Published December 15, 2010 | By Dr. Pauline Baker, Nate Haken, Will Ferroggiaro

This report—Can Nigeria Achieve Unity in Diversity?—is the first in a series of papers examining how different countries manage ethnic, racial, religious, or other identities in order to prevent conflict leading to mass atrocities and genocide. The paper examines Nigeria’s political institutions, legal structures, and policy initiatives to address the issues arising from its complex society.

Several measures were adopted to encourage broad political inclusion and reduce the potential for conflict. First, Nigeria has created additional states from its original four regionally-based states in order to decentralize power to avoid secessionist movements and respond to demands for statehood from minorities. Second, a constitutional provision was established requiring “the federal character” to be reflected through state representation at the center through the “federal character” principle, which requires the national cabinet to include at least one minister from each of the 36 states. At the local level, the constitution provided for a preference for “indigenes” (by custom, this refers to those whose ancestors were original inhabitants of the community) over “non-indigenes” (those who migrated, or whose ancestors migrated, to the area). These designations affect the allocation of land, jobs, education, and political appointments. Third, an informal “power shifting” practice (sometimes referred to as the “zoning” or “rotational” rule) was adopted for the presidential nomination process of the dominant political party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). It requires presidential nominees to rotate between Southerners and Northerners at least once every two terms (or eight years). Fourth, the electoral system was amended to discourage ethnic voting and secessionist tendencies. It requires, in addition to the popular vote, that a presidential candidate has to receive one-quarter of the votes cast in two-thirds of the states plus the federal capital to be declared a winner. On the surface, this provision appears to establish a government based on a broad mandate; in practice, it encourages political parties to pressure local agents to record winning votes in their areas at any cost. This requirement has had the effect of incentivizing fraud in elections, undermining political legitimacy, and generating public cynicism about elections generally. Finally, the positive effects that might have emerged from these efforts to foster political inclusion were undermined by a steady trend toward political centralization that emerged during approximately three decades of military rule.

In sum, the Nigerian experience shows the weakness of stressing form over function in managing diversity. Nigeria’s challenges in integrating ethnic, regional and religious identities into a framework based on national unity remain. Indeed, Nigeria could fragment again, and particular groups could again become targets of mass atrocities.

This paper and subsequent papers are produced by The Fund for Peace working with the cooperation of the United Nations Office of the Special Adviser of the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide (OSAPG) in order to assist the Special Adviser in his early warning and prevention efforts. The mandate of the Special Adviser is to make recommendations to the Secretary-General and through him, the United Nations Security Council, to prevent genocide, and to inform and educate opinion leaders and policy makers on how to recognize and prevent potential genocides. In support of the Office, the FfP is producing this series of objective case studies that identify the factors for identity conflict as well as government actions that either exacerbate or mitigate identity-related conflict. The primary goal of the papers is to identify best practices in how countries addressed identity and fostered inclusion so as to avoid such conflict.

The concept and modalities for the series of papers, as well as the countries to be examined, were jointly agreed between FfP and OSAPG. The papers employ the OSAPG Analysis Framework as a central lens on the issues. Drafts of the papers are peer reviewed by an independent expert reviewer chosen by FfP, a senior UN official, and OSAPG. The Fund for Peace finalizes the papers for dissemination within the UN system and to a broader public audience. This initiative has been generously supported by Humanity United, while the series of dialogues on the papers is supported by The Stanley Foundation.

The principal author of this paper is Dr. Pauline H. Baker, President Emeritus of The Fund for Peace. Senior Associates Will Ferroggiaro and Nate Haken contributed drafting, editing, and research, and FfP Intern Shane Hensinger assisted in production of the report. It was reviewed by John Campbell (U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria 2004-2007); a senior UN Department of Political Affairs official; and the Special Adviser and his staff. However, the views contained herein are solely those of The Fund for Peace.