In a typically ‘deeply divided’ polity such as Nigeria today, there is bound to be plenitude of ‘agenda of peace’ as in this piece offered by the author via a Keynote Address Presented to the Nigerian Social Cohesion Dialogue and the Release of the 2021 Nigeria Social Cohesion Survey Report, organized by African Polling Institute, at Yar’Adua Centre, Abuja August 26th, 2021 – Editor

By Hussaini Abdu, PhD

Introduction

I want to thank the African Polling Institute, particularly the Executive Director, Professor Bell Ihua for inviting me to lead a conversation on this very important and compelling topic, Fostering Peace and Unity in Nigeria: The Imperative of Social Cohesion. This couldn’t have come at a better time, considering the raging crisis of polarization and violent conflicts the country has been experiencing in the last few years. Although the report under discussion today is about the current. I am taking the liberty of this keynote address to be a bit historical about the challenges of national cohesion in Nigeria. I am aware of our peculiar aversion to history, but it is important to understand that social cohesion and polarization are products of history. They are shaped largely by people’s historical experiences as negotiated or intermediated by public policies.

Importantly, it is an issue that preoccupied Historians and Political Scientists since independence, under different conceptual framing – either as national integration, National Question, Ethnic Politics, identity politics and to some extent, federalism, and federal character.

While I am personally concerned, if not weakened by the seeming helplessness of Nigeria’s current situation, as a student of Nigerian history and politics, I recognize that political polarization and conflict have been important defining characters of Nigeria’s political order/disorder. The crisis ridden character has been articulated in different publications and reports since the colonial times, including the Social Cohesion Index of the African Polling Institute that is being discussed here today – a country in perpetual crisis.  Some of these documentations may sound pessimistic and exaggerated, the reality however is that crisis of national development is deepening and has serious implications for democracy, social cohesion, and development.

Scholars of History and Pollical Science have been consistent that at the root of the Nigeria’s worsening crisis of governance and development is the failure to evolve an effective and democratic mechanism for managing the National Question. As a multiethnic society, defined by deep-seated social inequality, uneven development, and other forms of social identity – religion, ethnicity, gender, and age and now state and regions/zones, National Question has remained at the fore of Nigeria’s political process and development concern.

Challenges of Social Cohesion in Nigeria

The character of the post-colonial state in Nigeria has been significantly shaped by largely three major factors: Its colonial origin, extreme factionalism amongst a multi-ethnic, multi-religious and regionally segmented elites and prolonged military authoritarian rule[1]. These have historically characterized the political system, its institutions and culture.  Major manifestations of these defining characters include poor policy choices, particularly those that have continued to deepen poverty, inequality and unemployment, weak state institutional capacity, corruption and lack of accountability, the winner- take -all character of the political system and lack of commitment or poor sensitivity to national diversity. Others include arguably unengaging middle class, exploitative and uncaring private sector, polarizing media – conventional and the social media, weak civil society, and pessimistic, cynical and gullible citizenry.

Every segment of our society has its fair share of contributions to the deepening national crisis. However, I want to quickly address three most impotent driving factors.

1. Identity Politics and elite segmentation. Ethnic, religious regional identity is mobilized in the contest for power, with the faction that gains power deploying the same to establish its dominance. The Nigerian ruling class hasn’t not been able to look beyond these identities and therefore leadership, no matter how they try, has always pandered to sectional interests. Behind all the contentions around the forms and structure of government, the socio-economic and political crises have been fundamentally shaped by the struggle for power, control, and dominance by factions of the ruling class. Nigeria has historically failed to produce a leadership that could see beyond the ethnic, religious, and regional firmament; whose actions are not determined by personal/sectional experience or interests. Leadership, broadmindedness, and commitment to social justice could have a transformative impact on social cohesion.

2. Poor and exclusive policy choices: Nigeria’s experiment with neoliberal economic policies since SAP has failed flatly – growing poverty, unemployment, and inequality. This has nothing to do with regime type, or lack of inclusion as often presented by sympathizing economists. The framework is ab initio incapable of being inclusive. Therefore, even when the GDP of Nigeria was growing at 7% and above, unemployment was increasing, poverty was on the rise and inequality was deepening. This has significantly contributed to weakening the state and undermining its legitimacy. Generally, democracy survives on the weight of the state and civil society. The capacity and independence of the state has been so weakened that it currently cannot guarantee anything – security, education, health services, road etc. Even when the government tries to reform, it is often in a paradox of attempting to rebuild state institutions without considering the soft issues bothering on culture, values, and sense of ownership of the changes. More like building a computer hardware without the supporting software. State building is generally associated with institution building, which focuses on the importance of institutional reconstruction. Nation building on the other hand is largely rooted in building legitimacy and managing diversity. Although they can be mutually reinforcing, over concentration on institution without investing in people undermines national cohesion and development. All the reforms, infrastructure, institutions, without corresponding investment in people and building a sense of purpose, shared destiny, and collective imagination, will amount to naught.

3. Lack of accountability for group crime. Inability or unwillingness to develop effective democratic mechanism for dealing with national crisis and collective closure of each of our unpleasant crisis experiences have served to keep the country in unending crisis. From the 1966 political crisis – the coup and counter coup, the massacre in northern Nigeria, the civil war, the unsuccessful Orka coup that attempted to expel a section of the country, repeated ethno-religious conflagration in Kaduna and Plateau states, militancy in the Niger Delta, the massacre of innocent citizens in Odi and Zaki Biam, farmers -herders conflicts, they have all gone without proper closure. Boko Haram insurgency, banditry, and the recent spike in violence in the southeast may also end in the same way. The interest is always to end the situation – accountability, proper understanding of the situation and guarding against a repeat is never a concern. The country has never gathered the courage to punish group crime. We declare blanket amnesty; perpetrator get free only for the country to be faced with another dimension. Thereby keeping the country in perpetual instability.  Lack of accountability and impunity is at the heart of our repeated crisis.

For instance, the lack of proper closure of the civil war have kept the issues ragging over 40 years after. I remember a profound argument by late Dr. Rauf Mustapha. Against the popular perception in the 1970s, he argued in 1986 perceptively noted, that “the civil war did not resolve the National Question in Nigeria. What is true is that the Nigerian state was able to overcome a specific challenge to its integrity. This does not, however, mean that no future challenges are probable, or that the state would always have the capacity to overcome challenges”.

This is what the country has been doing, responding to specific changes as they come without proper closure on any.

Imperative of Social Cohesion

Social cohesion, like social inclusion and social capital have become important concepts in development conversation, particularly in the last two decades. They are reflections of the character of development that seems to exclude many and the social polarization that characterized most parts of the world in the 21^st century. What Eric Hobsbawm called “fractured times” and others referred to as age of polarization. This has found space in the new conversation on Multiculturalism or what Fukuyama, called the “demand for dignity and the politics of resentment”.  Social cohesion is simply a belief by citizens of a given nation-state that they share a moral community, which enables them to trust each other. That feeling of being part of a community, appreciating the differences, but working together to make a better living condition for all. It involves so many things: inclusion, trust, equality, and social justice, amongst others.

Operationalizing Social Cohesion requires series of action that could ensure that every individual within a community can have access to their basic needs, enjoy their rights as human beings and be treated fairly, equally and with dignity. However, social cohesion is not about building a homogenous society, it is more about using inclusive social policies to manage diversity.

It is believed that the more socially cohesive a society is, the better for its institution and growth dynamics.  Achieving this requires setting up mechanisms that will contain economic, social, and political fragmentation. Development in the contemporary world depends on a combination of economic competitiveness, social cohesion, and responsive governance.

Threats to social cohesion come from bad policies or from policies that are too unidimensional and polarizing. It must be recognized that there is no social policy for all times, it requires continuous review to suit emerging realities. Specifically, Nigeria may need to consider the following in managing our national diversity and building social cohesion.

• Urgency of dealing with the security situation in the country. There is no doubt that the current security challenges is contributing to national tension and polarization. The perception or reality that the government is not taking the right action to contain the raging violence or that the government has been discriminatory and selective in dealing with the situation are there. Some of these perceptions may not be true but how the government reacts to the concerns will go a long way in containing the increasing polarization.

• Decolonizing our history – This is not about the contention around the teaching of history in school. It is more about the kind of history that people are being taught. Our history is largely shaped by colonial narratives. The story of Nigeria has not properly been told. It is true that the nation state is the product of colonial control but the areas that currently constitute Nigeria have in one way or the other related and mutually influenced each other long before the colonial times. It is not a case of strange bed fellows being brought together. Nigeria was not also conquered and brought together based on ethnic nationality. Territories conquered were polities that transcend ethnicity, religion, and geographies. Yes, Nigeria is a colonial creation but almost all nations state were foisted by power groups and therefore accidents of history.

• Reshaping our national narrative – This is related to the previous issue of decolonizing our history. Nigeria has failed to explain its challenges. From Boko Haram to the raging cases of banditry and herder-farmers crisis, there is no national narrative. In the absence, people provide their own narratives which are often divisive. A problem understood, explained, and collectively owned, is a problem half solved.

• Find appropriate response to our peculiar realities and context – every country has its peculiar diversity. I am not sure there is any country that shares the peculiarity of Nigeria’s religious and ethnic diversity. A country in which the two major religions are almost of equal size and passion. The solution to managing our diversity may be inside and we must check for it.

• Develop political will to change the situation – Political will can be very transformative. Leadership is very important in this regard. Look beyond national fractures and invest in diversity management at all levels of the society, not just at national level. Some of the contentions we are dealing with are at the state and local governments. Our leaders must recognize that diversity management is an important leadership skill. When people complain about poor diversity management, we must revisit or provide a proper explanation. You don’t seat and say, “God knows that is not my intention”. Citizens are not God, as far as they are concerned, your intention is defined by your actions or inactions.

• Respond to the complex drivers of conflict – issues of poverty, inequality (horizontal and vertical), exclusion, climate change, etc.

• Commitment to Peace and justice –We must recognize there is no peace without justice. We must deepen accountability and people must be held responsible for their actions.

• Invest in processes that will deepen our democracy and federal system – I will recommend that we take the issue of restructuring seriously and work to develop a more accommodating structure that better responds to our contemporary and future realities.

Conclusion

Social cohesion is not about one law or one policy framework. It must be reflected in all the activities and policies of the government. It further helps if every segment of the society also shares the burden of building social cohesion – the civil society, media, individual citizens, and business.