Ethnic conflict has been at the forefront of international political debates for the past decade. Is it possible to find practical solutions to reconcile diverse ethnic groups in the modern democratic state? This article examines the concept of ethnic conflict and the impact of variables such as governance, civil-military relations, economics and religion on ethnic identity. Through a case study of ethnic conflict in Nigeria, it advocates a ‘power-sharing model’ that promotes integration and co-operation as a means of overcoming differences and establishing a basis for dialogue.
There has been a steady rise in ethnic violence resulting from the polarisation of ethnic groups forced to compete for resources and political and economic power. In Africa, this is compounded by the colonial legacy of artificial boundaries that cut across ethnic divisions. The concept of ethnic conflict does not merely refer to differences between values or levels of regional development. Ethnic conflict only emerges if there is tension between indigenous elites and authorities or amongst indigenous elites themselves. It is a dynamic process shaped by perceived identities based on the relationship between the ‘self and other’.
As a result of boundary demarcations during the British colonial period, Nigeria became a multi-ethnic nation with over two hundred ethnic groups. The three main groups mobilised around distinct geographical regions, including the Hausa-Fulani in the north, Yoruba in the west and Igbo in the east. These ethno-regional groupings were entrenched in the 1960 constitution.
Ethnic conflict management represents a significant challenge for Nigeria:
- The colonial legacy of three separate administrations (closely resembling three dominant ethnic groupings), is a major obstacle to national unity because mobilisation continues to take place along ethnic lines.
- For decades after independence, ethnic tensions were exploited through a ‘divide and rule’ approach to power.
- Competition for natural resources has fuelled tensions between the oil-rich South and the predominantly agricultural North.
- The location of oil in certain ethnic areas and its mismanagement by post-independence governments has exacerbated ethnic tensions.
- Religious differences between the Christian South and the Muslim North, feature strongly in regional power struggles (for example, the clashes over the introduction of Islamic sharia law in the Northern state of Zamafara).
- Ethnic-based militant groups, formed to counter the abuses of the successive military regimes, are accused of fuelling recent ethnic violence.
The consociational or integrative model of ethnic conflict is the most relevant for Nigeria. This is based on a power-sharing and views different ethnic or cultural groups as mutual partners, willing to negotiate and make compromises in order to make the system work. This model can be applied to conflict resolution in Nigeria by:
- Encouraging a process of negotiation on the basis of inclusive and representative participation. This could involve the federal and state government and the leaders of the various ethnic groups.
- Adopting an ‘integrative approach’ to negotiations by building co-operative relationships and providing an opportunity for diverse groups to fulfil seemingly contradictory goals.
- Avoiding raising divisive issues such as ideology and religion during the preliminary stages of negotiations.
- Exploring the benefits of greater state centralisation to encourage national unity. The number of states should be limited as their proliferation has led to increased competition for federal resources and contributed to ethnic fragmentation.
- Advocating the effective management of economic and natural resources. Oil revenues should be managed in a transparent and accountable manner.
- Giving greater attention to the poor economic situation in the north by focusing on illiteracy, the development of trade and industry, improving infrastructure and enhancing agricultural methods.
- Drafting a new constitution, including a charter of human rights, a commitment to the principle of the rule of law and measures to strengthen the powers of the judiciary to uphold these provisions.
