




































 
 

24 
 

The Issue and Question of Ethnic Politics and Religious Dichotomy as Responsible for  

Nigerian Current Democratic Quagmires 

 

KPODEE, Neemene ThankGod PhD 

Email: kpodeethankgod@gamil.com & talkkpodee@yahoo.com 

Tel: +2348034748056 & +2348127778806 

Department of Philosophy 

Faculty of Humanities 

University of Port Harcourt 

 & 

PETERS, Godswill Osoruchi  

Department of Sociology 

Faculty of Social Sciences 

Ignatius Ajuru University of Education  

Port Harcourt, Rivers State 

 

Abstract  

This paper which is critical in nature, rationally examines the issue and question of ethnic 

politics and religious dichotomy in Nigeria. The idea behind this paper was driven, given the 

present challenges of ethnic and religious factors, which as identified, are barriers militating 

against the desired quest for an improved and viable democracy in Nigeria. The study 

discovered that the politics of ethnicity and religious divides within the Nigerian polity has 

been an aged long tradition. Although, not constitutionally backed, it has been argued by many 

Nigerians and opinion moulders that political parties in Nigeria should choose/select their 

presidential candidates for periodic general elections in consideration of these phenomena. By 

towering this way, governances in Nigeria are also patterned and guided along ethnic and 

religious embryo. Political parties in Nigeria therefore, are most often created along ethnic 

lines and religious affiliations. Despite the calls for national cohesion and true democracy by 

plethora of Nigerians, the quest towards this realization remains lacking, difficult, and most 

often if not seemly appear to be impossible to attain. The study argues that ethnic politics and 

religious dichotomy, amongst other factors are responsible for Nigerian democratic quagmires. 

This paper therefore concludes that the consideration of democratic arrangement along ethnic 

and religious bias is not a trajectory for national cohesion and devolution of power in Nigeria 

and as such should be redefined in order to achieve a better democratic experience.  

Keywords: Democracy, Dichotomy, Ethnicity, Nigeria, Politics, Quagmires, Religion. 

 

 

mailto:kpodeethankgod@gamil.com


                                     

 

         Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 4 Issue 1, January 2024 

ISSN: 2786-9792 

25 
 

Introduction 

The question of ethnic politics and religious dichotomy, amongst others, are one of the 

several phenomena hindering the desired to having democratic success in Nigeria. Nigeria, 

structurally and politically, seems to be formed and patterned on ethnic and religious 

differences. That being the case, in many parts of the world today, ethnicity and religion is 

essential part of people’s social-cultural environment. These phenomena are part of the social 

determinants that have shaped notable countries towards the path to democratic progress and 

advancement. Sadly, on the contrary, here in Nigeria, ethnicity and religion have only thus 

played destructive, instead of constructive role in the development of democracy. This calls for 

sober and critical reflections. 

This paper therefore, is intended to examine the extent to which the practice of ethnicity 

and religious dichotomy are responsible for the present Nigeria’s democratic quagmires. It also 

aimed at surveying how the politics of ethnicity and religious discrimination have continuously 

hindered the quest for a realistic democratic development in Nigeria. The paper shall be 

engaging through a critical approach of analysis by x-raying historically how the effects of 

these phenomena militate against the desired for democratic dividends in Nigeria. To undertake 

this task, it is imperative to begin with conceptual clarifications of basic concepts. What then 

is ethnicity?  

 

The Concept of Ethnicity Defined 

Several scholars have offered variegated definitions into the meaning of the term 

“ethnicity”, however, it is not the intention of this paper to cajole its readers with all the existing 

definitions of the concept but to look at it as it pertains to this particular research. Towards its 

clarification bid, it is imperative to situate that the concept of “ethnicity” and “tribalism” has 

often and always been a confused matter. These two terms are used in juxtaposed manner or 

used synonymously by some scholars. It is worrisome that many scholars use the two concepts 

as though they carry the some meaning and believe they are strongly inseparable. However, 

according to Uwaifo, “it is pertinent to note that there is a difference between ethnicity and 

tribalism even though the difference is water-tight.” In his definition of the term “ethnicity”, 

Nnoli (1978:5) for instance avers that ethnicity is a “social phenomenon associated with the 

identity of members of the largest possible competing communal groups (ethnic groups) 

seeking to protect and advance their interest in a political system.” 

According to Okemiri (2000), ethnicity is defined to mean “the consciousness of 

somebody, relative to the norms and the values of his or her culture, of which other peoples 

socio-cultural background may be deemed to be inferior”. Ilechukwu noted that ethnicity is 

likened to a hydra-headed monster which breeds social chaos, and has had a pervasive influence 

on every aspect of Nigerian life and which calls for a multifaceted attack from all and sundry 

to combat it. Offiong (2001) submitted that ethnicity is a situation whereby people of a given 

territory shared a common belief, religion, culture, language, dressing, historical background, 



 
 

26 
 

which may be different from others. Offiong specifically tells us that; “If we accept the 

expressions of ethnic, religious and cultural preferences are a natural phenomenon and 

consistent with expression of individual liberty, then we realize that attempts to suppress such 

preferences are futile and cannot lead to peaceful coexistence” (30). Instead, we need to better 

understand the positive roles that ethnicity and other characteristics with which individuals 

strongly identify with can play in the organization of societies. A country harboring many 

ethnic groups as Nigeria is bound to have some level of ethnicity. 

 

Towards a Clarification of the Concept of Religion 

The concept of religion is one of the academic terms that have never enjoyed consensus 

definition/clarification. Even among various religious groups, studies have shown that each 

religious scholar differs on the meaning of the term. This informs why there are several 

interpretations of the term. Capturing this expression, Apuwabi, (2018) noted that; “A given 

religion is defined by specific elements of community of believers” (321). These ebullient 

scholar (Apuwabi) went further to define religion as “the set of beliefs, feelings, dogmas and 

practices that define the relations between human being and sacred or divinity” (321). Urhiofe 

and Nwaokocha similarly agreed with this assertion as they state thus; “an outright definition 

of religion is almost an impossibility. Not just because it confuses issues but also because for 

the purposes our study, it will blurr and confound the concept of religion as it will make it 

impossible for the reader to have a proper grasp of the issues at hand when religion is 

mentioned” (2002:139).  Urhiofe and Nwaokocha also buttressed that the term; “religion is a 

much-abused word as it has been used to apply to so many things that claim to be religious” 

(139).  Williams James (1902) however, defines religion as; “the feelings, acts, and experiences 

of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to 

whatever they consider the divine.”  

More appealing and peculiar to this study, religion can be seen as a system of social 

unity commonly understood as a group of beliefs or attitudes concerning an object, person, 

unseen or imaginary being, or system of thought considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine 

or highest truth, and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions, and rituals associated with 

such belief or system of thought. It is a structure within which specific theological doctrines 

and practices are advocated and pursued; usually among a community of like-minded believers. 

Religion can also be understood as that which came to give answer to emotional tension created 

by puzzling and mystifying environment. This points to the belief and argument that religion 

and its role is not limited to spirituality but also applies to the physical problems and challenges 

of mankind. Hence, Ugwu (1999) argues that, “Religion…seems likely to remain-an inevitable 

part of human life”. Accordingly therefore, religion is a means of tackling the problems of evil 

and suffering, (spiritual and physical) as well as the hostility of mankind. It is when religion is 

seen as useful to man; be it spiritual or physical, that it can then make meaning when it is 

applied even to Nigerian political environment.  

The Issue and Question of Ethnic Politics and Religious Dichotomy as Responsible … Kpodee N.T & Peters G.O 



                                     

 

         Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 4 Issue 1, January 2024 

ISSN: 2786-9792 

27 
 

Background Knowledge to Ethnics Politics and Religious Dichotomy in Nigeria 

The present country called ‘Nigeria’ is claimed to be a Federal State, but illogically, 

deliberately arranged and patterned along ethnic and religious divide. This political construct, 

as evidenced in history of Nigeria’s politics, dates back to its pre-independence days. These 

two phenomena have continued to be the basis upon which Nigerian politics is determined. In 

agreement with this assertion, Udoidem in his observation argues that since the creation of the 

present Nigerian State which was selfishly conceived and brought to limelight in an unholy 

way by the British imperialist, Nigerian unity only exists on ethnic and religious bigotries. He 

strongly affirms his position and argument that the ideology upon which Nigeria was contracted 

was based on deception and deliberate disregard for genuine unity of all parties involved. On 

this note, Udoidem (2004) declares:  

As a country, Nigeria does not have a common ancestral or 

collective memory. Such a common or collective memory is 

necessary and essential for national identity and nationalism. 

This lack of common collective memory is what is responsible 

for the absence of patriotism. This is why people living in 

Nigeria would often say I am Yoruba before I am a Nigerian, I 

am Igbo before I am a Nigerian, I am Hausa before I am a 

Nigerian. There is no common memory (129).  

 

Udoidem (2004) goes on to write that:  

Because of this lack of political ethos or common political 

memory, the Northerners lapse into their religious memory and 

use it as the organizing principle for the achievement of their 

religio-political vision, while the Southerners lapse into their 

ethnic memory which occludes their national vision and instead 

throw them into internecine intra and inter-ethnic and tribal 

conflicts as it currently experienced in most of the oil belt zones 

of Nigeria. Everybody is thinking ethnic. No matter how long 

you live in Lagos as an Igbo man you can never be said to be a 

citizen (129).  

 

As evident from the above, the amalgamation of the various ethnic groups into a single territory 

called “Nigeria” sowed the seed of disintegration, hatred, acrimony and lack of common ethos 

among the various ethnic nationalities. No wonder one can say Nigeria is united in diversity 

such that all efforts at bringing them together amid their diverse cultures, beliefs and religions 

differences have remained a difficult if not utopia challenge. Scholars like Post and Vickers 

(1973) would posit that; “From its inception as a colonial state, Nigeria has faced a perennial 



 
 

28 
 

crisis of territorial or state legitimacy, which has often challenged its efforts at national 

cohesion, democratization, stability and economic transformation” (65). Soyinka (1997) had 

similar submission as highlighted thus; “The high point of the crisis seems to have been the 

civil war in the late 1960s, which ensued shortly after independence in 1960. However, rather 

than abate, conflicts have become more or less pervasive and intense in the post-civil war 

period, and disintegration continues to be contemplated by aggrieved segments of society as 

one of the possible ways of resolving the ’National Question’. The point to note here is that the 

issue of ethnic politics in Nigeria and the practice of governance in accordance to religious 

divides have been an age long practice in the Nigerian politics.  

This is further agreed upon when Uwaifo also maintained that; “The origin of ethnicity 

in Nigeria is traceable to the nation’s colonial experience, particularly the amalgamation of the 

Northern and Southern protectorates of Nigeria in 1914.”  According to Osadolor (1998), the 

act of amalgamation was not a federal idea. Lugard did not conceive a federal state for Nigeria. 

In the statement of the colonial office when Lugard submitted his proposals on 9 May, 1913, it 

was stated that ‘Sir Lugard’s proposals contemplate a state which is impossible to classify’ 

(Osadolor, 1998). This is because the colonial masters felt it was grossly impossible to 

administer such a state that was large and mixed with diverse ethnic groups.  So for the purposes 

of administrative convenience, in order to control such people, therefore, the British colonial 

master hurriedly came up with amalgamation of the different ethnic nationalities without 

considering the imminent and undeniable difference in culture, religion, character and socio 

political traditions of these ethnic grouping. Uwaifo further identified that; “In the pre-colonial 

era and since the independence of Nigeria, ethnicity played and still playing manifest and latent 

roles in the body politics of Nigeria.” 

In their research, Eghosa and Rotimi similarly submitted thus; “Like ethno-religious 

violence, recent inter-ethnic clashes in Nigeria have also been particularly combustible 

especially when they have involved relatively large groups like the Hausa-Fulani, Yoruba, Igbo, 

Tiv, Urhobo or Ijaw” (19). These ebullient scholars Eghosa and Rotimi further adumbrated 

inter alia: 

The major cases of inter-ethnic violence in Nigeria since the late 

eighties have included the Tiv-Jukun conflicts in Taraba and 

Benue states, the three-cornered Urhobo-Ijaw-Itsekiri clashes in 

Warri, Delta state, the Hausa-Fulani and Yoruba clashes in 

Lagos, Ogun, Oyo and Kano states, and the recurrent clashes 

between Hausa-Fulani and Igbo groups in Kano state, which 

have acquired an ethno-religious complexion since the Hausa-

Fulani are Muslims and the Igbos are mainly Christians (19).  

While the Tiv-Jukun, Urhobo-Ijaw-Itsekiri, and Hausa/Fulani-Igbo, Eghosa and Rotimi noted 

“clashes are long-running conflicts that have erupted periodically during the eighties up until 

the present moment, the Hausa/Fulani-Yoruba clashes took place mainly in 1999-2000 in the 

The Issue and Question of Ethnic Politics and Religious Dichotomy as Responsible … Kpodee N.T & Peters G.O 



                                     

 

         Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 4 Issue 1, January 2024 

ISSN: 2786-9792 

29 
 

wake of the transition from northern-dominated military rule to a Yoruba-led civilian 

administration” (19-20). 

 

Democratic Governance and the Challenges of Ethnic-Religious Politics in Nigeria 

A careful look at the relationship between politics, ethnicity and religion in Nigeria, one 

could authoritatively confirm that ethnicity and religious dichotomies have continued to play 

setback roles in the determination of the day to day formulation of policies and decisions. It is 

unfortunate, in Nigeria, instead of religious leaders to bring about national integration and make 

supportive role towards the advancement of democracy, the case is a reversed. As Matthew 

Hassan Kukah (2007) would argue that “one of the commonest accusations which the clergy 

face today is that we are leaving our religious duties and poking our noses into the fire of 

politics”(3). What this means is that religious leaders are supposed to stay far away from 

political participations. However, Kukah would insist that those who made such assertion do 

not seem to understand the inseparability of religion from the society. Kukah recognizes that 

religion plays essential roles in governance. He also argues that the reason Nigeria in particular, 

and Africa, at large seems to be facing what might be termed as religious chauvinism lies in 

the fact that the main political participators (actors) have failed to make positive impact on the 

lives of the people. Kukah (2007) captures this argument thus: “in Africa, the situation has 

become rather precarious as the failure of statecraft and the inability of leaders to 

institutionalize fundamental changes has given rise to more serious problems of ethnicity and 

religious bigotry” (2). Kukah (2007) goes on to write: 

Most of us in the non-Muslim community, especially in Nigeria, 

are still unable to address our minds very seriously to the real 

role of religion, tribalism, ethnicity, culture, etc, in politics. 

Despite the ubiquity of these categories of identity formation, we 

still refuse to confront them. We rather engage them negatively 

and dismissively wave them away by saying: Religion and 

politics do not mix, tribalism is killing African politics, ethnicity 

is the main obstacle to development and no place in a modern or 

modernizing state. We must strip ourselves culturally naked 

before we can worship on the altar of the new gods of democracy 

and globalization (152-153). 

In Nigeria, one often hears the argument that politics and religion should be separated and kept 

on a distinct polemics. The most worrisome is that there appears to be some political conflicts 

in Nigeria which are said to be caused either by religious divide or ethnic bigotry. While there 

are several types of religious practices in the country today, it is however to be noted that the 

two major religions are Christianity and Islamic religions. While these two religions continue 

to be at each other’s throat (lock-ahead), the political class has continued to imbibe the culture 

of marrying the two warring religions into a united nationalism through the doctrine of the joint 



 
 

30 
 

tickets of elective positions, especially within the presidential contest. On the contrary, there 

are also indications that most of our political leaders sponsored religious and ethnics divide 

among the various ethnic groups prior, during and even after electioneering period. Nigeria has 

over the years suffered from many religious crises. This, no doubt, has done great disservice to 

the Nigerian political development. It is hard to believe that the tickets for the presidential 

position have always been a joint ticket between either a Christian and a Moslem or a Moslem 

and a Christian.  

For instance, as the country returned to democracy in 1999, the ticket for the office of 

the President and Vice-President has been patterned in this religious mentality. From 1999-

2007, it was a joint ticket between President Olusengun Obasanjo and Alhaji Atiku Abubakar. 

Obasanjo a Christian was joined with Atiku of the Moslem faith. Again from 2007 to 2011, 

Nigeria witnessed a joint ticket between Umaru Musa Yar’ Adua (late) and Goodluck Ebele 

Jonathan. The President Yar Adua’s led government was of a Moslem background while 

Goodluck, the Vice, a Christian. In the same spirit, when Yar’Adua died, and Goodluck of the 

Christian background took over and was sworn in, the position for the vice was replaced with 

a Northern Moslem and this continued into their election in 2011 general elections. This time, 

it was another joint ticket between Goodluck and Alhaji Architect Namadi Sambo. In the same 

arrangement, in 2015, which saw the emergence of President Muhammadu Buhari of the All 

Progressives Congress (APC) at the polls, it was A Muslims/Christian ticket; where the Vice 

President in person of Prof. Yemi Osinbanjo of the Southern Christian was on a joint ticket 

with Buhari of the Northern Muslims. Thus, from 1999 2011 to 2019, the major political parties 

have always filed in their candidates based on ethnic and religious clothing.  

The joint tickets were that of the Muslims/Christians or Christian-Moslem dichotomy. 

This was/is another evident of the politics of religious-based arrangement. However, in 2023 

Presidential election, there appears to be a new turning point in the Nigeria Fourth Republic, 

as the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), as a political party filed candidates for President 

and Vice President, respectively from the same faith background (Islam). While the assumed 

traditional Muslim/Christian Ticket was violated, the ideology of Northern/Southern arranged 

was still respected and sustained. During this period, there was much pandemonium and panic 

of fear of religious war in the Nigerian politics. Presidential Candidates from other political 

parties like Alh. Atiku Abubakar of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), Mr. Peter Obi of the 

Labour Party (LP) etc, who saw the structural arrangement of Senators Asiwaju Bola Ahmed 

Tinubu and Kashim Shettima of same faith as a violation and a deviation from the assumed 

original political agreement and arrangement in Nigeria. There was tension everywhere; 

Churches were turned into grounds for political campaign by most of these presidential 

candidates, especially Obi who went about campaigning on religious sentiment, instead of 

issue-based campaigns. With the victory of Bola Tinubu/Shettima- of the same faith, history 

was for the second time repeated. This was a replayed of what took place in 1993 when Chief 

MKO Abiola of the Moslem background West also picked Babagana Kingibe from the North 

as his running mate. Though, that election was later annulled by the military, it was however, 

widely speculated to be one of the freest elections ever conducted in Nigerian history. It is 

The Issue and Question of Ethnic Politics and Religious Dichotomy as Responsible … Kpodee N.T & Peters G.O 



                                     

 

         Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 4 Issue 1, January 2024 

ISSN: 2786-9792 

31 
 

ironical that in spite of this political arrangement in consideration of ethnic and religious 

dichotomies, Nigeria has not fare well, democratically and politically as a nation. The country 

has not been able to get it right. Democracy in the country remains elusive. Thus, in the next 

phase, a looked at its effect becomes expedient. 

          

Implication of Ethnics Politics and Religious Dichotomy on Nigerian Quest for 

Democracy 

In Nigeria’s democracy of today, one of the clarion calls has been the quest for powers 

rotation amongst the major ethnic and religious groups that constitute and spread across the 

length and breadth of the entire federation. It was upon this that, according to Kpodee (2023); 

“the Nigerian leaders in the early time tried to arrange the political system of the country in 

order to correct the deliberate imbalance, injustice, and the seeds of discord that were already 

planted amongst the people by the colonial masters. Political philosophers and one of the 

founding leaders of the Nigerian past politics like Nnamdi Azikiwe represented this class” 

(143). Kpodee continues; “Azikiwe’s call for nationalism was, no doubt, a call for the 

consciousness of oneness and unity of purpose” (143). Kpodee further lamented that; “It is 

ironical and quite sad that this call by the founding fathers of the country are lacking in the 

Nigerian current democratic experience. The desired achievement for national unity and the 

call for power rotation will remain elusive if democracy as a system of government is not fully 

developed in principles and practices” (143).  

Decrying against the wobbling democratic experience in Nigeria, Amieye-Ofori 

(2009:8) similarly noted that; “power has for too long resided with the wrong set of leaders. 

Their wrongheaded approach to governance, as could be discerned from the selfish policies 

they have initiated and implemented over the years, has been anything but patriotic.” Many 

scholars have argued that the deliberate maintenance of a lop-sided federation, with a huge 

northern region that is greater in size and supposedly in population than the other regions put 

together was a sure recipe for political instability. The above demonstrates that decision and 

policy formulations in the National Assemblies suffers set back due to the present Northerners 

Representatives over the other Regions. Amieye-Ofori’s (2009) further explicates on Nigerian 

democracy when he submits that “what was originally designed to be an ideal society providing 

equal opportunities for all eventually became a closed society in which might is considered 

right. This is akin to the story of Nigeria” (77). Similar thought is buttressed by O.B. Osadolor. 

While expressing his feelings on the Nigerian democratic experience and offered a 

chronological account of the problems of democracy in Nigeria, Osadolor (1998) writes thus:  

Explanation for the present Nigerian problems lies in the course 

of the country’s historical development. Along this course…the 

situation has been that of political intrigue and blood-shed-

nationalist aspirations turned into inter-regional, inter-ethnic and 

inter-party antagonism and mutual distrust; collapse of the First 

Republic; Coup and Counter-coup; a bitter Civil War; Collapse 



 
 

32 
 

of the Second Republic, an unending barracks revolts or coup 

d’état; the aborted Third Republic; Confused political direction-

of which there have been obvious signs of reverses in some, if 

not all aspects of national development(45). 

Ake (2007) shares common view as he writes “the government in power cannot claim 

legitimacy. Political instability is endemic because of the normlessness and extremist pattern 

of political competition. Violence is endemic, anarchy lurks just below the surface and the 

political system is as disarticulated as the economy and as fragmented as the culture” (45). This 

shows that the Nigerian democratic experience is rooted in the activities of autocratic and 

incepts leaders and their regimes. This assertion can also be gleaned from Mathew H. Kukah 

(2012)’s remarks that “political instability which military rule has brought is at the heart of all 

our violence and incoherence. The military by gaining legitimacy through violence have 

psychologically elevated and institutionalized violence on the altar of the quest for power”(3-

4). If our democracy is characterized by violence maladministration, lack of accountability and 

other forms of social ills, how then we can redress it. Most analysis would believe that there is 

still hope for the country to get out of her present socio-political and economic quagmire. These 

theorists and analysts strongly maintain that Nigeria present predicament will go away if she 

effectively harness or utilize her immense human and natural resources.  

On the contrary, Bello sees Nigeria’s democracy, differently. He was concerned the 

similar problems earlier sighted by Kukah in opposite direction. Bello in his observation argues 

that one of the problems of democratization stems partly from conceptual confusions. Bello 

(2005:52) argues; “these ambiguities can be removed and/or resolved by evaluating the concept 

of democratization with a view to proposing an acceptable definition.” Bello identifies five 

major conditions or requirements that must be met before any effort or claim of democratization 

of Nigeria would find practical experience. According to Bello (2005) they include: 

Constitutional and legal reforms that will reflect and guarantee 

democracy; the autonomy and independence of the judiciary and 

electoral body to ensure free and fair elections and impartial 

trials and resolution of conflicts and/or disputes in the polity; 

freedom of speech and the press to ensure the existence of 

vibrant political parties and an active civil society to serve as 

alternative watch dogs or critics of the government; the need for 

a vigorous and comprehensive programme of education so that 

the principles, practices and institutions of democracy can be 

learnt, acquired, cultivated and practiced (53-54).  

Lastly, Bello continues; “there is need for improvement in the overall social economic 

wellbeing of the people to ensure the flourishing and blossoming of democratic principles, 

institutions and attitudes in Nigeria” (54). So far, as observed in the words of Bello, one of the 

dominant problems militating against the practice of true democracy in Nigeria was/is the lack 

of common agreement among Nigerians. 

The Issue and Question of Ethnic Politics and Religious Dichotomy as Responsible … Kpodee N.T & Peters G.O 



                                     

 

         Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 4 Issue 1, January 2024 

ISSN: 2786-9792 

33 
 

Within a broader scope of Africa as a continent, and Nigeria in particular, as a nation, 

ethnicity, according to Kalu (2016); “is by implication considered and identified as one of the 

important issues affecting democratization and nation-building” (146).  Nyuot Yoh, (2004) 

argues in similar vein that “ethnicity is believed to have had great impact, in fact more impact 

than other factors, on how politics and nation-building processes are pursued in Africa. It is 

practically obvious before us that the issues of religion and ethnic identity have dominated 

democratic politics in Nigeria. The complexities of ethnicity in Nigerian politics are to its pre-

colonial, colonial and post-colonial eras. In Nigeria, everybody is thinking about the self; not 

us. There is no common spirit of one people, one nation. There is lack of national conscious.  

This ethnic and religious identity also translates into its larger body of politics, where 

each individual who finds his way to national politics is only there with the mindset that it is 

their turn to share and eat the national cake without any sense of moral obligations. Egoism, 

rather than altruism is the order of the day in Nigerian national politics. Muslims see non-

Muslims, especially, Christians as alien. There is no common unity and love amongst them in 

national politics. These phenomena have adversely affected the desired quest for democratic 

progress in Nigeria.  In summary, it is essential to state that the said issue of ethnic politics and 

religious dichotomy has resulted to amongst other problems, wobbling democracy, high rate of 

illiteracy, moral decadence, increased in unemployment, death of modern medical facilities, 

lack of motorable roads, deplorable state of communication facilities, increasing rate of 

population growth, lack of mechanized agriculture and poor healthcare-system etc. Nigerian 

democracy therefore leaves much to be desired.  

 

Conclusion  

From the foregoing, it can be said that Nigerian political history and its democracy, 

today, has suffered and continued to suffer setback due to its creation and continuous existence 

on ethnics cum religious clothing. As a problem that was rationally, critically and normatively 

investigated, it is firmly believed and argued here that if Nigeria, can excuse itself politics of 

ethnicity and religious dichotomy, the present quagmires which the country’s democracy is 

facing can be addressed.  Prescriptively, this is where socio-political philosophy can 

theoretically contribute, by calling to attention how to bring about or better still, help towards 

entrenching democratic practice in the country. This should be considered as a clarion call in 

order to better and improve the wellbeing of all Nigerian irrespective of tribe, religion or both. 

The paper therefore, concludes that the practice of ethnicity and religious divide should not be 

allowed to sentence Nigerian State to pernicious and precarious situations, rather, our ethnic 

diversity and religious affiliation should be redefined in order to bring about good governance 

and democratic dividends which will set Nigeria on the path of national integration. 

 

 

 



 
 

34 
 

References 

Ake, C. (2007). Democracy and Development in Africa. Spectrum Books. 

Amieye-Ofori, T. (2009). Democratizing without the people: the story of Nigeria. Pear 

Publishers.  

Apuwabi, O. O. E. (2018). The effects of religious crisis on economic development in Nigeria. 

In:  Internal Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences 8 (6), 

321- 330. 

Bello, A.G.A. (2005). Democratization as social engineering: philosophy and praxis. Journal 

of Nigerian Philosophical Association 1(23), 302-381.  

Eghosa E. (2005). Osaghae & Rotimi T. Suberu. A history of identities, violence, and stability 

in Nigeria.” In: Centre for Research on Inequality, Human Security and Ethnicity. 

Queen Elizabeth House.   

James, W. (1902). The varieties of religious experience. Modern Library. 

Kukah, M. (2012). Nigeria as an emerging democracy: dilemma and promise. 

http://www.thenationonlineng.net/2011/index.php/law/. Accessed, 11/11/13. 

Kalu, P. (2016). Political parties and ethnic politics in Nigeria.” In: Nigerian Journal of Social 

Development, 5(2), 141-152. 

Kpodee, N. T.  Isaiah Berlin’s ‘Two Concepts of Liberty’: A paradigm for Nigerian democracy. 

A PhD Thesis Submitted to the Post Graduate School, University of Benin, Benin City- 

Edo State, Nigeria, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Award of Doctor 

of Philosophy (PhD) Degree in Philosophy. 

Makinwa, P.K. (1981). Internal migration and rural development in Nigeria: Lessons from 

Bendel State. Heinemann Educational Books. 

Nyuot, Y. (2007). Ethnicity and Nation Building. In: International Business & Economics 

Research Journal 6(4). 

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

Okigbo, P.C. (1987). Philosophy of development. Fourth Dimension Publishers. 

Osadolor, O.B. (1998). The development of the Federal Idea and the Federal Framework. In: 

A. Kunle, A. Adigun, S. Rotimi, S. et al., (Eds). Federalism and political restructuring 

in Nigeria. Spectrum Books.  

Post, K. & M. Vickers. (1973). Structure and conflict in Nigeria 1960-66. Heinemann 

Soyinka, W. (1997) The open sore of a continent: A personal narrative of the Nigerian Crisis. 

Oxford University Press. 

The Issue and Question of Ethnic Politics and Religious Dichotomy as Responsible … Kpodee N.T & Peters G.O 



                                     

 

         Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 4 Issue 1, January 2024 

ISSN: 2786-9792 

35 
 

Udoidem, S. I. (2004). Understanding Nigeria’s political grammar: A panacea for resolving 

Nigerian’s Socio-Political Quagmire. Kiabara: Journal of Humanities. 10(2), 125-143.  

Urhiofe, E.O and Nwaokocha, A.O. (2002). Religion in national development. In Nzemeke A. 

D. & Erhagbe, E.O. (Eds.). Nigerian peoples and culture, 2nd edition. Mindex 

Publishing Company, 2002.   

Uwaifo, S. O. (2016). Ethnicity and development of political parties in Nigeria. In Journal of 

Poverty, Investment and Development 28, 1-9. 

 

  


