PEACE AND CONFLICTS IN NIGERIA; TOWARD BETTER MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION

Obi, Emeka Anthony****

Introduction:

The world we live in is indeed a world of conflicts. Conflicts are widespread in virtually
all parts of the world, but more predominant in developing regions of the world. It is this
pervasive nature of conflicts that has given the phenomena a visible position in social discourse,
news media and world affairs. Conflicts are now seen as part of human existence as no group
can be said to have permanently eliminated conflicts from its interactions. These conflicts are
caused by different factors and also take on different colourations. Thus, there is no universal
causes of conflicts, neither is there any universal pattern, hence each conflict is somewhat
different and unique. Due to the pervasive nature of conflicts in human societies, most societies
have fashioned out means and mechanisms for managing them whenever and wherever they
arise.

Conflict is endemic in human society. It is a reality, which all societies from the
prehistoric times till the present have witnessed. Conflict according to Coser(1956, in
Otite,2004) "is a struggle over values and claims to scarce status, power and resources in which
the aims of the opponents are to neutralize, injure or eliminate their rivals"(p.8) . It is seen by
Otite (2005) “as arising from the pursuit of divergent interests, goals and aspirations by
individuals and, or groups in defined social and physical environments”(p.1) However despite
the pervasiveness of conflict in human life, man has not been able to either adequately explain
its causes or find lasting solutions to it. Thus Mark and Snyder (in Faleti 2012) opine that:

Given the pervasiveness of conflict phenomena and the diversity of approaches of

enquiry, it is legitimate to ask whether the apparent intellectual disorder reflects an inherently
incoherent focus of social analysis-a focus artificially created by a label or whether the
disparateness of data interpretations is due in part to inter disciplinary compartmentalism, to
academic individualism, or rapid growth, with its consequent inattention to direction (p.36).

Perhaps, the complex and changing nature of conflicts may have contributed to this
seeming 'anarchy' of approaches, while the environmental context may also have contributed to
this. However, we must emphasize here that the perception by some people of conflicts as
being purely negative or dysfunctional, is incorrect, because in some cases something good
does come out of conflicts. The Hegelian dialectics of Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis emphasizes
that contradiction leads to tension and conflict, while its resolution brings about social change
that takes society to a higher level of development. It is on this view of dialectics that, Karl Marx
was able to build his theory of society. Thus, mans concern with conflict should not really be on
how to eradicate it (in any case this is not possible) but on how to manage it so that it does not
become destructive through violence but constructive through leading to positive changes.

1
 This work is essentially tailored towards this direction. It tries to look at the causes of
violent conflicts in Nigeria and the responses towards its management. In doing this, this work is
divided into five sections including the introduction. The second is the conceptual clarifications.
The third is the theoretical framework while the fourth treats the causes of violent conflicts in
Nigeria, Section five presents the conclusions from the study.

Conflict Resolution, Management and Transformation

Conflict resolution entails series of measures initiated in a conflict situation in order to

finally terminate the conflict. According to Best (2012), conflict resolution connotes a sense of
finality where the parties to a conflict are mutually satisfied with the outcome of a settlement
and the conflict is resolved in a true sense (p.94). He also cites Mitchel and Banks (1996) who
see conflict resolution as referring to; (i) an outcome in which the issues in an existing conflict
are satisfactorily dealt with through a solution that is mutually acceptable to the parties, self-
sustaining in the long run and productive of a new positive relationship between parties that
were previously hostile adversaries; and (ii) any process or procedure by which such an
outcome is achieved.

From the above, it becomes clear that conflict resolution works towards a final
settlement of disputes. In this instance the parties to a dispute are fully satisfied with the terms
of settlement and the conflict is finally resolved. It must be noted that most conflicts can hardly
be resolved, hence, the resort to conflict management and transformation.

Conflict Management: is seen as a process of reducing the negative and destructive

capacity of conflict through a number of measures and by working with and through the parties
involved in that conflict (Best,2012,p.95). He sees it as covering the entire area of handling
conflicts positively at different stages, including conflict limitation, containment and litigation.
To Otite (2004), it is more of a long-term arrangement involving institutionalized provisions and
regulative procedures for dealing with conflicts whenever they occur. Conflict management, is a
product of the realization that conflict is endemic and inevitable in human life and that since
conflicts can hardly be resolved, the best thing to do is create institutions and initiate measures
aimed at the limitation or containment, that is management of conflicts whenever they arise.

Conflict Transformation: is a summary term for a complex web of inter dependent

factors-the parties concerned, social relationships, the changing positions and roles of
interveners, and the moderation of planned and unintended consequences(Otite, 2004,p.10).
Conflict transformation stems from the idea that conflict brings about changes in perceptions
and relationships of the parties involved, hence an attempt to transform this changes into more
positive ones. Thus Lederach (in Otite,2004) argues that

conflict transformation represents a comprehensive set of lenses for describing how

conflict emerges from, evolves within, and brings about changes in the personal,
relational, structural, and cultural dimensions, and for developing creative responses
that promote peaceful change within those dimensions through non-violent
mechanisms(p.10).

2
More comprehensively, Best,(2012), sees conflict transformation as stemming:

from the recognition of the dialectical element of conflict about the inevitability of
change. Secondly, it recognizes the neutrality of conflicts as such, and that conflict can
be either negative or positive, but parties can transform it into positive to maximize
opportunities. Finally, there is the continuity element, meaning that parties and
interveners continue to work on problem areas to achieve continuous change(p.96).

Theoretical Perspective:

As already stated above, there are many theories of social conflict competing for
attention in the great task of identifying the causes of and solutions to conflicts. Thus, we have
the Structural Conflict Theory, the Biological Theories, the Realist Theories, the Human Needs
Theory, the Frustration-Aggression Theory and the Relative Deprivation Theory among others. A
review of these theories shows clearly in actual fact that no single one of them can adequately
be used to explain conflicts everywhere and every time. However, on a more general note, we
identify the Human Needs Theory as being of practical help in trying to explain the causes of
violent conflicts in Nigeria. The reasons for this have to do with the fact that despite the
orientations of the other theories, they invariably acknowledge the place of human needs in
conflicts. These needs may be labeled interests or values. Secondly the needs theory is helpful
in explaining conflicts in a society of acute scarcity and poverty like Nigeria. We now turn to the
theory.

The Human Needs Theory is premised on the assumption that all human beings have
some basic needs which they hope to meet and that if these needs are not met due to the
activities of other groups or individuals, the frustrations they feel might lead to conflict. The
basic assumptions of this theory are clearly similar to those of both the Frustration-Aggression
and Relative Deprivation theories.

Though the needs identified by the theorists of this school differ, they can all be situated
within the needs categories of Abraham Maslow. These are physiological needs, safety needs,
belongingness needs, esteem needs and self-actualization needs(Obikeze & Obi,2004). Some
authors who have written on this theory include Burton (1972), Rosati et al (1990) Azar(l 994),
Gurr (1970) andNeef (1991) among others.

There is a clear relationship between frustration and aggression in the sense that the
man or group that feels frustrated because of his/ their inability to get something he/they
consider very important for existence, and can also link this inability to the actions/inactions of
somebody or group will definitely not be happy with the person or group. Now the reaction of
that person or group or the expression of that anger could result in aggressive behaviour if that
is seen as being helpful towards the accomplishment of the desired end. In Gurr's relative
deprivation thesis which is clearly a needs theory he posits that, the greater the discrepancy,
however marginal, between, what is sought and what seem attainable; the greater will be the
chances that anger and violence will result.

3
 In formulating their frustration-aggression, Dollard et al, (1939), states that the
motivational strength towards aggression is a function of three factors. First, the reinforcement
value of the frustrated goal response, second, the degree of frustration of the goal-response
and thirdly the number of frustrated response sequences. Van der Dennen (nd) argues that the
first of these two propositions are straight forward because;

Aggression-potentiating annoyance is seen to increase with the incentive that could be

obtained or the aversion that could be terminated by the blocked goal reaction.
furthermore, frustration can be incomplete and thus a goal reaction can be partially
completed. The third proposition is less direct, however. It is meaningful only if it is
assumed that frustration-induced annoyance is innovative. It is apparently held that
“aggressive drive resulting from frustrations is somehow maintained within the
organism and adds up to a level at which an otherwise tolerable frustration evokes
aggression. Dollard et al were, in fact very explicit about the assumed addictivity of
aggressive forces. They posited that the strength of a hostile or aggressive reaction
depends in part on the “amount of residual instigation from previous or simultaneous
frustrations” “minor frustrations” they suggested add together to produce an aggressive
response of greater strength than would normally be expected from the frustrating
situation that appears to be the immediate antecedent of the aggression.

Despite attempts by many other scholars like Berkowitz (1952), Pastore (19520 among
others to modify or revise this theory, its main argument that inability to achieve a goal may
lead to frustrations and that these frustrations could lead to aggression has remained valid.

According to Faleti (2012), Burton (1979), identified a link between frustrations which
force humans into acts of aggression and the need on the part of such individuals to satisfy their
basic needs. Individuals cannot be taught to accept practices that destroy their identity and
other goals that are attached to their needs and because of this, they are forced to react against
the factors, groups and institutions that they see as being responsible for threatening such
needs. We can actually locate the causes of most communal conflicts in Nigeria within the ambit
of the above reasoning.

Causes of social conflicts in Nigeria

The factors which we have identified as been responsible for social conflicts in Nigeria
can be grouped into two. They are political and economic factors.

Political Factors:

a. The Heterogeneous nature of Nigeria.

b. British policy of divide and rule and ethnicity.

c. Religious differences and intolerance.

4
d. The Judiciary and Nigerian Police.

e. Injustice and Marginalization

(a) The Heterogeneous nature of Nigeria: Nigeria is a heterogonous state with numerous
ethnic groups. As at today there is no agreement on the exact number of ethnic groups in
Nigeria. Thus, Ayantayo(2004), believes that “it is assumed that they number between 200 and
400 these are chiefly identified on the basis of the languages they speak”(p.5). On the other
hand Obikeze and Obi , (2017)argue that there are about three hundred and eighty nine (389)
ethnic groups in the country (p.4). The co-existence of these large number of ethnic groups in
Nigeria has been very problematic. It must however be emphasized at this stage that the
presence of many ethnic groups in a state is not a sufficient reason for social conflicts, however
as Nnoli (1978), has argued that “under conditions of the politicization of ethnicity and the use
of government powers for inter ethnic socio economic competition, ethnic hostility is
inevitable”(p.165) .

(b) British policy of divide and rule and ethnicity. Nigeria is a creation of the British, as there
was no Nigeria nor Nigerians before the coming of the British. Incidentally when the British
decided to wield the disparate kingdoms, Chiefdoms, nations, ethnic groups and people into a
state known as Nigeria they did not make any conscious effort to forge a semblance of unity
among them, instead all policies and opportunities were used to emphasize the separate
identities of people. The British made the people recognize that they were “separated from one
another by great distance, by differences of history and traditions and by ethological, racial,
tribal, political, social and religious barriers”(Coleman,1986,p.194). This explains why Sir Hugh
Clifford in his criticism of the National Council of British West Africa's (NCBWA), trip to London
in 1920 did say among others that if:

Assuming.......that the impossible were feasible— that this collection of self-contained

and mutually independent Native States, separated from one another, as many of them
are, by great distances, by differences of history and traditions, and by ethnological,
racial, tribal, political, social and religious barriers, were indeed capable being welded
into a single homogeneous nation- a deadly blow would thereby be struck at the very
root of national self-government in Nigeria, which secures to each separate people the
right to maintain its identity, its individuality and its nationality, its own chosen form of
government; and the peculiar political and social institutions which have been evolved
for it by the wisdom and by the accumulated experience of generations of its
forebearers (cited in Coleman,1986,p.194).

In analyzing the above statement, Coleman(1986) emphasized that it revealed the

British governments basic attitude towards the concepts of self government, patriotism,
nationality and nation reflecting in:

The idea of Nigeria nation was inconceivable, and the government was determined to
oppose its development; (2) National self-government was a concept applicable only to
“self-contained and mutually independent Native States”. (3) True patriotism and
nationalism were sentiments that must be directed to those “natural” units; (4) The

5
 question of ultimate control of the super-structure binding these separate states
together in modern political unit was then outside the realm of permissible
discussion(p.194).

No doubt, the colonial authorities were quite aware of the biblical saying that a house
divided against itself cannot stand and therefore used every opportunity available to them to
keep the people divided. This situation was well captured by Um Nyobe leader and founder of
the Cameron Workers Party (UPC) when he said that;

they (the colonizers) set one tribe against another in making the one believe that they
are richer and would dominate the country. They simply wish to draw out of the
peoples hatred more profit and the Prolongation of everybody's misery (cited in
Nnoli,1978,p.25).

In the same vein, Obikeze, Obi,and Iwuoha (2016), have argued that though colonization
did not create the differences among Nigerians, not much (if anything at all) was done to reduce
the impact of these differences in the political and socio-economic life of the country. The most
unfortunate aspect of this, was that immediately Nigerians imbibed these ideas of their
differences, they went a step ahead and started making intemperate utterances that sowed the
permanent seeds of discord in the nations body politic. Alhaji Tafawa Balewa who was to be the
nations first Prime Minister had in a speech at the Nigerian Legislative Council on March 24
1947 said “I should like to make it clear to you that if the British quitted Nigeria now at this
stage the Northern people would continue their interrupted congest to the sea (cited in
Nnoli,1978,p.231). In the same year, the same Balewa did say that:

Since the amalgamation of Southern and Northern Provinces in 1914, Nigeria has
existed as one country only on paper……it is still far from being united. Nigerian unity is
only a British intention for the country(cited in Obikeze and Obi 2004,p.vii) .

Chief Obafemi Awolowo, one of Nigeria's foremost nationalists in the struggle for
independence had argued then that:

Nigeria is not a nation; it is a mere geographical expression. There are no “Nigerians” in

the same sense as there are “English” or “Irish” or “French”, the word Nigeria is merely
a distinctive appellation to distinguish those who live within the boundaries of Nigeria
from those who do not (cited in Obikeze and Obi,2004,p.vii).

This British believe in the differences among Nigerians was also illustrated by Sir Arthur
Richards statement that:

It is only the accident of British suzerainty which has made Nigeria one country. It is still
far from being one country or one nation socially or even economically,…socially and
politically, there are deep differences between the major tribal groups. They do not
speak the same language and they have highly divergent customs and ways of life and
they represent different stages of culture(cited in Coleman,1986,p,165)..

6
 It was with this mind-set of exaggerated differences among Nigerians that generated
hatred, jealousy and mistrust that eventually set the stage for ethnic violence. Since the people
are different and can never be the same, all struggles were waged as those of antagonistic
groups. In these struggles the various ethnic groups developed an 'in' group and 'out' group
mentality.’Out’groups are usually perceived as threats to the survival of the 'in' groups and must
therefore be decimated and annihilated. This is the basis for the inter-ethnic violent clashes we
have witnessed in Nigeria prior to and after the attainment of political independence.

(c) Religious differences and intolerance: Islam and Christianity are the two dominant
religions in Nigeria, while Islam preponderates in the North, Christianity preponderates in the
South, though SouthWest and North Central zones can be said to have a balanced number of
both religions. Section 10 of the 1999 Constitution provides that “the government of the
federation or of a state should not adopt any religion as state religion”. Section 38 (1) provides
for right to freedom of thought conscience and religion. Despite these elaborate provisions, the
federal government and the various state governments have found it politically expedient to
meddle into purely religious affairs and even spending billions of naira on religious matters like
pilgrimages, which ought to be purely personal to the individuals involved. Some Northern
states have even adopted state religions against the dictates of the Constitution, by adopting
the Sharia code.

Though many reasons have been adduced for high rate of religious violence in Nigeria,
these can be compressed into poverty, corruption, non-implementation of previous probe panel
reports, impunity of past perpetrators of the violence, proliferation of preachers and worship
centres, provocative and inciting utterances, sensational journalism, political manipulation of
religious differences. We may add the twin factors of illiteracy and ignorance. Kukah (2003),
believes that the political elites across the country have thus added the religious card in the
game of politics as a means of establishing more sustainable cleavages. This explains why most
religious disturbances and riots in the northern part of Nigeria mainly have political undertones.
As Kukah further posits “the apparent silence of the traditional and political classes among the
Muslims rather fuelled the feelings that they were the sponsors of these riots” .

(d) Bad judicial system: The judiciary is supposed to be seen as the last hope of the common
man due to its position as the institution which an aggrieved party can seek redress. However,
in present day Nigeria where corruption has permeated the judiciary, justice is mainly for the
highest bidder. This coupled with the high cost of litigations and its lengthy nature has conspired
to reduce the confidence of Nigerians in the judiciary as an institution for redress. As people
have little confidence in the judiciary, they increasingly resort to self help whenever they feel
aggrieved. In some instances, when people go to the courts to resolve disputes, miscarriages of
justice arising from a compromised judiciary have sometimes led to violence from the aggrieved
parties.

7
(e) The Nigerian Police: Nigeria is one of the most corrupt countries in the world today. In
2012, Nigeria was rated the 35th most corrupt country in the world out of 176 countries
surveyed by the transparency international (http://cpi.transpiracy.org/cpi2012resnets) The
situation has not changed much despite pretensions by different Nigerian governments of
fighting corruption.

The Nigerian police is considered the most corrupt public institution in Nigeria. Though
many reasons account for the sorry state of the Nigerian police, the 2008 Presidential
Committee on the reform of the Nigeria Police Force observed that despite the enormous
growth in the size of the force which more than doubled the number under the past Obasanjo
administration, very little if any attempt was made to upgrade the police training institutions
and as a result Nigeria is now saddled with a very large member of unqualified, under-trained
and ill-equipped officers and men, many of whose suitability to wear the respected uniform of
the force is in doubt (http://www.nigerpolicewatch.com) .

The resultant effect of the above is that policing in Nigeria is terribly poor. The members
of the force collect bribes with impunity, miscarry justice, work for the rich and oppress the
poor thereby making most of them to resort to self help. They are incapable of detecting latent
conflicts in order to nip them in the bud. There is no doubt that a more pro-active police force
would have been in a better position to take preemptive actions to avert violent clashes at the
planning stages before they explode, but have instead helped to instigate violent clashes
through their actions and inactions.

(f) Injustice And Marginalization: - The effect of this factor in fueling crisis in Nigeria can be
better understood within the framework of the frustration-Aggression thesis. This was proposed
by Dollard, Drob, Miller, Mower and Sears in 1939. According to them, frustration is the state
that emerges when circumstances interfere with a goal response (http://www/.appstate.edu/).
They further posit “that the occurrence of aggressive behaviour always presupposes the
existence of frustration, which always leads to some form of aggression” . Kendall (2003) sees
the summation of the theory as simply stating that people who are frustrated in their efforts to
achieve a highly desired goal will respond with a pattern of aggression towards others .

Based on the fact that the theory claims that aggression is always based on frustration
and that frustration always leads to aggression were far too general, Miller had to modify the
theory to state that “frustration produces instigations to a number of different types of
response, one of which is an instigation to some form of aggression” . Thus the modified theory
states that (a) frustration instigates behaviour that may or may not be hostile or aggressive (b)
any hostile or aggressive behaviour that occurs is caused by frustration. This means frustration
is not a sufficient, but a necessary contribution for hostility and aggression.

Within the Nigerian state, many conflicts were consequences of frustrations which led to
aggression, but the most poignant remains the Niger Delta crisis. This is the area that produces
the oil which oils the Nigerian economy and politics. Thus Obi (2005), has argued that the
importance of oil in Nigerian politics is such that it is possible to discern a close intimacy

8
between the fortunes of oil and the push and pull of forces within the Nigerian federation. He
argues further that:

The nature of oil as a commodity of immense economic and strategic importance feeds
into a combustible type of politics, clearly linked to zero- sum struggles over the vast
providential wealth it bestows on those who control it. This often leads to the monopolization
of power over oil by the few who seek to defend their control of oil by any means, and attempts
to destroy any opposition or challenge to their monopoly of oil power. In a country of ethnic
heterogeneity and elite fractionalization as in the Nigerian case, the struggles over oil merge
with the struggles for power to fuel intense intra-ethnic competition in the Nigerian
federation(p.187).

Thus, the highest inequalities and deprivations suffered by the Niger Delta resulted in
new reawakening and violent struggle for a better deal in the context of Nigeria's federal
policies especially as it relates to the sharing of oil revenue (sharing the national cake in
Nigeria's political lexicon). The Programme on Ethnic and Federal Studies (PEFS), has identified
other factors which influenced the struggle. They are first; the communities in the Niger Delta
had no visible benefit from the exploitation and exploration of oil wealth from their land and
the adhoc intervention of the state through the establishment of special agencies did not seem
to have addressed the issues of marginalization and neglect. Second, the communities were not
adequately compensated by the oil companies for damages and environmental pollution. Third,
the attempts to seek redress through legal action were prolonged and expensive and in most
cases, court judgments were defiantly ignored. The above resulted in the high rate of militancy,
sabotage of oil pipelines, incessant kidnappings and crises that shook the economic base of the
Nigerian nation. Though the amnesty programme of the federal government has partly
restored peace to the region, but the cry against injustice has not totally died down. Just like the
rise of Niger Delta militants, some other groups like the Movement for the Actualization of the
Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB), and the Indigenous People of Biafra( IPOB) are products of
perceived marginalization. This is line with Nnoli's (1994)assertion that:

the political demands of many ethnic movements concern liberty and justice. They
express fears about the oppression of their members by other groups and about the
nepotic distribution of public service jobs and social amenities and the imposition of the
culture of the dominant ethnic groups on the others(p.12).

(g)Economic Factors

The factors that are grouped in this section are; fight over scarce resources, poverty and
high rate of unemployment. However we must state here that since these factors are all
economic in nature, there is a tendency for them to overlap, though we will try to make each to
stand on its own.

(A) Fight over scarce resource

The human needs theory, which we have already explained, is premised on the notion
that all human beings have some basic needs that they struggle to meet, and that whenever

9
these are not met due to the perceived activities of other groups or individuals, the resultant
frustrations may result in conflict. Though most valuable resources can be said to be scarce
because they are limited in supply, Nnoli (1978), has explained that as a result of certain
mechanisms of production and distribution in a particular society, one and the same resource
may be abundant for some members of society, scarce for others and inaccessible for the rest.
He therefore posits that “ therefore, scarcity refers to resources that are limited both objectively
and subjectively(p.75) . He further argues that:

The inequitable allocation of resources in society gives rise to intense competition. it is

reinforced by an attitude to social relations which accepts such inequality as inevitable.
The resultant struggle of individuals and groups not to be consigned to the bottom of
the ladder of inequality has anti-social effects. Competition rather than cooperation
predominates in human interaction and hostility is the dominant feature of such
competition (p.74).

This hostility that developed in the colonial urban setting arising from the resource
competition between and among ethnic groups has remained with us till date. Thus, many
conflicts in Nigeria which center around struggle for land, streams or rivers, location of social
amenities, location of local government headquarters, markets, motor parks, control of
particular articles of trade etc, may be situated within the fight over scarce resources.

(B) Poverty and alarming rate of inequality

Poverty, according to the United Nations is a denial of choices and opportunities, a

violation of human dignity. It means a lack of basic capacity to participate effectively in society.
It means not having enough to feed and cloth a family, not having a school or clinic to go, not
having the land on which to grow ones food or a job to earn one's living, not having access to
credit. It means insecurity, powerlessness and exclusion of individuals, households and
communities. It means susceptibility to violence and it often implies living on marginal or fragile
environments, without access to clean water or sanitation.

The World Bank says:

poverty is an income level below some minimum level necessary to meet basic needs.
Poverty is hunger, poverty is lack of shelter. Poverty is being sick and not being able to
see a doctor. Poverty is not having access to school and not knowing how to read.
Poverty is not having a job, is fear for the future, living one day at a time. Poverty is
losing a child to illness brought about by unclean water. Poverty is powerlessness, lack
of representation and freedom(World Bank, 2012).

We have gone this far in presenting the definitions of poverty in order to put the
concept into proper perspective so as to understand why most international agencies insist that
a very high percentage of Nigerians are poor. According to the World Bank Country Director for
Nigeria, Ms Marie-Melly 100 million Nigerians are living in extreme poverty. According to her
“one billion two hundred thousand people live in destitution out of which 100 million are
Nigerians”.

10
 To compound the issue of poverty, is the rate of inequality which has been increasing.
Though the economy was growing at a very fast rate averaging over 7 percent per annum, the
number of people who live below the poverty line is also increasing. The implication of this is
that benefits of growth are not equitably shared. Income inequality conserved from 0.43 to 0.49
between 2004 and 2009 with a differential access to infrastructure and amenities, which in
particular there are more rural poor than urban poor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/poverty in
Nigeria). It is from this mass of unemployed and hungry Nigerians that thugs, militants and
other miscreants who are used to instigate trouble and unleash violence are recruited. Since an
idle mind is the devil's workshop, these idle minds and hands scattered all over the country are
the ones that are employed to wreak havoc on fellow citizens at the slightest provocation.

The convergence of this mass poverty, criminal inequality and high unemployment, is
that there is a large number(millions) of poor, angry, disgruntled and disenchanted Nigerians
who are ready to take up arms at the slightest provocation.

According to the report released by the National Planning Commission in october 2013,
indicates that unemployment rate in Nigeria has risen to 23.9% from 21.1 percent in 2010.
According to the report “figures from the National Bureau of Statistics clearly illustrated the
deep challenges in Nigeria's labour market, where the nations rapid economic growth has not
translated into effective job creation. The NBS estimates that Nigeria's population grew by 3.2
percent in 2011 from 159.3 million people in 2010 to 164.4 million in 2011, reflecting rapid
population growth. In 2011, Nigeria's unemployment rose to 23.9 percent compared to 21.1.
percent in 2010”.(http://www. punching.com/business). The report indicates that 16.74205
Nigerians are unemployed. It further added that “unemployment was higher in the rural areas,
at 25.6percent, than in the urban areas, where it was 17 percent on average. In the light of the
country's fast-growing population efforts to create a conducive environment for job creation
must be redoubled if the trend of rising unemployment is to be reversed.

CONCLUSION

Social interactions are prone to conflicts and since it is impossible to completely

eradicate conflicts in any society, measures, policies and programmes ought to be put in place
to manage and reduce the incidence of conflicts. In this study, we have identified some of the
major causes of conflicts in Nigeria, therefore, minimizing social conflicts in Nigeria can be
achieved by addressing these factors which we have outlined

The first has to do with the process of nation building. Nation building according to
Friedrich is a matter of building group cohesion and group loyalty for purposes of international
relations and domestic planning, whatever might be the building stones of the past(p.32). To
Almond & Powel (1966), it is “a process whereby people transfer their commitment and loyalty
from smaller tribes, villages or petty principalities to the larger political system”(p.36). Inherent
in the above, Obasi (2001), states that the central element in nation building is the desire and
effort to achieve unity among the multi ethnic groups that make up a state, put differently,
national integration constitutes the core of nation building (p.239). Thus, the core problem
facing Nigeria today is how to make Nigerians transfer their commitment and loyalty from

11
smaller tribes, villages or petty principalities to the larger Nigerian state. This is a major
problem because as Ake (1996), has argued that “most of us are prone to giving loyalty to the
community, the ethnic or national group. We tend to define ourselves in terms of these
identities and it is in our oneness with them that we become intelligible to ourselves, enjoy
freedom, pursue our interests and actualize our potentialities(p.25). In a seeming collaboration
of Ake's views, Nnoli (1994),says that in Africa:

Individuals do not have any claims which may over ride those of the collectivity.
Harmony and co-operation rather than divergence of interest, competition and conflict
characterize social life. People are more inclined to think of their obligation to other
members of the group than their rights. In addition, feelings of kinship pervade social
relations. However hospitality towards peaceful foreigners is strongly valued even in the
urban areas a feeling of belonging to a community is an important part of individual
existence(p.16).

The above feeling persist because the Nigerian state has not performed its obligations to
the citizens in such a way as to make ethnic groups redundant, instead government has
continued to promote policies that emphasize our separateness, discriminatory policies that
incite ethnic groups against each other, thereby giving them prominence in our national life.
There is therefore need for government to fashion out more policies and programmes that unite
rather than divide Nigerians and run schemes that would make Nigerians feel more proud of
and inclined to Nigeria; than their ethnic groups. Presently Nigeria runs a federal system, it is
important that the system should be run in a way to be attractive to the component units, to
the extent that :

The advantages to the minority groups of staying integrated in the whole must on
balance be greater than the gain to be reaped from separation. A national image must
be created that will have such an appeal as to make an image of separate groups
unattractive……in short the whole of the citizenry must be made to feel that it is only
within the framework of the federal state that their language, culture, institutions,
sacred traditions and standard of living can be protected from external attack and
internal strife(Ramphal,1979,xvii).

The crux of the ethnic problem in Nigeria today, which fuels social conflict is that most
Nigerians are not yet sure that the advantages of staying in Nigeria outweigh the disadvantages.
There is an urgent need to change this feeling.

Tackling the scourge of ethnicity through enthroning good governance will surely be in
the interest of Nigerians. The most unfortunate thing about ethnicity in Nigeria, is that most
attempts by the government in the past to tackle the scourge has ended up exacerbating it.
Thus, policies like state creation exercises, federal character principle among others have not
helped matters. They have rather strengthened ethnic identities, affiliations and inter-ethnic
conflicts. This is why Obi (2004), has continued to insist that:

You cannot fight, eradicate or manage ethnicity by giving it prominence. by giving

salience to ethnic groups and making them prominent in our national life, you are

12
 strengthening ethnic tensions. if political appointments and public offices are shared out
on the basis of ethnic groups, it invariably means that a struggle for public offices
instead of being a struggle by individuals is made one among ethnic groups. it is quite
clear that the federal character principle has exacerbated the main problem it was
meant to solve(pp211-212).

In summation, the enthronement of good governance at all levels in Nigeria would serve
as a better and faster way to handle the ethnic problem which has been fuelling violent conflicts
in Nigeria.

The judiciary is supposed to be the last hope of the common man, while the police is
charged with the duty of maintaining peace and protecting lives and property. Hence, the role
of these two institutions in conflict management is very important. In Nigeria today, the
duration and cost of litigations are very high, beyond this, the level of corruption in the judiciary
is also worrisome, to the extent that it is now generally believed that justice is for the highest
bidder. Hence, those who cannot afford the cost or the patience resort to self help, thus
escalating violent conflicts.

The Police have for a very long time remained the most corrupt establishment in Nigeria.
This is aside their inability to be proactive in averting violent conflicts. Therefore any serious
attempt at reducing violent conflicts in Nigeria must start with a wholesale reform of the
judiciary and police in order to engender confidence in the people. When people believe they
can get justice through the courts and the police do their jobs impartially and pro-actively
violent conflicts will definitely reduce in the country.

We have already pointed out the role of injustice and marginalization in breeding social
conflicts in Nigeria. It is our believe that when and where good governance is enthroned, equity
and justice would be in place, thus as already stated above, real democratization is what is
needed in order to eradicate injustice and marginalization thereby also minimizing the incidence
of violent conflicts that result from a feeling of injustice in all parts of the country, for injustice
anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

Any serious attempts at reducing violent social conflicts in Nigeria, must be aimed at
reducing poverty, inequality and unemployment. With over 100 million Nigerians living below
the poverty line, and above 16 million unemployed, the level of despondency in the land is
dangerously too high. The number of people who feel excluded from the benefits of Nigeria’s
economic growth is too high for anybody to think about peace. The number of hungry and
angry Nigerians is so high that peace will remain elusive, until something is done to calm them
down, serious efforts should be made to alleviate poverty, create jobs and reduce the criminal
inequality. Nigerians should be put back to work, so that efforts at maintaining peace would
work.

Though Nigeria is supposed to be a secular state, governments at all levels are deeply
involved in different religious activities, using state funds, they spend a lot of money sponsoring
pilgrimages every year all in the name of seeking the face of God. In doing this nobody gives
thought to the fact that some Nigerians are atheists that don't even believe in the existence of

13
God, while some are traditionalists whose gods are neither in Mecca, Jerusalem nor Rome but
here in Nigeria, yet public funds belonging to all are spent on those who go annually to seek the
face of God outside Nigeria.

This state involvement in religion would have been tolerable if the country's leaders are
truly godly. However, the rate at which they loot the country's treasury with ferocious alacrity
clearly shows that their claims to religiosity is simply cosmetic since no religion encourages
stealing. The endless pilgrimages have not helped the country as the poor are getting poorer,
insecurity is worsening and stealing of public funds, even that of pensioners is becoming more
brazen. It is therefore very clear that state involvement in religion has nothing to do with God
but simply politics, hence it should be stopped. Religion should remain the private affair of the
citizenry that should not be sponsored with state funds.

Also, there should be laws against intemperate and inciting utterances by religious
leaders who inflame religious passions that lead to religious riots. It is also a known fact that
religious fanaticism feeds fat on poverty and ignorance, hence a concerted effort to eradicate
these would definitely help in reducing religious violence in Nigeria.

Though the above recommendations may not be said to be full proof, it is our belief that
their implementation will go a long way in curtailing the incidence of violent social conflicts in
Nigeria.

REFERENCES

Ake, C. (2001). Democracy and development in Africa. Ibadan: Spectrum Books Ltd.

Ake, C.(1996). Is Africa democratizing?. CASS Occasional Monograph no 5. Lagos: Malthouse

Press Limited.

Almond, G. & Powell B. Jr. (1966). Comparative politics: Developmental approach. Little Brown
& Company.

Ayantayo, J.K (2004).Understanding the socio-religious background of the ethnic man, a

possible tool for advancing ethnic harmony and workable federal character in Nigeria.
Ibadan: PEFS, 2004.

Azar E (1986). Management of politicized social conflicts in the third world. Paper presented at
the fourth Ices Annual lecture Columbia University, June.

Best S.G (2012).Conflict analysis. In S.G.Best (ed). Peace and conflict studies in West Africa.
Ibadan. Spectrum Books Ltd.

Coleman J.S (1986). Nigeria background to nationalism. Benin City, Broburg and Wistrom.

Coser, L.A. (1979).The functions of social conflict. Glencoe 111, The Free Press.

14
Dollard, Miller et al(1939). Frustration and aggression. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Faleti S.A, (2012).Theories of social conflict. In S.G.Best (ed). Peace and Conflict Studies in West
Africa.Ibadan: Spectrum Books Ltd.

Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979 Constitution, Lagos Government Press.

Friedrich. C., (1966).Nation-building. In K.Deutsche & W.Foltz (eds). Nation building. New York:
Alterton Press.

Gurr, J.R (1970). Why men rebel. Princeton University Press.

http//www,punching.com/news.

http://premiumtimesng.com/new/149805

Kendal O.(2003). Sociology in Our Time. Belmont C.A., Watsworth Thomson Learning, 2003.

Kukah, M.H,(2003). Religion, politics and power in northern Nigeria. Ibadan Spectrum Books Ltd.

Lederach, J.P (1997). Building peace, sustainable reconciliation in divided societies. Washington
D.C: United States Institute for Peace Press.

Maslow, A.H (1947). Motivation and personality. New York. Harper & Row.

Miller, B. et al (1941).Symposium on the frustration- aggression hypothesis. Psychological

Review No 48 pp 357-366.

Nnoli O.(2007).Ethnic politics in Nigeria (2nd ed). Enugu: Snapp Press Ltd, 2007.

Nnoli, C. (1996). Is Africa democratizing? CASS Monograph No 5 Lagos Malthouse Press Ltd.

Nnoli, O., (1994). Ethnicity & democracy in Africa: Intervening variables. CASS Occasional
Monograph No. 4. Lagos, Malthouse Press Ltd.

Nnoli, O. (1978). Ethnic politics in Nigeria. Enugu, Fourth Dimension Publishers .

Obasi, I.N.(2011). Nation building in Nigeria: Issues and problems. In C. Ofuebe (ed).
Dynamics of Social Studies. Enugu: New Generation Books.

Obi, C. (2005). Oil and federalism in Nigeria. In E.Onwudiwe & R.T.Suberu (Eds.) Nigerian
federalism in crises critical perspectives and political option. Ibadan: PEFS

Obi, E. A. & Nwankwo R. N. (eds.). Dynamics of intergovernmental relations .Onitsha, Bookpoint

Ltd, 2014.

15
Obikeze O.S & Obi, E.A (2016). Government and politics of Nigeria, The struggle for power in an
African state(2nd ed ). Onitsha Bookpoint Ltd .

Otite O., (2005). On Conflicts, their management resolution and transformation.' In O. Otite . &
I.O.Albert (eds). Community conflicts in Nigeria: Ibadan, Spectrum Books Ltd.

Ramphal, S.S (1979). Keynote address at the international conference on federalism Held in
Lagos Nigeria in May 1976 contained in Akinyemi B. et al (Eds.) Readings in Federalism.
Lagos NIIA.

The Niger delta question (2004) Background to constitutional reform. Ibadan: PEFS

Van der Dennen, J.MG (1939). Frustration and aggression, theory

Http://int.rechen.rug.nl/rth/dennen/a-fat.htm (Accessed 10th January 2015).

**** Obi, E.A. (2018). Peace and conflicts in Nigeria: Toward better management and resolution.In E.A.
Obi & M.I. Alumona (Eds.) Introduction to peace and conflict studies: Security challenges and
peace building in Nigeria. Onitsha: Bookpoint Educational Ltd

16