Causes of Conflict in Nigeria and Ways of Resolving Them free essay sample

Given the repertoire of cleavages abounding in a heterogeneous and pluralistic society as Nigeria, divisions among the ethnic groups, regions and sections of the country is bound to exist. In pre-colonial times, interethnic relations were often mistrustful, or discriminatory, and sometimes violent. At the same time, there were relationships, such as trade, that required peaceful communications. The most widespread communication was in the north between pastoral and agricultural peoples who traded cattle for farm products, and pasturage rights for manuring. Compounding the problem of underdevelopment in Nigeria is micro nationalism, ethnic, religious and communal conflicts which pose great threat to peace, security and progress. Conflicts refer to disputes, disagreements, quarrels, struggles, fights and wars between individuals, groups and countries. In every nation there is no complete agreement on how to share wealth, power and status among individuals and groups, and how to effect necessary changes and reforms. Since different groups and individuals have diverse interests, the aims of some groups will conflict with those of others. Conflicts occur when deprived groups and individuals attempt to increase their share of power and wealth or to modify the dominant values, norms, beliefs or ideology. May it be noted that there are functional and dysfunctional conflicts. Dysfunctional conflicts are destructive and cause loss of lives, property, man-hours, investment opportunities, hunger and starvation when open violence, wars, mass strikes, and other forms of disruption occur. On the other hand, functional or creative conflicts are constructive and reflect the differences and variety of human opinions and activity which exists in any free society. If creative conflicts between groups which are major sources of innovation, new ideas, institutions and social change are suppressed altogether, a nation becomes stagnant and static. It could be seen as of today that what we have in Nigeria, then, is that ethnicity is not simply the quest for commonality, but is also based on the wider functions of the state, and thus the greater impetus to organise in order to get what the state is distributing – and to prevent others from getting it. Because ethnicity taps cultural and symbolic issues – basic notions of identity and the self, of individual and group worth and entitlement – the conflicts it generates are intrinsically less amenable to compromise than those revolving around material issues. When the struggle is over money, taxes, wage levels, business regulations, social welfare, infrastructural investments, or similar issues, the gains and losses are divisible in a variety of ways. The point is thus being made that, although ethnic conflicts often involve material issues which can sometimes easily be resolved through conventional bargaining, they revolve around underlying exclusive symbols and conceptions of legitimacy and become characterised by competing demands that cannot easily be broken into bargainable increments. Accusations and allegations of neglect, oppression, domination, exploitation, victimization, discrimination, marginalisation, nepotism and bigotry are common. It is difficult to know who is marginalising who in Nigeria because all ethnic groups, from the big Hausa, Yoruba and Igbos to the small Ogonis, lkwerres, Igalas, etc. are complaining of marginalisation. However, most of the communal conflicts in the minority areas in the South and Middle Belt are caused partly by land, boundary, and chieftaincy disputes but mainly by domination and oppression; frustration-aggression-displacement; divide-and rule policies and diversionary scapegoat techniques. The inequalities in the distribution of power, wealth and status, and domination and oppression by bigger groups and their collaborators within the smaller groups have frustrated the minority Ogonis, lbibios, Tivs, Igalas, Itsekiris, etc. who seem to reduce their built-up tensions by fighting among themselves rather than unite and face the real oppressors. Conflict resolution in Nigeria requires honest and capable leadership and good governance to reduce the level of unemployment, poverty, oppression, domination and marginalisation, and raise the standards of living of all the Nigerians. A true federalism with drastically reduced federal powers, responsibilities and resources, and greater local autonomy and self-determination for the federating units or states will reduce inter-ethnic tensions. With the reduction in the attraction of the centre, the do or die presidential elections will be minimized. There should be equitable distribution of power, wealth and status as well as responsibilities, duties and contributions to the centre. There will be no development and progress without peace, and no peace without equal rights and justice. Therefore equity, fair play and justice should be emphasized to enhance peace and progress. For equity and justice, and to give all sections of Nigeria a sense of belonging, all political parties should choose their presidential candidates from the South-South which had never produced a Head of State/Government or from the South-East because since 1960 the three geopolitical zones in the North have headed the Federal Government for about 34 years and the South West for eight years by 2003. With respect to mineral or oil-rich land disputes, the oil oozing from a particular production well may be flowing in from distant lands. Besides, oil pipelines, men and materials pass through divide lands, waterways, creeks, etc. during oil exploration, production and distribution. Therefore, a broader definition of oil-bearing areas to cover all communities likely to be adversely affected and polluted by oil production and distribution, and the equitable distribution of oil benefits, social amenities, scholarships, etc. will minimize such clashes and conflicts.