Integration

As surmised by Edewor et. al., 2014, the following assertions can be made about Nigeria:

i.       There is significant inequality within regions as well as nationally.

ii.     State policies are highly regressive, with an extraordinary share of state expenditures captured by national and regional elites. This is shown the rise to the fore in recent years of the call to reduce cost of governance at all levels.

iii.   Ordinary as well as elite Nigerians perceive their society in ethnic or religious terms.

From the foregoing, the question that arises is how national integration can be achieved in a multi-cultural state like Nigeria? It is important to note that this is unattainable without an entrenched public culture because this comprises the values shared by all groups and constitutes the common grounds on which the diverse groups perceive the state (Ikpe, 1991).

Strategies for achieving National Integration.

Some strategies adopted and in operation by the Federal Government to aid the attainment of national integration are not necessarily inappropriate. On their own and in different climes, they have worked well in achieving national cohesion. Gurr (2000), noted two principal processes of integration that can counteract the centrifugal forces associated with ethnic diversity. First, is the deployment of state policy to prevent the dominance of one group at the expense of other groups, and the second is the use of policies and programmes to de-emphasize differences among nationality groups. Lending from this submission, outlined below are some recommendations to place the country firmly in the path of national integration:

i.                   A renegotiation of the terms of engagement between ethnic groups; this is best achieved through a thorough review of the constitution which serves as the operational manual of the country. Several faults have been identified in the constitution, which inadvertently gives undue advantage to some ethnic groups over others. These inadequacies in the constitution need to be appropriately addressed in order to;

a.      Create a platform where every ethnic group feels a part of the national, and where there will be no undue advantage given to other ethnic groups.

b.     Set in motion a comprehensive integration masterplan by establishing and empowering the relevant institutions saddled with fostering national unity.

c.      Engender a system of equity and fairness to all.

ii.                 Reintroduction of history education to the curriculum from primary schools through tertiary institutions; before going further, it will be helpful to have an understanding of what education is. The Webster dictionary defines education as "the process of educating or teaching." It further defines the word educate as "to develop the knowledge, skill, or character…" From these definitions, it is safe to assume that education means “to develop the knowledge, skill, or character of students”. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that teaching history in schools in Nigeria has been stopped for over a decade now. However, with the Federal Government beginning to realise its importance, it is about to be re-introduced. It is quite sad to note that Nigeria failed to learn from the experience of other nations.

Chia (2012) surmised that History education has often been associated with the inculcation of citizenship values, especially in the forging of national identity. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that in instilling a sense of pride in the past, the teaching of a nation’s history contributes to the creation and strengthening of national identity. He further cited the example of Singapore where teaching history of the state was initially regarded to be divisive. This resulted in a near neglect of Singapore’s past in the first decade or so following its independence. However, the 1980s witnessed a change in attitude towards history education, which climaxed with the passing of the 1990s. This period witnessed the introduction of the “National Education” programme in schools. This firmly entrenched history in nation building and citizenship education in Singapore. The strides made by Singapore over the past three decades are deeply entrenched in national unity and patriotism. It is pertinent to note that the youngsters who passed through this system will constitute majority of the mid to senior level managers, as well as a significant part of the work force in Singapore today. From the foregoing, it is clearly evident that history education is critical to building national unity. It provides the present with a connection to the past, where lessons can be learned from the successes, as well as identifies the failures in order to learn and not repeat same mistakes.

Conclusion

It is clearly evident that conflict amongst ethnic groups arises due to a lack of access to the basic needs of identity, autonomy, security and equality. This is further exacerbated by the autocratic roles played by successive administrations (civilian and military), which has totally eroded trust amongst ethnic groups, especially between those in the north-south divide of the Niger-Benue Rivers. The Nigerian nation at best can be described as a contraption devoid and bereft of institutions that can effectively and efficiently meet the basic needs of citizens. This has provided a fertile ground for conflict and inter-ethnic strife. Unfortunately, the Nigerian government has been unable to effectively manage the conflicts due to the preponderance of corruption in the system. This is Burton’s theory which alludes to government being more effective when corruption is at the barest (Burton, 1997).

As Posner (2005) submits, a nation is a cultural entity that binds people together on the basis of culturally homogenous ties, common or related blood, a common language, a common historical tradition, common customs and habits. It is therefore an exclusive group with distinct features such as: a uniform cultural unit; specific and shared identity among members; profound attachment to a specific region – the earthly home. In addition to the aforementioned, membership is limited by ties of blood, intermarriage, kinship and common descent; while members have a shared understanding of who they are, how they originated and have developed over time, as well as collection belonging (Parekin, cited by Nna, 2005). From the foregoing, it is evident that individuals constitute the units of integration, and members of a nation are integrated as they share a common identity.

It is therefore safe to conclude that the term national integration is not applicable to a single nation, but involves two or more nations. For example Nigeria is made of about 250 ethnic groups (Coleman James, 1986). The multiplicity of ethnic groups therefore harbours forces that tend to tear countries apart, and this eventuality necessitates the need to integrate the distinct ethnic groups to become an indivisible unit with shared values, aspirations and beliefs. Essentially therefore, national integration is a process that attempts to erode the differences, break down the barriers to stronger inter-linkages, whilst strengthening the similarities between ethnic nationalities in birthing, developing and sustaining a nation (Alapiki 2005). It is imperative to note that integration is a project; because it is the aspiration of unity and the efforts put into achieving this, a process; because there are several programmes laden with actions that are geared towards uniting the groups and buying into the project, and a product; because the integrated groups become a single entity by not disowning their history/antecedents, but by forging stronger ties through shared beliefs and aspirations with one another (Ferreira 2002).

References

Ajayi, J.F.A. and Akintoye, S.A. (1980) “Yorubaland in the 19th century” in Ikime, O. (ed.) Groundwork of Nigerian History, Ibadan: Heinemann.

Ajayi, J.F.A. and Alagoa, E.J. (1980). “Nigeria before 1800: Aspects of Economic Development and Inter-Group Relations” in Ikime, O. (ed.) Groundwork of Nigerian History, Ibadan: Heinemann.

Alapiki, H.E. (2005), State creation in Nigeria, failed approaches to National Integration and Local Autonomy, African Studies Review, Vol. 48, No 3. PP 49-65.

Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. New-York: Longman.

Burton, J. (1997). Violence Experienced: The Source of Conflict Violence and Crime and Their Prevention. New York: Manchester University Press.

Coleman, J (1986). Nigeria: Background to Nationalism. Berkeley, University of California Press.

Edewor, P.A., Aluko, Y.A., Folarin, S.F. (2014). Managing Ethnic and Cultural Diversity for National Integration in Nigeria. Developing Country Studies, Vol. 4, No 6.

Ekanola, A.B. (2006). National Integration and the Survival of Nigeria in the 21st Century. The Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies. Vol. 31 March, PP 279-293.

Ferreira, F.F. (2000). The Politics of regionalism: An Analysis of National Integration Problems in Nigeria. ETD Collection for Robert W. Woodruff Library, Atlanta University Centre Paper AA19310167.

Folarin, S.F, Olanrewaju, I.P., Ajayi, Y. (2014). Cultural Plurality, National Integration and the Security Dilemma in Nigeria. Covenant University Journal of Politics and International Affairs (CUJPIA) Vol. 2, No. 1.

Global Policy Forum. What is a Nation? https://www.globalpolicy.org/nations-a-states/what-is-a-nation.html. Retrieved 21st August 2019.

Gurr. T.R. (2000). People versus State: Minorities at Risk in the New Century, United States Institute of Peace.

Ikime, O. (1985). “In Search of Nigerians: Changing Inter-Group Relations”, Presidential Address at the Congress of the Historical Society of Nigeria (HSN) in Benin, 1985.

Ikpe, U. B. (1991). ‘Public culture and national integration in multicultural states: Comparative observations from the United States and Nigeria’. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233523610_Public_culture_and_national_integration_in_multi-cultural_states_Comparative_observations_from_the_United_States_and_Nigeria. Retrieved on 21st August, 2019.

Iruonagbe, C.T. and Egharevba, M.E. (2015). Unity in Diversity and National Security: The Nigerian Situation. Developing Country Studies, Vol. 5, No 4.

Osaghae, E. (1991). ‘Ethnic minorities and federalism in Nigeria’, African Affairs, Vol. 90, PP 237-258.

Posner, D.H. (2005). Institution and Ethnic Politics in Africa, Cambridge University Press, New York.

Sama, M.C. (2008). Cultural Diversity in Conflict and Peace Making in Africa.  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265037919_Cultural_Diversity_in_Conflict_and_Peace_Making_in_Africa. Retrieved 21st August 2019.

Taiwo, V. (2000). Nigeria on Gunpowder: The Climax of Misrule, Ibadan: Omo-Ade Press.

Uwa, O.G., Balogun A., Adenegan T.S. (2013). Ethnicity and Identity Crisis: Challenge to National Integration in Nigeria. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science. Vol. 16, Issue 4, PP 79-86.