Why did the attempt to establish democracy in Nigeria (1961–1966) fail?
The failure of the democratic experiment in Nigeria from 1961 to 1966 is a complex issue, rooted in a myriad of political, social, and economic factors. This essay will explore these factors in depth, focusing on the role of ethnic tensions, military intervention, and the influence of colonial legacy. The views of Achebe, Falola, and Diamond will be incorporated to provide a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter.
The first significant factor contributing to the failure of democracy in Nigeria was the intense ethnic tension that pervaded the country. Nigeria, a country with over 250 ethnic groups, was riddled with ethnic rivalries and conflicts. Achebe argues that the political landscape was dominated by three major ethnic groups: the Hausa-Fulani in the North, the Yoruba in the West, and the Igbo in the East. Each of these groups sought to protect their interests, leading to a highly competitive and divisive political environment. The political parties that emerged were largely ethnic-based, further exacerbating the divisions. The Northern People's Congress (NPC) represented the Hausa-Fulani, the National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons (NCNC) represented the Igbo, and the Action Group (AG) represented the Yoruba. This ethnicisation of politics undermined the democratic process as it fostered a winner-takes-all mentality, where the interests of the winning ethnic group were prioritised over national interests. Achebe further posits that the regionalisation of politics led to an imbalance of power, with the North, being the most populous region, dominating the political scene. This dominance was perceived as a threat by the other regions, leading to political instability. The 1964 general elections were marred by widespread allegations of rigging, particularly in the Northern region, leading to a boycott by the opposition parties. This further deepened the ethnic divisions and mistrust, undermining the democratic process. The ethnic tensions were not only confined to the political arena but also permeated the social and economic spheres. There were widespread allegations of marginalisation by the minority ethnic groups, leading to social unrest. The Tiv riots in 1964 and the Isaac Boro-led Niger Delta Volunteer Force's rebellion in 1966 are examples of such unrest. These social conflicts further destabilised the country and made it difficult for democracy to thrive.
It is important to note that these tensions were not merely a product of internal dynamics but were also significantly influenced by the colonial legacy. Falola asserts that the British policy of indirect rule played a significant role in exacerbating ethnic divisions. This policy involved ruling through existing traditional structures, which in Nigeria were largely ethnic-based. Consequently, this policy inadvertently reinforced ethnic identities and rivalries. Furthermore, the British sagaciously favoured the Northern region in their administration, leading to allegations of favouritism and further deepening the divisions. The economic disparities between the regions also fuelled the ethnic tensions. The North was predominantly agrarian, while the South had a more diversified economy, with the Eastern region being the centre of oil production. This economic imbalance led to competition for resources, particularly oil revenues, further straining inter-ethnic relations. The contentious issue of revenue allocation was a major source of conflict, with the oil-rich Eastern region feeling marginalised. In addition to the ethnic tensions, the military's intervention in politics was another significant factor that contributed to the failure of democracy. Diamond argues that the military's incursion into politics was a direct consequence of the political instability caused by the ethnic tensions. The first military coup took place in January 1966, led by Major Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogwu. The coup, which was largely seen as Igbo-dominated, led to the assassination of key political figures, particularly from the Northern region. This further heightened the ethnic tensions and led to a counter-coup in July 1966 by Northern military officers. The military's involvement in politics undermined the democratic process and led to the suspension of the constitution and the dissolution of all democratic institutions.
Diamond's perspective is crucial in understanding the military's influence on the political landscape during this period. The military, initially seen as a neutral and stabilising force, soon became a significant player in the political arena. The coup of 1966 marked the beginning of a long history of military intervention in Nigerian politics, which significantly undermined the democratic process. Diamond argues that the military's intervention was not merely a response to the political instability, but was also motivated by the military's own interests. The military, particularly the officer corps, was largely drawn from the Northern region. The perceived Igbo domination of the first coup and the subsequent killing of Northern political and military leaders led to a sense of insecurity among the Northern military officers. The counter-coup of July 1966, which brought Lieutenant Colonel Yakubu Gowon to power, was largely seen as an attempt by the Northern military officers to protect their interests. The military's involvement in politics was not without its consequences. It led to the centralisation of power and the concentration of power in the hands of the military. This undermined the democratic principles of checks and balances and separation of powers. Furthermore, the military rule was characterised by human rights abuses and suppression of political dissent, further eroding the democratic space. Diamond further posits that the military's intervention in politics created a culture of impunity and corruption. The military rulers, not being accountable to the electorate, engaged in widespread corruption and mismanagement of public resources. This not only undermined the economy but also eroded public trust in the political system, making it difficult for democracy to thrive.
Continuing with the examination of the military's role, Diamond's analysis highlights the impact of the military's actions on the broader societal fabric of Nigeria. The military's intervention and the subsequent civil war from 1967 to 1970 led to a significant loss of life and property, further destabilising the country and making it difficult for democratic institutions to take root. The Biafra War, as it is commonly known, was a direct result of the military's intervention in politics and the deep-seated ethnic tensions. The war further deepened the ethnic divisions and mistrust, making national reconciliation and democratic consolidation a daunting task. Moreover, the military's intervention led to a significant alteration of the political structure of the country. In an attempt to address the ethnic tensions, the military government embarked on a policy of state creation. This policy, while aimed at addressing the marginalisation of the minority ethnic groups, inadvertently led to the proliferation of states based on ethnic lines, further entrenching the ethnicisation of politics. Diamond also notes that the military's intervention had a significant impact on the political culture of the country. The culture of violence and impunity that characterised the military rule became ingrained in the political culture. This culture of violence was evident in the conduct of elections and political competition, further undermining the democratic process. In addition to the military's role, the colonial legacy also played a significant role in the failure of democracy. The British colonial administration left a legacy of a highly centralised and authoritarian political system, which was not conducive to the development of democratic institutions. The colonial administration also failed to build strong and independent institutions that could serve as a check on the abuse of power.
Falola's perspective is instrumental in understanding this aspect. The British colonial administration, which ruled Nigeria until 1960, left a significant imprint on the political, economic, and social structures of the country. These structures, in many ways, were not conducive to the development of a stable and functioning democracy. Falola argues that the British policy of indirect rule was a significant factor in the failure of democracy. This policy involved ruling through existing traditional structures, which in Nigeria were largely ethnic-based. Consequently, this policy inadvertently reinforced ethnic identities and rivalities. The British administration also favoured the Northern region in their administration, leading to allegations of favouritism and further deepening the divisions. The colonial administration also left a legacy of a highly centralised and authoritarian political system. The Governor-General, who was the representative of the British monarch, wielded significant powers, including the power to veto legislation passed by the Nigerian legislature. This centralisation of power and lack of checks and balances were not conducive to the development of democratic institutions. Falola further posits that the colonial administration failed to build strong and independent institutions that could serve as a check on the abuse of power. The judiciary, for instance, was not independent and was often used as a tool by the colonial administration to suppress political dissent. This lack of strong institutions made it difficult for democracy to take root in the post-colonial period.
Continuing with the analysis of the colonial legacy, Falola also highlights the economic structures left by the colonial administration as a factor in the failure of democracy. The colonial economy was structured around the extraction and export of raw materials, particularly agricultural products and minerals. This extractive economy led to the neglect of other sectors of the economy, particularly manufacturing and services. The economy was thus highly dependent on the export of these raw materials, making it vulnerable to fluctuations in global commodity prices. The economic structures also led to significant regional disparities. The Northern region, which was predominantly agrarian, was economically disadvantaged compared to the Southern region, which had a more diversified economy. This economic imbalance further fuelled the ethnic tensions and conflicts. Furthermore, the colonial administration did not invest significantly in education and social services. At the time of independence, the literacy rate was low, and there was a shortage of skilled manpower. This lack of investment in human capital development made it difficult for the post-colonial government to effectively manage the affairs of the country and build a democratic society.
In conclusion, the failure of the democratic experiment in Nigeria from 1961 to 1966 can be attributed to a combination of factors, including intense ethnic tensions, military intervention, and the influence of the colonial legacy. The views of Achebe, Falola, and Diamond provide a comprehensive understanding of these factors. However, it is important to note that these factors are interrelated and mutually reinforcing, making it difficult to isolate their individual impacts. The failure of democracy during this period has had a lasting impact on the political trajectory of Nigeria, with the country still grappling with many of these issues today.
November 2014
Evaluate the importance of religion and economic factors as causes of the Nigerian Civil War (1967–1970).
The Nigerian Civil War, also known as the Biafran War, from 1967 to 1970, was a complex conflict with roots in both religious and economic factors. The war was primarily a political conflict, driven by the desire of the southeastern provinces of Nigeria, dominated by the Igbo ethnic group, to secede from Nigeria and form the independent Republic of Biafra. However, the underlying causes of the conflict were multifaceted, and the roles of religion and economic factors are crucial to understanding the origins and progression of the war.
Religion played a significant role in the Nigerian Civil War, primarily through the division between the predominantly Muslim north and the Christian south. Nigeria, a country of diverse ethnic and religious groups, had been a British colony until 1960. The colonial period saw the imposition of indirect rule through regional leaders, which entrenched regional and religious differences. The north was predominantly Hausa and Fulani, and Muslim, while the south was largely Yoruba and Igbo, and Christian or animist. Post-independence, these divisions were exacerbated by political and economic competition, leading to increasing tensions between the regions. Hastings, in his analysis of the conflict, argues that the religious divide was a significant factor in the escalation of tensions. He points to the massacres of Igbos in the north in 1966 as a key trigger for the war. These massacres were driven by religious and ethnic tensions, with the predominantly Muslim Hausa-Fulani in the north perceiving the Christian Igbos as a threat. The violence led to a mass exodus of Igbos from the north to the southeast, fuelling calls for secession and ultimately leading to the declaration of the independent Republic of Biafra in 1967. Hastings's argument highlights the importance of religious divisions in the lead-up to the war, suggesting that these divisions were a significant cause of the conflict.
Continuing with the analysis of religion as a cause of the Nigerian Civil War, it is important to note that the religious divide was not just a matter of different beliefs, but also of identity and power. The religious divide was closely tied to ethnic and regional identities, and these identities were in turn linked to political power and economic resources. As Falola argues, the religious divide was a manifestation of deeper socio-political divisions within Nigeria. The religious violence that triggered the war was not just about religion per se, but about who had power and control in the newly independent Nigeria. However, while religion was a significant factor in the Nigerian Civil War, it was not the only cause. Economic factors also played a crucial role in the conflict. Nigeria is a country rich in natural resources, particularly oil, and the control of these resources was a major point of contention. The southeastern region, which declared itself the Republic of Biafra, was the main oil-producing area of Nigeria. The secession of Biafra threatened the control of the central government over these valuable resources. Afigbo, in his study of the war, argues that the economic factors were as important, if not more so, than the religious ones. He points to the economic disparities between the regions, the competition for control of resources, and the economic impact of the mass migration of Igbos from the north to the southeast as key factors in the escalation of the conflict. Afigbo's argument suggests that the economic factors were not just a backdrop to the religious conflict, but a direct cause of the war.
The economic disparities between the regions of Nigeria were indeed stark. The north, despite being the most populous region, was economically disadvantaged compared to the south. The south, particularly the southeast, was more developed and industrialised, largely due to the presence of oil. The oil industry, which was controlled by foreign companies, brought wealth and jobs to the south, but also led to economic inequality and resentment from the north. The discovery of oil in the southeast in the late 1950s changed the economic landscape of Nigeria. The oil industry became the mainstay of the Nigerian economy, contributing the majority of government revenue and foreign exchange earnings. However, the benefits of the oil industry were not evenly distributed. The southeast, where the oil was located, felt that it was not getting its fair share of the oil wealth. This economic grievance was a major factor in the desire for secession. Falola further elaborates on the economic causes of the war, arguing that the control of oil resources was a major factor in the conflict. The central government, dominated by the northern and western regions, was unwilling to lose control of the oil-rich southeast. The secession of Biafra was seen as a direct threat to the economic interests of the central government, and this economic threat was a major reason for the government's decision to go to war to prevent secession.
Continuing with the economic analysis, the central government's control over oil revenues was a contentious issue. The government used these revenues to fund development projects, particularly in the north, which further exacerbated regional disparities. The southeast felt that it was not benefiting from the oil wealth that was being extracted from its land, leading to feelings of marginalisation and exploitation. This economic grievance was a significant factor in the desire for secession and the subsequent war. Moreover, the economic impact of the mass migration of Igbos from the north to the southeast cannot be overlooked. The massacres of Igbos in the north led to a mass exodus of Igbos to the southeast. This sudden influx of people put a strain on the resources of the southeast, leading to economic hardship and further fuelling the desire for secession. In his study of the war, Achebe argues that the economic factors were a significant cause of the conflict. He points to the control of oil resources, the economic disparities between the regions, and the economic impact of the mass migration of Igbos as key factors in the escalation of the conflict. Achebe's argument suggests that the economic factors were not just a backdrop to the religious conflict, but a direct cause of the war. In conclusion, both religion and economic factors played significant roles in the Nigerian Civil War. The religious divide, tied to ethnic and regional identities, fuelled tensions and violence, while economic factors, particularly the control of oil resources and regional economic disparities, were a direct cause of the conflict. The interplay of these factors led to the escalation of the conflict and the eventual outbreak of war.
Continuing with the third paragraph, the role of foreign intervention in the Nigerian Civil War was not limited to the direct involvement of foreign powers. The war also had significant implications for the global oil market. Nigeria was a major oil producer, and the conflict disrupted oil production, leading to fluctuations in global oil prices. This economic impact of the war extended beyond Nigeria and had global ramifications. Achebe, in his analysis of the war, points to the global economic impact of the conflict. He argues that the disruption of oil production in Nigeria had a significant effect on the global oil market, leading to increased oil prices. This economic impact of the war highlights the importance of economic factors in the conflict, not just at the national level, but also at the global level.
The Nigerian Civil War, a complex and multifaceted conflict, was significantly influenced by both religious and economic factors. The religious divide, primarily between the Muslim north and the Christian south, fuelled tensions and violence, leading to the secession of the southeastern provinces and the declaration of the independent Republic of Biafra. This religious divide was not merely a matter of different beliefs, but was deeply intertwined with ethnic and regional identities, and with issues of power and control in the newly independent Nigeria. Economic factors, particularly the control of oil resources and regional economic disparities, were also a major cause of the conflict. The southeastern region, where the oil was located, felt that it was not getting its fair share of the oil wealth, leading to feelings of marginalisation and exploitation. The secession of Biafra threatened the control of the central government over these valuable resources, leading to the decision to go to war to prevent secession. The role of foreign intervention, driven by the economic interests of foreign powers, further highlights the importance of economic factors in the conflict. The support of foreign powers, particularly France and the Soviet Union, not only intensified the conflict but also complicated the prospects for a peaceful resolution. In the final analysis, the Nigerian Civil War was a conflict driven by both religious and economic factors. The interplay of these factors led to the escalation of the conflict and the eventual outbreak of war. The war was a tragic manifestation of the deep-seated religious and economic divisions within Nigeria, and its legacy continues to shape the country to this day.
The legacy of the Nigerian Civil War continues to reverberate in Nigeria's contemporary socio-political landscape. The religious and economic divisions that fuelled the conflict have not been fully resolved, and continue to influence Nigeria's politics and society. The war left deep scars, both physical and psychological, and its memory continues to be a source of tension and conflict. The war also had significant implications for Nigeria's economy. The disruption of oil production during the war had a profound impact on Nigeria's economy, leading to economic hardship and instability. Post-war, the oil industry has continued to be a major part of Nigeria's economy, but the issues of resource control and economic inequality that contributed to the war remain unresolved. In the broader historical context, the Nigerian Civil War serves as a stark reminder of the destructive potential of religious and economic divisions. It underscores the importance of addressing such divisions through dialogue and negotiation, rather than through violence and conflict. The Nigerian Civil War was a complex conflict with roots in both religious and economic factors. Understanding these factors is crucial to understanding the war itself, and to learning from its lessons. As Nigeria continues to grapple with its diverse religious and economic challenges, the lessons of the Nigerian Civil War remain as relevant as ever.
.gif)
