ethnic conflicts in contemporary africa: the nigerian … · 2018-05-31 · people between late...

INTRODUCTION

Most developing countries are ethnicallydiverse. For many years, social sciences preferredto ignore the brute fact of ethnic identity. Morerecently, evidence is accumulating that isdetrimental to economic performance.Journalistic accounts of wars in Rwanda, Somalia,Sudan, and several other countries of sub-Saharan Africa in the 1990s have raised concernthat ethnic cleavages and overlapping affiliationsof religion and race may undermine prospectsfor economic and political development in muchof Africa.

Ethnic diversity may lead to increased civilstrife. This perception is fostered both by somegraphic individual scenes of inter ethnic violence,and by an aggregate correlation: Africa has notonly the highest ethnic diversity, but also thehighest incidence of civil war. Potentially, thismight account for the detrimental economiceffects of diversity. In countries of traditionalstability, ethnic conflict is becoming an increasingfactor. In Kenya, ethnic tensions related to multi-party elections resulted in the deaths of 1,500people between late 1991 and late 1993. Additional

deaths have occurred in relation to the electionin 1997, including post election recriminationsagainst non-government voting areas in earlyJanuary 1998. South Africa lost 14,000 citizensdue to the racial and ethnic violence, which waspart of transition to majority rule between 1990and 1994.

Several other conflicts, which have affectedAfricans, are prominent in Sudan; a civil conflictstretching back four decades has pitted the Arab-Moslem North against the non-Arab Christianand animist south. The most current phase, whichbegan in 1993, has resulted in the deaths of aboutone million people due either directly to the waror starvation caused by the war. Often in suchconflicts food deprivation is used as aninstrument of war. Because of government controlof the media and the drawn out nature of theconflict, it is mostly forgotten by Westernsociety. More dramatic events recently hasfocused on Rwanda where Hutus staged aslaughter of Tutsis resulting in an estimated300,000 deaths in the first half of 1994 and anadditional 20,000 in the refugee camps ofneighboring countries, where a total of 1.7 millionpeople had fled. Tension between the same ethnic

© Kamla-Raj 2006 J. Soc. Sci., 12(2): 101-114 (2006)

Ethnic Conflicts in Contemporary Africa:The Nigerian Experience

Tokunbo Simbowale Osinubi1 and Oladipupo Sunday Osinubi2

1. Department of Economics, Faculty of The Social Sciences, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, OyoState, Nigeria

E-Mail: [email protected]. Department of Political Science, Faculty of The Social Sciences, University of Lagos, Akoka,

Lagos, NigeriaE-Mail: [email protected]

KEYWORDS Democratisation; ethnicity; conflicts; nigeria

ABSTRACT Most developing countries are ethnically diverse. Ethnic diversity may lead to increased civil strife.This perception is tottered both by some graphic individual scenes of inter ethnic violence, and by an aggregatecorrelation: Africa has not only the highest ethnic diversity, but also the highest incidence of civil war. Potentially,this might account for the detrimental economic effect of diversity. In countries of traditional stability, ethnicconflict is becoming an increasing factor. Ethnic conflicts have become the serious challenge of our times, whichperhaps explains why ethnicity is seen as the reigning concept in African studies at present. In Nigeria, the colonialmasters provided urban setting, which constitutes the cradle of contemporary ethnicity. The colonialist whilepretending to carry out a mission of uniting the warring ethnic groups, consciously and systematically separated thevarious Nigerian people thereby creating a suitable atmosphere for conflict. With the heterogeneous nature of thecountry, the tendency of the various nationals is towards parochial consciousness at the expense of nationalconsciousness. This study, therefore, relies on content analysis as its methodology to examine ethnic conflicts inNigeria. It also examines the effects of ethnic conflicts on the country’s search for unity and identifies the possibleissues for resolution. The study also proffered suggestions on how to curb ethnic conflicts in Nigeria.

TOKUNBO SIMBOWALE OSINUBI AND OLADIPUPO SUNDAY OSINUBI102

groups in neighboring Burundi have been highfor much of the independence period, are costing100,000 lives in 1972 and another 20,000 in 1988.In Somalia, the fall of Said Barre in early 1991 ledto an expanded conflict in which 300,000 peopledied of starvation due to war and instabilitydespite the efforts of Western governments,NGOs and the United Nations.

Ethnic conflicts have become the seriouschallenge of our times, which perhaps explainswhy ethnicity is seen as the reigning concept inAfrican studies at present. Deeper reflectionshows, however, that although ethnicity ispowerful, it is neither absolute nor immutable,nor is it inherently destructive. Ethnic identitiesare not pre-ordained: they are deliberatelyconstructed and constantly modified. Peoplechoose to be ethnically inclined when this meetstheir needs and expectations. Ethnicity is whatremains after all else is lost – that is a deprivationof the determinants that make individual socially,economically and politically. Ethnicity is anindividual falling back onto an identity, whichprovides him with a psychological safety net. Itis a weapon of manipulation by the state,particularly where what obtains is not the nationalstate, but the nation state.

In Nigeria, the colonial masters providedurban setting, which constitutes the cradle ofcontemporary ethnicity. The British colonialistwhile pretending to carry out a mission of unitingthe warring ethnic groups consciously andsystematically separated the various Nigerianpeople thereby creating a suitable atmospherefor conflict. With the heterogeneous nature ofthe country, the tendency of the variousnationals is towards parochial consciousness atthe expense of national consciousness. A farreaching and in-depth survey of Nigeria publicopinion carried out by the InternationalFoundation for Elections Systems-IFES on behalfof United States Agency for InternationalDevelopment-USAID in 2000 found out thatethnicity is the strongest type of identity amongNigerians. Almost half of all Nigerians (48.2%)choose to tag themselves with an “ethnic”identity.

Ethnic conflicts in Nigeria and Africa ingeneral arise as result of scarcity of politicalresources, multi-culturalism, religion,militarisation of ethnicity among others. Theseconflicts cannot be ignored. It is thereforepatently clear that realistic measures to solve

these problems are needed. This study, therefore,relies on content analysis as its methodology toexamine ethnic conflicts in Nigeria. It alsoexamines the effects of ethnic conflicts on thecountry’s search for unity and identifies thepossible issues for resolution.

The rest of this study is divided into threesections. Section two reviews the literature.Section three contains the ethnic conflictssituation in Nigeria, while section four concludesthe study.

LITERATURE REVIEW

At the present time, there is plethora of viewson the nature and cases of ethnic conflicts inNigeria and Africa in general. In Africa, the spreadof mighty wave of tensions and conflicts, andindeed civil wars, is already threatening thesurvival of some states. Several complex crisesare currently manifesting themselves in ethnicforms. The ethnic conflicts threatening thestability of numerous countries today are notjust a reflection of traditional sentiments thatstubbornly refuse to die. They stem in part fromthe success of modernization, which haveequipped ethnic communities with new politicalresources and aspirations. This literature reviewlooks at some writers’ opinions concerning theethnic conflict issue.

Ethnicity and Colonization

Nwosu (1999) says the colonization of Africaand several other third world states ensured thatpeoples of diverse culture were brought togetherunder one country. To him, because of themission of colonialism, most of these peopleswere not well integrated into the new states.Instead, some of the imperial powers cashed inon the cultural divergence of these countries toensure the examination of their objectives. Hefurther said, “it is thus not surprising that yearsafter colonialism, these states remained lowlyintegrated. This low level of integration hasprecipitated crises in many of the countries. TheAfrican continent, for instance, has witnessedmany conflict situations leading to shooting wars,political and economic instability as well as socialdisequilibrium.”

To Vandenberg (1998), the problem of ethnicconflict was mooted under colonialism becauseAfricans had no control over the central powerand often were kept divided into administrativedistricts by Europeans.

ETHNIC CONFLICTS IN CONTEMPORARY AFRICA: THE NIGERIAN EXPERIENCE 103

Welsh (1996) see violent and intractableinternal conflicts in recent years in Somalia,Liberia, Rwanda, Burundi, and Sudan as thefailure of states in sub-Saharan Africa to copewith ethnicity. He examines the association ofethnic identities with the colonial period and the‘instrumentalist’ contention that ethnicity wasinvented for political purposes. He notes boththat the imperial powers in Africa did little toprepare the colonies for independence and alsothat, given the imperatives of the colonial system;it was unrealistic to expect them to do more.

Osaghae (1986) believes that because mostAfrican States as we Know today are ‘artificial’colonial creation, the major problems they haveall faced since attaining independence havearisen from the deep cleavages which existbetween the diverse people who make up thesestates. To him, these cleavages are often markedby strong sectional loyalties that compete withmuch desired loyalty to the nation or nation-to-be. Consequently, the major problem in mostAfrica states, he argued, has to do with creatingoverarching loyalties to the nation over and abovethe primordial and sub-national loyalties. Oncethese sub-national loyalties are eradicated, it isusually claimed, national integration and, with it,political stability is assured. Furthermore, he seesethnicity as basically a product of competitionfor scare resources between groups inmultiethnic societies. Ethnicity is generallyregarded as a ‘dying force’, which has resultedin a resurgence of ethnically inspired conflicts.For example he asserted that Nigeria has had afair share of such conflicts, including a civil war(1967 – 1979), and the problem has continuouslybeen how to ensure the adequate accommodationof diversities in the polity.

Ethnic Conflict and Economic Reforms

In relating ethnic conflicts and economicreforms in Africa, Ogachi (1999) believes thatviolent ethnic conflicts have increased in Africa,especially from the mid 1970s, and have pickedup on a large scale from the 1980s. To him, thiswas a period during which most African countriesentered a state of economic austerity. At the sametime, pressure was put on these countries fromthe international community to initiateprogrammes of political and economicliberalization. As a result of this, by 1980, mostAfrica countries had entered into agreements

with international financial institutions on specificareas of economic reform without much insistenceon political reforms.

Furthermore to him, from this statement, threeobservations can be made to help build a holistictheory of studying conflicts in Africa. The firsthas to do with manner in which the reforms (bothpolitical and economic) were introduced andimplemented. While the donors have insistedthat democratic political systems are crucial forthe success of the economic reforms, they havealways not put into place. The secondobservation in his view relates to the nature ofthe current spate of ethnic conflicts in Africa.The level of violence and organization makesthem slightly different from those that wereexperience during the colonial period and maytherefore not adequately capture the internaldynamics of these conflicts-cause and effects.To him, new theoretical postulations have to besought. Thirdly, the point that has already beenmade about the occurrence of the presentconflicts in Africa, concurrently with theeconomic and political reforms policies, to himpersuades one to seek a framework with whichlocates the converging points of ethnicity,economic austerity and adjustment regimes inAfrica. In his submission, ethnicity should notalways be seen as a colonial invention in Africaor just a continuation of the pre-colonialmanifestation of sheer tribal emotions aspostulated by the modernization school (Ogachi,1999).

Magubane (1962) argued convincingly thata focus on ethnicity impedes a serious effort tounderstand Africa societies because it ignoresthe ownership of the primary productive forces,the material basis of societies, and nature of thesocial system.

Similarly, Richard Sklar (1963) views the focuson ethnicity as obscuring the fact that in Africa,ethnic movements may be created and instigatedto action by the new men of power in furtheranceof their own special interest which at time andagain are constitutive of interest of emergingsocial classes. In this way, ethnicity becomes amask for class privileges.

Ethnicity and Nationalism

Ottawa (1999) said some shift has beenwitnessed now. He declared that for after a longtime of being treated as some kind of pariahs’


ethnic identities and ethnic nationalism havegained strength and even a degree of legitimacyin recent years. To him, alongside theinterpretation of ethnic passions, ethnic hatred,ethnic cleansing and genocide, ethnic dynamicscould also be viewed as struggles by thedominated and oppressed groups for greaterautonomy and for the protection of their rights.

Wallerstein (1979) asserts that ethnicconsciousness and conflict occur when groupsfeel threatened with loss of previously acquiredprivilege, or conversely feel that it is an opportunemoment politically to overcome a longstandingdenial of privilege. He said, the mechanisms andmachinations through which these groupsadvance their aims is what cause ethnic tensionsand conflicts. To him, the present manifestationof ethnicity in Africa is an elite and classphenomenon where one community’s elites feelexcluded by another from control of economicand political power. They then indoctrinatemembers of their ethnicity to believe that this is aconspiracy by a whole community againstanother, which should be violently resisted.

Nnoli (1995) asserts that ethnicity holdindividual together, gives them internal cohesion,encourages them to provide natural security foreach other and promotes their sense of identityand direction. To him, ethnicity offers a personalsolution to the problems of exploitation,oppressions, deprivation and alienation.Furthermore, he notes, in the context of aninterventionist state, the ruling class use the stateto build up their business enterprises. Thestruggle of the ethnic factions of these classesfor state patronage in the process of embour-geoisement generates and promotes ethnicity.

Ibrahim (1995) said a major contributory factorto ethnic conflicts is the undemocratic nature ofgovernance. He says many African regimes andrulers have repressed sections of the people, andby implication, ignored their aspirations. Somehave employed divide-and-rule method ingovernance, and created more ethno-religiousdivisions than the colonialist ever did. To him,once degenerated regimes find their legitimacyput in question, because they no longer care forthe majority of the people, or protect the publicgood, and fail to protect or defend the people’srights, they tend to identify the process ofrepression. He believes when governancedecays, the people retreat into sectarian enclaves,which are seen as providing security.

Diamond (1988) attributes crises and conflictin post-colonial politics in Nigeria to theemergence of a modern state with vast economicresources. To him, the legacy that colonial ruleleft was the development of a modern state thatdwarfed all other organized elements of economyand society. He agree that the state in the post-colonial era was a capitalists type because thedominant few usually controlled it and translatedpolitical power into the mean of accumulating forthemselves the wealth and resources of the states.

Synder (1993) believes the state has beendesignated as a principal actor in the source ofconflicts in Nigeria. But to him, those who holdthat view have failed to consider the failed statephenomenon in the Third World, which revivesor sustain the spirit of ethnic nationalism.According to him, ethnic nationalismpredominates when institutions collapse, whenexisting institutions are not fulfilling people’sbasic needs and when satisfactory alternativestructures are not readily available, that is, whenthere is lack of effective statehood. To him,options emerged from a failed state phenomenon:political society revels in anarchy and therefollows the process of carving out mini states –around dominant ethnic groups. It can be arguedthat the process of state making was constructedalong the line of alienation and exclusion of ethnicsocieties from political participation and exerciseof power. This keeps on generating a conflictionprocess, which eventually returns the state failureexperience.

The United Nations Research Institute forSocial Development (UNRISD) stated in 1995 thatethnicity is a resilient paradigm used in explainingthe nature of conflict in Nigeria. In UNRISDReport, it is held that Nigeria as a political societycomprises many ethnic groups, which rubshoulders with each other, so there is bound tobe conflict. The central assumption of thisviewpoint is that ethnicity has the potential totranscend other loyalties and obligations andbecome the sole basis of identity. This may leadto conflict when peoples’ multiple identities arenarrowed down to a single focus, and socialdivision become deeper and more rigid. Thesubmission of the UNRISD Report is that,ethnicity is a deeply emotional basis ofmobilization that not merely distinguishes onegroup from the other, but also dehumanizes theother group.


Ethnicity and National Unity

To Kazah-Toure (2000), the spread of a mightywave of ethnic tensions and conflicts threatensnational unity and harmonious inter-ethnicrelations. Even though more complex factors havebeen at the base, conflicts and struggles in Nigeriaare increasingly manifesting in ethnic forms. Hestated further that elsewhere on the Africancontinent, violent and bloody conflicts are moreoften assuming inter-ethnic and inter-ethno/religious proportions. He believes that on theattainment of independence from Europeancolonial domination, mostly from the 1950s –many African leaders and regimes kept on withthe tempo of denouncing the threat posed to thenew states by ethnicity and regionalism. Beyondthe appearance of this position of protecting theindivisibility of the nation state (from the deadlyvirus of ethnicity) was the politics of providingjustification for one party systems and stiflingpluralism. He asserts that a paradox of theposition was the reality that many of theproclaimed anti-ethnicist and anti-regionalistleaders were themselves using ethnicity andregionalism as weapons to exclude, to hold ontopower, marginalize and repress those in theoppositions-as well as to forces perceived eitheras rivals or enemies.

Nwaezeigwe (1998) is of the view that“Ethnicity is an instrument of groups’consciousness which serves to elevate one’spride and sense of being. It serves as the crimefond of one’s belongingness the essence of hisNigerianess. Every Nigerian is so by the fact ofhis identity with a particular ethnic groupgeographically situated in the present politicalNigeria. Thus ethnicity in its fundamental senseis an exhibition of common ethnic identity indifference to the members of other cultural groupswithin a definable geo-political setting”.

Agbese (1985) said, “Many have come to seethat Nigeria’s problem were partly man-made andpartly, tailored, it imperfectly by nature itself. Man-made problems relates mainly to the manner ofthe country’s colonization, while problemscreated by nature concern its geography andethnic composition. The balkanization of thecountry into three regions of unreasonablyunequal sizes was a grievous error of politicaljudgment on the part of the British. It was aperfect recipe for an unhealthy national diet.”

Obiatuegwu (1985) argued that the most

serious threat to harmony, progress and integralnationhood of Nigeria over the years, has beenthe over-sharpened ethnic sensitivities of itspeoples. He asserts that ethnic loyalties havebecome so infused into the psyche of the nation,that not only have more elegant phrases emerged,but such decadantants-nationalistic obsessionshave form the basis for much of the nationalpolicies. For him, the nations inadvertently havebeen promoting circumstances that not onlysensitize, but also politize the ethnic differencesin the country.

Nnoli (1978) in another book expressedsentiment in an atmosphere of extreme socio-economic competition and political scarcityprevailing in Nigeria. To him, few members of theprivileged class are confident enough of theirability to survive. Most prefer the security ofbeing able to rely on exploiting ethnic preferencesif possible. He further argues that the unbiquitousmalaise of ethnicity had infected all facets ofcommunication. In the process of socialization,ethnicity has become internalized and increased.Consequently, the ethnic factor assumed a self-fulfilling and sustaining dynamics of its ownwhich daily reinforced the individuals internalizedethnic sentiments. The persistence and growthof ethnicity in Nigeria had become inevitable.

Akinyemi and Ofonagoro (2000) noted thatthe need for the principle of equity to be appliedin the administration of the emerging nation datedback to the colonial period. The fear ofdomination, which developed in the minds ofminority groups, coupled with inter-ethnicsuspicions among the majority group help toprove the fact that Britain and even Nigeriansrecognized the fact that they are not one people.

Omuabor (2000) believes that suppression ofethnic conflicts by force is never a lastingsolution. It is like capping a seething volcano.Sooner than later, it erupts. He gave the instancewhen Nigeria’s former self-styled militarypresident, Ibrahim Babangida, annulled theresults of the June 12, 1993 presidential election;violent protest took over the streets of most citiesin Western Nigeria. To him, the feeling in thatpart of the country was that it had been robbedof a golden chance to produce a civilian president.The undeclared winner of that election, MoshoodAbiola was Yoruba, the predominant ethnic groupin that region. Furthermore, he asserts that theevents of that period are generally believed tohave given birth to the Oodua People’s Congress


(OPC), an unusually militant Yoruba group thatuses violence to redress perceived injusticeagainst the Yoruba. He stated that the birth ofthe OPC symbolizes the new spirit among theYoruba to ‘square up’ to any ethnic group thatworks against in interest. This development tohim led to the formation of Arewa People’sCongress (APC), an unusually militant Hausagroup, to counter the activities of the OPC. OPCand APC aside, a group of militant Ijaw Youthscalled Egbesu Boys also evolved out of recentIjaw wars with the Itsekiri and Ilaje ethnicnationalities in the oil-rich Niger-Delta. Hissubmission is that, but for the absence ofuniforms, these groups are ethnic armies whohave sworn to defend and fight for the interestof their ethnic groups.

Ethnicity and Political Power

Commenting on the Africa level Omuabor(2000), further believes the quest by ethnic groupsto wield political power is not a new phenomenon.To him, the history of Africa could easily bedescribed as a running tale of ethnic struggles.The colonial experience reinforce ethnic rivalryespecially where colonist entrenched ethnicminority elite, as in Rwanda and Burundi, or evencreated them, as in Liberia, Sierra-Leone andAngola where freed slaves became rulers, orEuropean settlers intermarried to form a crole elite.

Osaghae (2000) says that since its colonialbeginnings the Africa state has centralized theproduction and distribution of resources,patronage and privileges, and this has made itthe object of political competition. He also makesa case for economic deregulation as a recipe forconflict management.

Maitama-Sule (2000) traces the quest forpower and the resultant ethnic conflicts toambition and agreed. These negative instinctsof man have continued to sour human relationsand fortunes, with the result that incidents ofpopulation displacement are on the increase ona large scale, and the misery associated with suchdisplacement is getting more and more acute.

Oyekanmi (2000), though, reckonsdeprivation; a scene of alienation and a deter-mination by ethnic groups to be part of thecontrol of resources are the primary factors thatcause ethnic conflicts in Africa. She adds thatthese groups resort to violence when they arenot assured of other ways of seeking redress

and getting justice.Agbu (2000) believes poverty alone can

provide inducement for such conflicts. He says,we all know the economic conditions of mostpeople in Africa. We have seen whole groupsimpoverished. Unless such groups areempowered deliberately, strife may never end onthe continent.

From our point of view, Ethnic situation inAfrica acknowledge the heterogeneity of ethnicgroups in terms of culture and languages thatare endemic in diverse origin and history. Ethnicconflicts erupt when the claims of one party toland and territory become incompatible with thedesire of others to satisfy their own basic interestand needs within the same physical territory. Theconsequences of the ethnic conflicts, whether inAfrica or elsewhere, could be nation destroying.No country can afford the luxury of allowingethnic conflict free rein or ignoring it. Every multi-ethnic state has tried to devise ways of copingwith conflicts, several universal prescription andformulas that have been popularized. Failure toresolve conflicts over access to commonly valuedscare resources, and over divergent perceptionsof socio-political situations, has the highpotential of degenerating into genocide orfratricide as it occurred among the Ife andModakeke (Yorubas) in Southwestern Nigeria,Zongon-Kataf (Hausas) crisis in NorthernNigeria, Aguleri and Umuleri (Ibos) in EasternNigeria, and the Tiv – Jukun of Middle-Belt,Nigeria, and the Hutu – Tutsi of Burundi andRwanda in East Africa.

The problem of land resources-territorialinhabitation-as a factor in ethnicity/ethnicconflicts in Nigeria for instance has becomeexacerbated since the 1970s and especially asfrom the 1990s when oil companies in the Niger-Delta and other oil producing states, identifiedoil exploration activities. Fiercely contestedclaims, based on descent or genealogy andkinship symbols have made over territories inrespect of which compensation and royalties aredemanded and paid. This factor has been an openinvitation not only to conflicts betweencommunities or ethnic groups, but also betweenthe ethnic groups or communities and oilcompanies and government. This kind ofconflicts has become a daily occurrence in theoil producing areas of the South-South andSouth-Eastern geo-political zones with ripplesand consequences for the rest of Nigeria.


THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The theoretical framework for our analysis inthis study is the Conflict Theory.

Ethnic conflict may take several forms, whichcan be classified, as violent and non-violent.Violent ethnic conflicts usually erupt in placeswhere the government is an instrument of groupdomination and where the channel for articulatingdemands is closed. These form ranges from riotto secession and civil wars (which have beenexperienced in most part of the continent of Africanotably Congo, Nigeria, Liberia, Sudan, Ethiopia,Rwanda and Cameroon). While Non-violentconflict includes articulation of changes ofdiscrimination, neglect or domination, demandsfor redress through the press, ethnic leaders,political parties, law courts, and other civilmethods of articulating demand (Osaghae, 1992).

Ethnic conflict entails a clash of cultures. Itpits against each other people whose values arein conflict, who want different things, and whodo not understand each other. Ethnic conflict isbrought about by modernization. Modernizationmakes people want the same things, not differentthings, and this sets up a great scramble forresources. Ethnic conflict is the result ofeconomic competition between ethnicallydifferentiated segments of the working class orethnically differentiated traders and customers.Elite competition and the actions of ethnicentrepreneurs drive ethnic conflict. Elitesmanipulate ethnic identities in their quest forpower, and they construct ethnic conflict. Ethnicconflict is produced by the insecurity thatemerges when an actor is unsure of the intentionsof another actor and the two are already mutuallyhostile (Horowitz, 1998).

Portions of the phenomenon of ethnicconflict have been discovered or rediscoveredand then asserted to be characteristic of thewhole phenomenon. If there are powerfulemotions, or if ethnic group loyalty supersedesto other groups, all ethnic conflict must beprimordial. If politician benefit from calculativebehaviour, or if group struggle over resources,ethnic conflict must be instrumental. Clearly, whatis needed is a theory that can embrace the dis-parate manifestations of ethnic conflict behaviour(Horowitz, 1998).

Several schools of thought advanceconflicting theories of ethnic conflicts, in variouspermutations and combinations, the issues onwhich they differ are several, but the difference

can be reduced to hard views of ethnic conflictsversus soft view, where hard and soft refer to thenature of group affiliations and the end of conflictbehaviours. The hard views of ethnic conflictssees ethnic groups as ascriptive, firmly boundedentities based on a strong sense of commonality,producing considerable loyalty, persisting overtime, providing large affective rewards to groupmembers, inclined to ethnocentrism and tohostility to and a desire to dominate outsiders,liable to conflict behaviour based on passion,and engendering a great willingness on the partof group members to sacrifice for collectivewelfare (Horowitz, 1998).

In the case of the soft position, ethnic groupsare entities whose boundaries are problematicand malleable, whose solidarity is based on thematerial rewards they provide for their membersrather than on diffuse affection, whose behaviour,based on the interest of their member, is vulnerableto strategic manipulation, whose apparent affectcan often be reduced to calculation, and whosesevere conflicts with others often result lessirreconcilable objectives than from strategicdilemmas. These are hard and soft positions inthe sense that the first sees ethnic affiliations asmade of stone, while the second sees them asmade of putty (Horowitz, 1998).

The opportunities for disaggregated analysisare enormous. Everywhere the issue of the birthand death of ethnic groups present itself forexplanation. In some states, ethnic conflicts pre-empts conflict along other cleavage lines; inothers, it coexists with them; elsewhere, ethnicconflicts is restrained. In some states, interethnicattitudes remain unremittingly hostile; in others,they have undergone changes, whether benignor malign. In some states, seemingly manageableconflicts have become unmanageable; in others,the reverse is true.

Nigeria with a large number of ethnic groups,inequalities among them is size, resourceendowment, education and access to state powerand resources, are highly developed andfractionalized indigenous bourgeoisie, make herethnic situation perhaps the most complicated inAfrica (Osaghae, 1994). Before the country’sdemocratic government, was inaugurated in May1999, ethnic conflicts were not so pronounced,although feelings were being voiced. Theexception was the Niger-Delta, where the Ijawand Itsekiri were locked in a protracted andgrueling war over the location of headquarters


of the Warri South local government council.There was also the struggle by the Ogonis forthe control of their oil wealth, which wastragically, crushed by government troops on theorders of late head of state, Sani Abacha. Quiteoften, groups have also resorted to violence,fighting brief wars to settle primordial scores likethe case of Zangon – Kataf crisis and Ife –Modakeke crisis.

Today, the scenario is totally different. Wholeethnic armies such as Oodua Peoples Congress(OPC), Movement for the Actualisation of theSovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB), ArewaPeoples Congress (APC), Ijaw Youth Movement,(IYW), among others have evolved in some partsof the country, although the government prefersto call them criminals. The activities of thesemilitant groups have pushed Nigeria closer tothe precipice and revived ethnic awareness inmany people. The Nigerian situation is so muchlike what is happening in other trouble spots onthe continent.

THE ETHNIC CONFLICTS SITUATION INNIGERIA SO FAR

Nigeria could almost be compared to abiological cell, which sub-divides and sub-divides again, creating more and more replicas ofitself. Nigeria was first formed in 1914 by theamalgamation of North and South. Beforeindependence, the British colonial administrationencouraged communal sentiments amongdifferent ethnic groups. It seized every availableopportunity to spread the myth and propagandathat they were separated from one another bygreat distance, by difference of history andtradition, and by ethnic tribal, religious andpolitical barriers. The various ethnic groups inthe country became exclusive and inbred with aserious level of tribal selfishness, animosity andhostility against one another. That is, in Nigeria,ethnic group in itself has been transformed toethnic group for itself through the colonialcontact situation. The basis for the emergenceof a common consciousness among ethnicgroups has been inter-ethnic competition for scareresources resulting in ethnic conflicts.

The three regions in which Nigeria wasdivided at independence were each dominatedby a majority tribe or ethnic group constitutingabout two thirds of the regional population: theHausa–Fulani in the North, the Yoruba in theWest, and the Ibo in the Eastern Region. The

remainder of the population in each regionconsisted of a number of minority tribes withtheir own separate culture and languages. Themost important of these were the Edo people, theIjaw, the Ibo, the Itshekiri and the Ishan peoplesin the Mid-Western part of the Western Region,the Ogoja, Calabar, Ibibio, and Rivers people inthe Eastern Region and the Kanuri, Tiv, Idoma,Jukun, Nupe, Bachama, Biron Angas, and otherMiddle-Belt peoples in the Northern Region.Despite the fragmentation of the country intothirty-six states today by successive governmentwith the aim of easing ethnic tension andpromoting development cultivating in unity indiversity, inter-ethnic rivalry still persist.

A trend of violent ethnic conflicts spreadingthrough Nigeria in recent years has intensified inthe past months, leaving hundreds of peopledead and thousands displaced. From Warri inthe South to Zango–Kataf and Kafanchan in theNorth and from Aguleri– Umuleri in the East toIfe–Modakeke in the West, neighboringcommunities have pounced on each other withdestructive fury justified by longstandingrivalries. Despite the ethnic lines often dividingbelligerents, some of the most intense fightinghas been between people of the same ethnicgroup, such as the ethnic Igbo communities ofAguleri and Umuleri in Eastern Nigeria and theYoruba of Ife and Modakeke. In most cases theethnic conflicts rooted in age-old disputes.

The fear of domination, which developed inthe minds of minority groups, coupled with interethnic suspicion among the majority grouphelped to prove the fact that Britain our colonialmasters and even Nigerians recognized the factthey are not people. This assertion is illustratedby the fact that Sir Arthur Richard (1948) said, “Itis only by accident of British suzerainty whichhas made Nigeria one country socially andpolitically, and there are deep differencesbetween the major tribal groups”. In similar vein,Chief Obafemi Awolowo (1967) said, “Nigeria isnot a nation, it is a mere geographical expression.There are no ‘Nigerian’ in the same sense as thereare ‘English’ or ‘Welsh’ or ‘French’, the wordNigeria is only a distinctive appellation todistinguish those who live within the boundariesof Nigeria from those who do not”.

Zangon – Kataf Crisis

Zango-Kataf is a community in the


Southeastern part of Kaduna State, Nigeria abouttwo hundred and thirty kilometers away from thestate capital Kaduna. The community is situatedbetween Latitude 90N and Longitude 80S, andmade up of about fifty autonomous village(Akinteye et al., 1999).

The Southern Kaduna zone in which theZangon-Kataf community lies has occupied avolatile position in the twentieth century historyof inter-group conflicts and tension in NorthernNigeria. It has experienced complex conflicts,occasionally violent, and mostly assuming anethnic form. Linked with these have beenquestions of socially equality, citizenship,community rights, and social democracy. All thishas taken place in a rural zone, which is aminiature Nigeria, with about forty ethnic groups.Until the 1990s, most of their now predominantlyChristian populations also a component of whatis referred to, as Northern minorities werefollowers of traditional African religion(s). Thereis a Muslim population, mostly Hausa and Fulani,which is in a minority in the area, although partof the majority at the regional and traditionallevels (Kazah-Toure, 1999).

When Nigeria got her independence from theBritish in 1960, the various contradictions andpoints of inter-ethnic conflict had not beenresolved. The post-colonial order was foundedon the same socio-economic and politicalstructures, which were already in existence. Theinstitutions and mechanisms for generatingconflicts remained intact. Thus ethnic conflictswere to remain part of the history process (Kazah-Toure, 1999). Thus the history of SouthernKaduna is essentially a history of residence andstruggle by the various ethnic groups to theemirate system, which was imposed on the areaby the British colonial indirect rule system. Thesestruggles have continued in various formsresulting into very bloody clashes in Zango-Kataf in 1992. The dispute between the ZangoHausa and the Kataf people goes beyond thequarrel over the site of their market. Between them,there has been a protracted misunderstandingover land ownership. The Kataf claimed the landon which Hausa live was theirs; and that theHausa were only settlers. Easily, they recounttheir oral tradition dating back to 1967 when Melean itinerant Hausa trader from Niger was given aproton of land in the heart of the town to settleafter many years of trade relations with them.Soon according to them, Mele was joined by his

Kinsmen. Hence, the name Zango-Kataf (whichmeans transit camp in Kataf). But the Hausacommunity said the claim by the Kataf washumbug; that is their claim is false. The Katafpeople to them met them there. The Hausas claim-ed that the real name of Zango-Kataf was Zango-Katabiri. That the Katafs came, gradually surround-ed them, and eventually changed the name.

The vexed issue of land ownership is rootedin the emirate system that is in practice there.Under this system, the predominantly Christiancommunities and chiefdoms in Southern part ofKaduna state remain under the control of theEmir of Zaria. At present, apart from Jama’aKagoro, Jabba and Marwa, the over eighteenchiefdoms in the Southern part of Kaduna havetheir loyalty to the Emir. The district heads payhomage to their emir Islamic festivals like ed-el-kabir, ed-el fitri and ed-el Maulud. “The systemis very bad,” (Dent, 1995) complained a Katafsaying that the traditional system of landownership in the area favoured the Hausas, andhas been the root cause of the crisis between theZango Hausa and Kataf people. The Kataf peoplecomplain of domination by the Hausas.

Ife – Modakeke Crisis

Ife is widely recognized as the oldest dynamicstate formed by the Yoruba. Ile-Ife, the capitalcity, has the reputation of being one of the longestcontinuously inhabited centers south of theRivers Niger and 4055’E (Adediran, 1992). Ife liesbetween latitude 70N and 7035’N, longitudes4020’E, covering an area of 1846km2 (Jeje, 1992).

The Ife-Modakeke crisis is one oldest intra-ethnic conflict in Nigeria; it has been going onfor more than a century and is still claiming lives(Albert, 1999). Following the collapse of the OyoEmpire towards the end of the 18th century andsubsequent Muslim invasion of the northernfringes of the Yoruba country in the openingdecades of 19th century, an influx of refugees fledsouthwards looking for secure abodes anddependable means of subsistence. Many of theserefuges from old Oyo settled in towns and villageon the outskirts of Ile-Ife, tremendously swellingthe populations of such communities likeIpetumodu, Moro, Yakoyo, Edunabou and others.With time and as a result of further disruptivecivil strife, many moved into Ile-Ife itself living inthe different wards of the ancient city (Olaniyan,1992).


Finding a lasting solution to the Ife-Modakeke intra-ethnic conflicts has, indeed,been an onerous task. Infact, the crisis has defiedall peace agreements in the last one hundredyears. Consequently, thousands of lives andproperty have been lost over the years (Akpan-Ekong, 2000). Various reasons have beenresponsible for the Ife – Modakeke renewedcrisis. Among them are land ownership, rent overland and the question of local government forModakeke. For instance, the August 1997violence was sparked off by the location andrelocation of headquarters of the Ife – East localgovernment council.

The ultimate objective of the separatistsentiments has always been the creation of aseparate local government for Modakeke. Indeed,the issue of a separate local government hasbeen central to Ife – Modakeke relations and wascertainly prominent among the concerns in thecivil disturbances of 1981. It was both a causeand a suggested solution at the same time. Thepolitical parties exploited the issue, the localpropaganda fed on it, oral and written evidenceat the inquiry into the disturbance harped on it.When a separate local government was notcreated for them, the Modakeke felt profoundlybetrayed and cheated. The Ife opposed thecreation of a separate local government forModakeke with determined vehemence, fearingloss of their land; they would rather have theModakekes evacuated. Other issue that becomespart of the history of the relations between thetwo communities also became important(Olaniyan, 1992; Akpan-Ekong, 2000).

From the foregoing, in our own view, Nigeriais not yet a United Country. There is inter-ethnicdistrust and destructive rivalry. Claude Ake (1992)said, “if not addressed soon, when there is still achance, that unity can be salvage, we will all belosers, prevailing illusions not withstanding,Nigeria can only be held together by negotiatedconsensus not force”.

CONCLUSION

The state in Africa is neither neutral nor anarbitrator: “it is itself a focal point of competition,an actor in the conflict”. This way “great ethnicconflict has usually been caused by the capture,or apparent near capture, by one group of controlover the centralized state, and the dangers ofdominance this has foretold” (Osaghae, 1994).

In Nigeria, peace hangs by a thread. Demo-cratization appears to have woken long–suppressed feelings among the hundreds ofethnic nationalities in the country. Now rivalrybetween groups is usually intense. Some arepushing for greater participation in the runningof the affairs of the Nigeria state, while othersclamour for greater autonomy. Quite often,groups have resorted to violence, fighting briefwars to settle primordial scores (Omuabor, 2000).For instance, the Ife – Modakeke crisis and theZango-Kataf crisis that are used as case studiesin this study fits the assertion of fighting briefwars to settle primordial scores among othercauses.

The problem of building a nation from acollection of ethnic groups is one, which mostnations of Africa face today. Nigeria is a pluralsociety, defined by cultural– institutionaldiversities of the ethnic groups of variouspopulations, and with people practicing threemain religions (Christianity mainly in the Southand Middle Belt, Islam mainly in the North, andtraditional religion in every part of the country).There have been various statements about theextent of Nigeria’s ethnic pluralism, from the twohundred and fifty mentioned by colonialist, andeven half that number by superficial observers,to the figure of three hundred and seventy fourethnic groups. Admittedly, Nigeria is a verycomplex country with the behaviour andrelationships of individual and groupsdetermined by imperatives of cultural symbolsand strategic social institutions. Different peopleare predisposed to conceptualize political andeconomic resources and the access to them indivergent ways through their own coded lenses(Otite, 1999).

Ethnic conflicts are means of identifying theimperfections of a plural society, and ofsuggesting remedies to remove or solve theproblem of inequality, marginalisation,exploitation, internal colonialism, and the misuseof majoritarian democracy and nationalgovernment (Otite, 2000). Owing to the fact thatthe roots of ethnic conflicts are not being tackled,cosmetic solutions, such as the creation of morelocal government councils and chiefdoms, leadto the emergency of new minorities and moreagitations. Even within the same ethnic groupthere are class contradictions, and theirprimordial political game deepens conflicts alongclan lines. In the case of Ile-Ife in Osun state, the


Modakeke claims to the ownership of theirsettlement and farmland have been stronglyresisted by the Ooni (Royal king of Ile-Ife) andthe people of Ife. Also, ethnic claim over newlocal government council headquarters and newmarkets are a source of conflicts, for example,Zangon– Kataf and Tafawa Balewa towns inKaduna and Bauchi states respectively. There isalso the Warri crisis involving ethnic Ijaws andUrhobos versus Itsekiris, Tiv–Jukun crisis,Aguleri– Umuleri crisis, and Hausas and Yorubasof Sagamu in Ogun state among others.

At 44, Nigeria has come a long way. Its abilityto survive as one political entity is the bestevidence of its resilience, if not total nationalunity. Few emerging nations could not have takenthe knockings Nigeria had taken these past forty-one years and still be a country. In actual fact,the post–independence political history ofNigeria is more or less how Nigeria has sincetried to grapple with the problem of how best toaccommodate the competing socio–political andethno–cultural problems of its people. In a recentlecture, Anyaoku (2000), former Secretary-Generalof the Commonwealth said “There was a timewhen some of us were idealistic enough to thinkit is possible to wish away essential differencesbetween the component ethnic groups of ourcountry (Nigeria) and mould a truly united Nigeriaout of it without taking account of its plurality.But experience in this and many other countriesshow that this is neither possible nor indeeddesirable. It shows further that for national unityto become truly nurtured beyond the limits ofrhetoric and realized in a way that generatesgenuine patriotism among the citizens, there hasto be minimum of openness and accountabilityin the governance system. And an accountablegovernment should mean a democraticgovernment freely and fairly elected by thevoters. It should also mean a democraticgovernment that recognizes the importance ofreaching units of a pluralistic society”. SinceNigeria has now democratized, solving inters orintra-ethnic conflicts in the country are now leftfor the present government and Nigerians ingeneral to address.

RECOMMENDATIONS

In Nigeria, ethnic ties seen stronger thannational consciousness. The resurgence ofethnic and youth military in Niger–Delta andSouthern areas of the country is a case point.

Religious militancy ravages the Northern part ofthe country while series of communal blood–baththreatens the foundation of Eastern part ofNigeria. Some of the ethnic and religious militantshave constituted themselves into private armiesthereby creating serious ethnic conflicts.However, the issues of ethnic conflicts in Nigeriacould be addressed if the government adoptscertain policies and programmes. The followingrecommendations are therefore made.

There should be convocation of a SovereignNational Conference open to all groups andsections in the country to table and discuss whatthey needed and how Nigeria should beadministered. Although, the National Assemblywould have readily performed this historicassignment, but all indications so far, have shownthat they are not the true representatives of thepeople, other delegates should be elected for thispurpose.

There should be introduction of effectiveunemployment reduction–cum job creationagenda policies and laws that would boost foodproduction, provision of social amenities, goodand affordable housing, assurance of equity,fairness and justice in all spheres of our nationallife should be pursued and enacted. The recoveryand return to the state coffers of all ill-gottenwealth for investment and punishment of theculprit (dead or alive) should also not be treatedwith levity if the people’s anxiety is to beassuaged.

There should be proportional representation,which allows all the minorities in the country tobe represented at local, state and national levels.

There is a need for a serious and practicalcommitment to sharing the burdens and rewardsof citizenship with equity. We have to beat thehabit of preying on others and consumingwithout producing. This habit underlines ourfanatical zeal for political power, and our politicalfragmentation.

Nigerian should be restructured with moreemphasis on decentralization to enable the ethnicgroups within the federation to exercisemeaningful control over economic and socialdevelopment in their respective areas. In thisregard, the states in Nigeria should have controlover the police to enable then function effectively,particularly in crime control and security of livesand properties.

There should be fair and equitable


development, recognition and acceptance of thefact that each group is entitled to a minimum levelof self determination within the nationalframework, a national policy which ensures thatno group, however small is denied its just rightsand entitlements, as such denial leads tofrustration and inability to identify with the nationstate.

The government should continue to build apolitical culture and political fora, which supportdialogue and accommodation between groups.This is, no doubt, a long and difficult process inany society, but it should be encouraged.

The ethnic conflicts issue could also be add-ressed within the spectrum of a consociationalDemocracy. In a consociation Democracy, thecentrifugal tendencies inherent in a plural societyare counteracted by the cooperative attitudesand behaviour of the leader’s of differentsegments of the populations. Elite co-operationis the primary distinguishing features of con-sociational democracy. It is defined in terms ofboth the segmented cleavages typical of a pluralsociety and the political co-operation of segment-al elites.

There is a need to establish a committee ofcommunity leaders, which from time to timeshould among other things, be charged with thetask of reviewing the relationship between thewarring parties. Only equity, equality, and a truedemocratic order could provide a bed–rock ofunity and peaceful co-existence, which couldsoften ethnic conflicts.

REFERENCES

Adediran, B. 1992. “The Early Beginnings of the IfeState”, (pp. 77-95) in I.A. Akinjogbin, et al., TheCradle of a Race Ife (From the beginning to 1980).Port-Harcourt, Sunray Publications Limited:Nigeria.

Adeyemo, W. 1998. “Again, The Fireworks!” TellMagazine, July 27: 26-27.

Agbese, D. 1985. “Nigeria 25 Year On: A Nation with250 Unequal Legs.” Newswatch Magazine. Page 14.

Agbu, O. 2000. “Ethnic Conflicts – When Tribes andTongue Differ”, (page 15) in Ethnic Conflicts –Counting the Human Cost. News Africa (UK)Limited.

Agekameh, D. 1997. “Blood From the Source.” TellMagazine, September 1: 22-24.

Agekameh, D. 2000a. “Twist in a Tale of War.” TellMagazine, May 22: 32-33.

Agekameh, D. 2000b. “Old War Never Dies.” TellMagazine, March 20: 26-28.

Ake, C. 1992. “Our Problems not in Others ButOurselves.” Keynote Address to the Inaugural

Dialogue of the Obafemi Awolowo Foundation, inThe Guardian Newspapers, December

Akinjogbin, I. A. et al. 1992. The Cradle of a Race Ife(from the Beginning to 1980). Port-Harcourt,Nigeria: Sunray Publications Limited.

Akinkuotu, A. 1992. “Old Foes, New Brothers: CalmReturns to Zangon-Kataf as President BabangidaLeads the way in Waging Peace.” Tell Magazine,June 8: 21-22.

Akinteye, O. et al. 1999. “Zangon-Kataf Crisis: A CaseStudy”, (pp 222-245) in O. Otite and I. O. Albert(eds.), Communal Conflict in Nigeria, Management,Resolution and Transformation. Ibadan: SpectrumBooks,

Akinyemi, A.B. et al. 1998. Readings on Federalism,Nigeria: Ibadan University Press.

Akpan-Ekong, O. 2000a. “A Restless Ghost.” NewswatchMagazine, March 20: 29-31.

Akpan-Ekong, O. 2000b. “War Without End.”Newswatch Magazine, April 3: 32-33.

Albert, I. O. 1999. Ife-Modakeke Crisis, USAID ProjectReport, Lagos, Nigeria.

Amuwo, K. et al. 1998. Federalism and PoliticalRestructuring in Nigeria, Ibadan: Spectrum Books.

Brockerhoff, M. and Hewett, P. 1998. “Ethnicity andChild Mortality in sub-Saharan Africa.” PopulationCouncil Working Paper Number 107, PolicyResearch Division.

Carroll, B. W. and Carroll, T.(2000. “AccommodatingEthnic Diversity in a Modernizing Democratic State:Theory and Practice in the case of Mauritius”, (pp.120 – 142) in Ethnic and Racial Studies, Volume23, Number 1, Taylor and Francis Limited.

Codesria, 1999. “The Political Economy of Conflictsin Africa”, Africa Development, CODESRIAQuarterly Journal, Vol. XXIV, Numbers 1 and 2.

Collier, P. 1998. “The Political Economy of Ethnicity”,Center for the Study of African EconomiesPublishing, Oxford Working Paper Number 55.

Crossroads, 2000. “USAID Report Shows NigeriansStrongly Support Democracy”, (pp.7-9) inCROSSROADS published by the Public AffairsSection USA Embassy, Lagos, Nigeria. Volume 6Number 5.

Dent, M. 1995. “Ethnicity and Territorial Politics inNigeria”, (page 129) in Graham Smith (eds.).Federalism: The Multi-Ethnic Challenge, Londonand New York: Longman.

Diamond, L. 1988. Class, Ethnicity and Democracy inNigeria, London: George Allen and Unwin.

Gadonu, A. 1978. “Nigeria 250 Ethnic Groups: Realitiesand Assumptions”, in R.E. Holloman and S. A.Arutiunov (eds.), Perspective on Ethnicity, TheHague

Horowitz, D. 1985. Ethnic Groups in Conflict, Berkeley,USA: University of California Press.

Ibrahim, J. 1993. “Pluralism and Religious Conflict inNigeria: A Research Agenda.” Paper presented atASA Conference, Boston, USA.

Ibrahim, J. 1995. “The Narcissism of Minor Differenceand the Rise of Genocidal/ Tendencies in Africa:Lesson from Rwanda and Burundi.” Paper presentedat the 8th CODESRIA General Assembly, Dakar

Idowu, O.W. 1999. “Citizenship, Alienation and Conflictin Nigeria”, (page 44) in CODESRIA Quarterly


Journal, The Political Economy of Conflicts in Africa,Africa Development, Volume XXIV Numbers 1and 2.

Irin, A. 1999. Nigeria: IRIN Background Report onCommunal Conflicts, IRIN: United NationsHumanitarian Information Unit, Internet Services,Lagos

Jeje, L.K. 1992. “Ife Division – the Physical Elementsof the Environment”, (pp 1-38) in I.A. Akinjogbin,et al., The Cradle of a Race Ife ( From the beginningto 1980), Sunray Publications Limited, Port-Harcourt, Nigeria.

Joseph, R. 1999. State, Conflict and Democracy in Africa.London: Boulder Lynne Rienner.

Kaufmann, C. 1996. “Possible and Impossible Solutionsto Ethnic Civil Wars.” International Security 21(2):79-99.

Kazah-Toure, T. 1995. “Inter-Ethnic Relations,Conflicts and Nationalism in Zangon-Kataf Areaof Northern Nigeria: Historical Origins andContemporary Forms.” Paper presented at the 8th

CODESRIA General Assembly, Dakar.Kazah-Toure, T. 2000. “The National Question in

Nigeria: A focus on the Hausa and The Fulbe(Fulani)”, Draft Paper presented at the Conferenceon The Management of National Question inNigeria, Organized by the Programme on Ethnicand Federal Studies. University of Ibadan, Ibadan,Nigeria.

Kokole, O. 1996. “Ethnic Conflicts versus Developmentin Africa: Causes and Remedies”, in L. V. De Gooret al. (eds.). Between Development and Destruction–An Enquiry into the Causes of Conflicts in Post-Colonial States, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, TheHague, Netherlands.

Lake, D.A. and Rothchild, D. 1998. The InternationalSpread of Ethnic Conflicts. Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Lake, D. A. and Rothchild, D. 1996. Containing Fear:The Origins and Management of Ethnic Conflict.”International Security, 21(2): 41-75.

Lijphart, A. 1977. Democracy in Plural Societies. NewHaven, USA: Yale University Press.

Magubane, A.B. 1962. “Pluralism and Conflict Situationin Africa: A New Look.” African Social Research,5(1): 6-8.

Maitama-Sule, Y. 2000. “Ethnic Conflicts: When Tribesand Tongue Differ” in Ethnic Conflicts – Countingthe Human Cost. News Africa (UK) Limited.

Mustapha, A. R. 1997. “Ethnicity and Democratizationin Nigeria: A case study of Zangon-Kataf” in IbrahimJibril (eds.) Expanding in Nigeria DemocraticSpace: Dakar: CODESRIA

Nnoli, O. 1978. Ethnic Politics in Nigeria. Enugu: FourthDimension Publishers.

Nnoli, O. 1994. Ethnicity and Democracy in Africa-Intervening Variables. Lagos, Nigeria: MalthousePress Limited.

Nnoli, O. 1995. Ethnicity and Development in Nigeria,Aldershot Avebury Publisher.

Nwaezeigwe, N. T. 1998. “Ethnicity and the Politics ofIgbo, Yoruba Relations: Case of a Celebration orDefeat?” Special Lecture Series 2, Department ofPolitical Science, University of Lagos, Lagos,Nigeria.

Nwosu, I. N. 1999. “Nigeria in the Management of sub-Regional Conflicts”, (pp 106-119) in A. Sanusi (ed.)Selected Themes in Nigeria Foreign Policy andInternational Relations. Ilorin, Nigeria: Sally andAssociates.

Obiatuegwu, B. 1985. “Ethnic Loyalties in a UnitedNigeria.” Daily Star Magazine. May: 5

Ogachi, O. 1999. “Economic Reforms, PoliticalLiberalisation and Economic Ethnic Conflict inKenya”, in CODESRIA Quarterly Journal, ThePolitical Economy of Conflicts in Africa, AfricaDevelopment, Volume XXIV Number 1 and 2, pp.87

Oghuma, A. 1992. “Trial of a General.” Tell Magazine,August 24: 17-19.

Ojewale, O. 1997. “Again Blood Flows.” NewswatchMagazine, September 1: 29-32.

Ojewale, O. 1997. “Between Life and Death.” NewswatchMagazine, October 13: 15-17.

Okorie, E., et al. 1992. “Violence Unlimited.” NewswatchMagazine, June 1: 10-13.

Oladipo, T. 2000. “Endless Bloodletting.” The NewsMagazine, March 20: 20-21.

Olaniyan, R.A. 1992. “The Modakeke Question in IfePolitics and Democracy”, (pp. 226-286) in I.A.Akinjogbin, et al., The Cradle of a Race Ife (Fromthe beginning to 1980), Port-Harcourt, Nigeria:Sunray Publications Limited.

Omuabor, V. 2000. Ethnic Conflicts-Counting the HumanCost. News Africa (UK) Limited.

Omuabor, V. 2000. “Ethnic Conflicts – When Tribesand Tongue Differ”, (pp. 10–15) in Ethnic Conflicts– Counting the Human Cost. News Africa (UK)Limited.

Osaghae, E. 1994. Ethnicity and its Management inAfrica – The Democratization Link. Lagos, Nigeria:Malthouse Press Limited.

Osaghae, E. 1992. “Managing Ethnic Conflicts UnderDemocratic Transition in Africa: The Promise, TheFailure and The Future”, in B. Caron, A. Gboyega,and E. Osaghae (eds.) Democratic Transition inAfrica, CREDU Documents in Social Sciences andthe Humanities, Series Number 1, Ibadan, Nigeria.

Otite, O. 1999. “On Conflicts, their Resolution,Transformation, and Managements”, (pp. 1–32)in Otite, O. and Alberts, I. O. (eds.) CommunityConflicts in Nigeria, Management Resolution andTransformation. Ibadan, Nigeria: Spectrum Books.

Otite, O. 2000. “Sociological Dimensions of ResearchingEthnicity and Ethnic Conflicts in Nigeria.” A paperpresented at the Methodology Workshop, EthnicMapping Project Programme on Ethnic andFederal Studies, University of Ibadan, Ibadan,Nigeria.

Otite, O. and Albert, I. O. 1999. Communal Conflicts inNigeria, Management, Resolution and Transfor-mation. Ibadan, Nigeria: Spectrum Books.

Ottawa, M. 1999. “Ethnic Politics in Africa: Changeand Continuity”, (pp229) in Joseph, R. (eds.) State,Conflict and Democracy in Africa. London: BoulderLynne. Rienner.

Oyekanmi, F. 2000. “Ethnic Conflicts – When Tribesand Tongue Differ”, (page 14) in Ethnic Conflicts –Counting the Human Cost, News Africa (UK)Limited.


Richmond, A.H. 1987. “Ethnic Nationalism: SocialScience Paradigms.” International Social ScienceJournal, pp 3-17.

Samarasinghe, S. W. R. and Da Silva, K. M. 1993. PeaceAccords and Ethnic Conflicts. International Centrefor Ethnic Studies, Sri-Lanka. London and New-York: Pinter Publishers.

Sambanis, N. 1999. “Ethnic Partition as a Solution toEthnicity War. An Empirical Critique of theTheoretical Literature.” Policy Research WorkingPaper 2208, The World Bank DevelopmentResearch Group, Public Economics.

Sklar, R.L. 1963. Nigerian Political Parties, Princeton,New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Synder, J. 1993. “Nationalism and the Crisis of the Post-Soviet State.” Survival, Volume 35 Number 1.

The Guardian, 1998. “Osun Spends N38 Million on Ife,Modakeke Crisis.” The Guardian Newspaper, June29: 3

UNRISD, 1995. “State of Disarray: The Social Effect ofGlobalisation”, The United Nations ResearchInstitute for Social Development (UNRISD),Geneva.

Uloko, J. 1992. “Killing Field.” Newswatch Magazine,March 20: 24-25.

Vandeberg, P. 1998. “Risk, Ethnicity and PropertyRights: Towards a Political Economy of Africa’sInstitutions.” Working Paper Series Number 84,School of Oriental and African Studies, Universityof London.

Welsh, D. (1996), “Ethnicity in sub-Saharan Africa.”International Affairs Journal on Ethnicity andInternational Relations, 72 (3): 477-491.