




































 

 

139 | P a g e  

 

 

ETHNICITY AND THE NATIONAL QUESTION 

 

BY 

 

OKECHUKWU, GROUPSON-PAUL UC. PhD  

groupsonpaul@yahoo.com, okechukwu.groupson@funai.edu.ng 

Department of Political Science 

Federal University Ndufu Alike Ikwo (FUNAI), 

Abakaliki – Ebonyi State, Nigeria 

 

And  

 

ARUA CHRISTOPHER CHUKWU 

ceejakchioma@gmail.com 

Department Of Political Science 

Federal University Ndufu Alike Ikwo (FUNAI), 

Abakaliki Ebonyi, State Nigeria. 

 

 

ABSTRACT 
Nigeria is still a house divided against itself. Ethnic mistrust and tension run high, tribal 

loyalty remain stronger than national loyalty. Ethnic problems have not only persisted 

but in some cases, intensified leading to meaningful suggestions in some quarters that 

the country should be broken up into two or three parts. This paper examines the nature 

of ethnicity in Nigeria, how it has affected and negated national development. The study 

observed that Nigeria is multi-ethnic and the inter-play of this ethnic factor has created 

more obstacles to the corporate existence of Nigeria as a nation. Consequently, politics 

by its nature and character constitutes a democratic structure capable of engendering 

stable development which is at the center of national question. This study analyses the 

need for democratic consolidation because of its volume impact of ethnic politics on 

national development. The problematic nature of ehnicism and its negative effect on 

nation-building is explained with elite pluralist theory. The study relies on analytical 

concepts and secondary source of data. The study recommends among others that 

political education and training are vital in creating a new social order and also the crisis 

of national integration needs to be solved before political parties should be allowed to 

appear. 

Keywords: Ethnicity, National question, Democratic consolidation, Nation-

building, Ethnic politics. 

 

 

 

mailto:ceejakchioma@gmail.com


 

 

140 | P a g e  

 

 

INTRODUCTION  

The problem of evolving a political structure that would accommodate the interests of 

the various nationalities which constitute the “Nigerian nation” started from 

independence. Ninety-four year after the first (the Clifford) constitution was drafted in 

1922, and the several other constitutions since independence on October1, 1960, Nigeria 

is still battling with a workable structure that has been severely challenged by the 

protraction of the ‘national question’.  

 

The national question is conceived by scholars as consisting of the political mobilizations 

and struggles by dissatisfied and aggrieved ethnic groups to redress and exact more just 

and equitable accommodation from the Nigerian nation-state (Ayokhai &Peter, 2016). 

National question is tied to the erosion of the state and its failure to meet the needs of the 

citizens evident in the injustice in the protection of lives of the individuals of various 

groups inhabited in the nation space. 

 

The problem has to do with the politics of ethnicity and the intervention of the military 

in politics. Levels of educational development between the Northern and Southern part 

of the country caused imbalance in the level of political development, and was to affect 

the direction of national politics even during the struggle for independence. In fact, while 

the Southern part of the country was ready for and had indeed embraced self-governance 

in 1957, the North did not do so until 1959 (Richard, 1999). Post independence political 

history of Nigeria, therefore, is more or less the story of how Nigeria has since tied to 

grapple with its problem of apparent lack of unity and how best to accommodate the 

competing socio-political and ethno-cultural problems of its people. 

 

The problem must be examined against the background of certain colonial actions that in 

variably put the Nigeria nation where it is. First, the balkanization of the country into 

three regions of unreasonably unequal sizes was a grievous error of political judgment 

on the part of the British. The Northern region, the largest, was more than the Eastern 

and Western regions put together. This was as it ought to have been very clear to the 

British authorities, a perfect recipe for an unhealthy national diet. To make this worse, 

the division of the regions conformed, amazingly, with the British perception of the 

ethnic composition of the country (Nnoli, 1980). The North was Hausa-Fulani, the East; 

Igbo and the West, mainly Yoruba. 

 

Yet, there are over 250 and not three tribes in Nigeria. There was no way that the social 

and political interests and aspirations of 247 distinct ethic groups, no matter how small 

in population each of them was, could be satisfied in a political arrangement that, 

subverted those interests. This however, explains the nature of ethnic relations and 

political dynamics that have shaped the content and direction of national unity 

irreconcilable differences among the peoples that constitute Nigeria; educational 



 

 

141 | P a g e  

 

 

imbalance, regional politics expressed in tribalism, disunity and fear of domination. All 

these prevented the development of real patriotism or national-spirit but rather paved the 

way for inter-ethnic hatred, bickering, nepotism, corruption, abuse of power, 

politicization of census, election and security system.This paper examines the impact of 

ethnicity as it effects national development in Nigeria.  

  

CONCEPTUAL CLARIFICATION 

The major concepts that need some brief clarification especially with regard to their 

usage and meaning in the paper include ethnicity and the national question. Ethnicity or 

tribalism is interchangeable. Much of the difficulties and hazards that scholars face are 

of course based on the person’s perception and background. Ethnicity or the related term 

tribalism is thus a psycho-social phenomenon. But more than this, ethnicity is confliction; 

it involves conflicts among diverse communal groups. Nnoli (1980) define ethic groups 

in the African context and assert that ethnic groups are social formations distinguished 

by the communal characters of the boundaries. The relevant fact may be language, 

culture, or both. In Africa, language has been the most curial variable. Similarly Tyler 

(1994) sees ethnicity as a culture that has complex whole, which include knowledge, 

belief, art, morals, laws, custom and other capacities and habits acquired by man as a 

member of society or group. 

 

Writing in the same vein, Stark (1996) believed that ethnic groups are groups that think 

of themselves as sharing special bounds of history and culture that set them apart from 

others. Ethnic group is a social group which, within a large cultural and social system 

claims or is accorded a special status in terms of complex or traits (ethnic traits) which it 

inhibits or is believed to exhibit. Such traits are diverse, and there is much variety in the 

complexes that they form (Melvin 1979). Irukwe (1989) opined that ethnicity is a belief 

in superiority of one’s own cultural group or corresponding hatred or misunderstanding 

of other such groups.  

 

Cohen (1994) defined ethnic group as an informal interest group whose members are 

distinct from the members of other ethnic groups within the larger society because they 

share kinship, religious and linguistic ties. He further explained that ethnic groups are 

social formation distinguished by the communal boundaries. 

 

It is obvious from the definitions above that ethnicity as a concept has everything to do 

with identification of groups within a given country. This identification as Enhagbe 

(2016) indicated is based on those common features that tend to distinguish the members 

of a group from other groups; stressing that an important feature of ethnic identification 

is the fact that relations among members of the group are based on origins, decent and 

the evolution overtime of common cultural features such as language.  



 

 

142 | P a g e  

 

 

However, ethnicity has the capacity to acquire passionate attribute; where the ethic group 

are aware of socio-cultural difference with other group but continued to live together in 

peace, and aggressive attribute, when competition for socio-economic and political 

privileges or rights in a geo-political set-up is the case (Omu, 1998). He further asserts 

that, political competition and rivalry seems to be the most flammable instrument of 

ethnic aggression. Thus ethnicity has the potential of being manipulated to the level that 

it generates conflicts within society, as Roderick (1999) avers that ethnicity is a social 

phenomenon which is capable of altering its form(s), place and role in the life of a society. 

In other words it can jeopardize meaningful development in general.  

 

That brings us to the concept of national question. National question is a term used for a 

variety of issues related to national development; how to structure the Nigeria Federation 

in order to accommodate groups and guarantee access to power and equitable distribution 

of resources. The national question focuses on the competition and conflict between 

different ethnic groups to control the political power and resources of the nation. The 

background to national question is the perceived domination of some ethnic groups by 

the other engendered by the structural nature of the Nigerian Federation, the heavy 

lopsidedness in center-state relations (Ajayi, (2014). Ajayi argued that the National 

Question is the perennial debate as how to order the relations between the different 

ethnic, linguistic and cultural groupings so that they have the same rights and privileges, 

access to power and equitable share of national resources (Edewo, Aluko and Folarin, 

20014). 

 

Momoh (2002) noted that the national question is fundamentally related to the question 

of rights and privileges of nations and peoples particularly in the context of oppression. 

The under-listed issues to Adejumobi, (2000) are very vital to the national question: 

 What should be the component units and tiers of government in the Nigeria 

federation? 

 How should they be constituted, based on ethnic contiguity or administrative 

expediency? 

 How should political power and administrative responsibilities be shared among 

the levels and tiers of government? 

 How should the ownership of economic resources be structure in the Nigeria 

federation? 

 What should be the acceptable formulae for sharing federally collected revenue? 

 What should be the nature of inter-governmental relations in Nigeria? 

  Virtually all the various ethnic groups in Nigeria today talk about 

marginalization and domination; all the ethnic groups are affected one way or the other 

by the national question. For the Niger Delta and oil producing minority it is exploitation 

and environmental degradation; for the Igbo it is marginalization; for the Hausa Fulani, 



 

 

143 | P a g e  

 

 

it is uneven development; for the minorities of the North, particularly the Middle Belt it 

is one of internal colonialism; for the Yoruba it is power exclusion. Hence everybody is 

demanding empowerment on the basis of one assumption – xenophobia (Momoh, 2002). 

 

Adejumobi (2003) in his contribution, noted that the domination of some ethnic groups 

by the other engendered by the structural nature of the Nigerian Federation, the heavy 

lopsidedness in center-state relations. The fears and demands of ethnic militias basically 

revolve round the issues of National question. For instance, the concern of MASSOB is 

marginalization of the East in the power equation in Nigeria; that of OPC is about “power 

shift” and restructuring of the federation and the quest for self-determination by group 

(Avengers) in the Niger Delta region is based on the social injustice, neglect and 

marginalization that the area suffers in the Nigerian nation.  

 

Moreover, national question is believed to be at the question on the crisis of the Nigerian 

state and the problem of peaceful co-existence. This question varies in time and in space, 

it depends on the inter group relations and on the issues of marginalization, domination, 

inequality fairness and justice among ethnic groups. 

 

THEORETICAL EXPLANATION 

The negative aspect of ethnicity can be analyzed by linking it to the theoretical 

framework of the pluralist theory. Pluralists posit that society is made up of several 

groups with interests which may be at variance; in the framework of the theory of  

pluralism, ethnic groups are perceived as folk groups from a former era that are now 

under transformation as a result of the individual freedom offered to individuals in a 

modern society (Oladiran, 2013). Pluralists stress the continuing viability of ethnic 

groups and they promote the idea of pluralistic and multi-cultural societies. Thus, there 

could be conflicting interests such as economic, religious, power sharing etc.  

 

Advocates of this theory sees social conflict as a struggle over values or claims to status, 

power and scarce resources in which the aim of the conflicting parties are not only to 

gain desirable value but also to neutralize, injure and/or relegate their opponents (Saluwa 

&Hassan, 2011). This could be applied to Nigeria leadership, where personality interest 

in policy or decision making plays a vital role as a result of ethnic chauvinist when 

politics is involved. This human attitude manifests in form of prejudice and tribalism 

(ethnic conflict). Prejudice can as well be turned to discrimination. If this happens, there 

will be strong pressure to exclude outsiders in the sharing of commonwealth of the nation. 

 

In the pre-colonial era and since the independence of Nigeria, ethnicity played and is still 

playing manifest and latent roles in the body politics of Nigeria.  Otite, rightly observed 

that, the ethnic virus has been one of the most important causes of social crisis and 



 

 

144 | P a g e  

 

 

political instability in Nigeria; and ethnicity has been perceived in general as a major 

obstacle to the overall politic-economic development of the country (Oladiran, 2013). 

 

ETHNICITY IN NIGERIA: A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 

Nigeria as a nation is a child of British colonialism. Even its name came from Lady 

Lugard, wife of Fredrick Lugard, the country’s first governor –general. Nigeria, 

therefore, did not exist as a national entity before the British, who had administered the 

northern and southern provinces more or less as separate and distinct territories, 

amalgamated them from 1914. Nigeria’s problems were man-made partly tailored, if 

perfectly, by nature itself. It is man-made in the sense and manner of the country’s 

colonization, while problem created by nature concerns its geography and ethnic 

composition. 

 

By 1962, there were traceable political conflict, between Action Group (AG) and rival 

party, Nigeria National Democratic Party (NNDP) formed by Akintola. The leader of 

AG, Awolowo accused the NPC of subverting Western regional government by 

collaborating with S. L Akintola (Afigbo, 1986). As a result, by 1963, Awolowo and his 

key political supporters were accused of the highest offences of treason and felony. They 

were tried and found guilty and Awolowo was imprisoned for 10 years. However, it was 

not until 1964 that the Western region election that witnessed a complete breakdown of 

law and order. They were also discriminate killing, confusion and massive looting that 

led to state of anarchy. As a result, some radical corps was drawn into Nigeria politics, 

masterminded by Major Chukwuemeka Nzeogwu and others (Nnoli, 1991).  

 

Notable among the victims killed were Prime Minister himself, Tafawa Belewa, Saduna 

of Sokoto, Primier of Western region, Akintola, the most flamboyant Nigerian politician, 

Okotiebo. Funny enough, the Eastern region premier, Michael I. Opara was not involved 

because the military men sent to kill him failed in their duty, forty-eight hours after 

Nzogwu’s coup. 

 

Johnson Aguiyi-Ironsi, a major-general and general officer commanding the Nigerian 

Army, assumed power as head of a federal military government and commander-in-chief 

of the armed forces. Nigerians began to do one of the things they do best; ask some 

pertinent questions. They found answers in the motives of the coup planners: a planned 

Igbo-ethnic domination. Whether this was correct or not, there was some evidence for 

those looking for some. For the fact that the coup planners were mainly Igbo officers led 

by the late Chukwuemeka Kaduna Nzeogwu (Oyinlola &Dazang,1994). 

 

The north and the west lost more people. In the north, nearly all its senior army officers; 

four of them while the west lost two. Both regions also lost their premiers. The north also 

donated the prime minister and the mid-west lost a federal minister to the coup. Ironsi  



 

 

145 | P a g e  

 

 

strengthen the fears of the north about the alleged planned Igbo domination of the ethnic 

politics of the country when he abolished the four regions and introduced a unitary 

system. This political move, whatever informed Ironsi’s decision, was fatal to him, his 

regime and Igbo in general. This to them, was unacceptable, as it was a threat to their 

socio-economic welfare and political aspirations. Seven months after Ironsi came to 

power, he was overthrown, and Gowon took over as head of the federal military 

government.  

 

In discussing the steps which led to the collapse of Nigerian First Republic, the disastrous 

events of 1966, and the massacre of Igbo in part of northern Nigeria; many will still 

remember the 30-months Biafra war of secession from July 1967 until January 1970, 

when the Igbo people were regularly portrayed overseas as the victims of systematic 

oppression in the federation (Richard, 1999). As inexact as these general opinions might 

be, they still touch on what remains a crucial feature of Nigerian politics; the extent to 

which conflicts tend to take on the character of a struggle among sectional groups, 

whether defined by language, ethnicity, region or religion. 

 

From 1951-1962, three of the major parties; NPC in the north, NCNC, in the East and 

Action Group in the West, controlled governmental regions. The major political parties 

were commonly identified with “ethnic” group interest in a misleading manner. Since 

then till date, Nigeria has never had what can be described as a nation-wide political 

party. Rather, what it has had changed name of the old establishments. For instance, it is 

well known that the political parties of the First Republic were the very ones that operated 

in the second Republic with changes only in name(s). All had their roots in their different 

dominant regions. 

 

THE EFFECTS OF ETHNICITY ON NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

No matter what view one may take of Nigeria, its politics and economics and national 

aspirations, all agree that has come of age, no doubt, Nigeria emerged from British 

colonial rule as an unbalanced multi-ethnic federal  state, the cultural diversity of whose 

component units could make political instability inevitable. Unfortunately, the colonial 

rulership made no serious attempts at integrating the disparate primordial ethnic groups 

into a coherent political entity. 

 

It is, therefore not surprising that after exhibiting some semblance of unity in order rid 

themselves of the york of British colonial rule, the different nationalities latter gave vent 

to inter-ethnic animosities and ethno-cultural grievance in the struggle for power in 

Nigeria, resulting in several political crisis each of which seriously threatened the 

country’s corporate existence. 

 



 

 

146 | P a g e  

 

 

Having been fragmented along regional and ethnic lines due to the organization of the 

colonial economy along enclaves isolated from each other, The Nigerian leaders tended 

to regard this regional enclave as exclusive reservoirs of benefits for those of them the 

regional and ethnic homeland. 

 

Therefore, under the prevailing socio-economic and political formation in Nigeria, the 

issue of equity, fair play and internal self-determination among the federating ethnic 

nationalities becomes a mirage. Accordingly, Nnoli (1994) asserted that Nigerian leaders 

have an objective interest in maintaining the ethnic pattern activities and imperialist 

structure, both of which are inimical to inter-ethnic harmony. The most pressing problem 

facing the Nigerian state and one which must be tackled is to find a lasting solution to 

the issue of uneven national revenue allocation and development (national question). 

This is because, the inordinate and irreconcilable ambitions of the chauvinistic elites of 

the various ethnic groups, especially the big three ethno-cultural group; Hausa-Fulani, 

Yoruba and Igbo who want to dominate and control the country, had led to the over-

politicization of ethnicity in Nigeria, with a resultant effect of the state’s failure to emerge 

as a reassuring instrument in the society. 

 

CONCLUSION 

Regarding the national question, beyond the effects of ethnicity with concerns on the 

disunity and prejudice challenges facing the country, it also has implications for the 

country’s socio-political system. Social cohesion among various groups and interests is 

important in the process of national political and economic development. The activities 

of the Niger-Delta militants, militia groups like Odua People’s Congress (OPC), 

Movement for the Actualization of Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB), EGBESU and 

constant sectarian turmoil exemplified by the activities of Boko Haramall expressing 

deep ethnic sentiments put together is a major obstacle to achieving sustainable 

development. 

 

Unfortunately, all these developments are sure signs of disillusionment and tensions that 

are capable of tearing our country apart.  They are all manifestations of the fear of 

marginalization, domination, inequality, unfairness and injustice apparent in our 

nation.  They point to severe cracks in our inter-ethnic relations.  And, they are a 

reminder of the National Question, which must be tackled to save Nigeria from 

disintegration. 

 

REFERENCES 

Adejumobi,S. 2003. Civil society, ethnic militia and sovereign national conference in 

Nigeria. In  Babawale, T. (Ed), Urban violence, ethnic militias and challenges 

of democratic consolidation in Nigeria. Lagos: Malthouse Press, 164-184.  



 

 

147 | P a g e  

 

 

Afigbo, A. E.1998.“Ethnic pluralism and political instability in Nigeria. Preliminary 

remarke towards unmaking the ethnicity myth”. Benin Journal of Historical 

Studies, 2(1&2), 39- 52. 

1986. Federal character: its meaning and history. Owerri: RADA Publishing 

 Company. 

Ajayi, J. O. 2014. Resurgence of crisis and instability in Nigeria. Research on Humanities 

and  Social Sciences; 4 (21), 40-44. 

Ayokhai, F.E.F & Peter, N. W. 2016. Fiscal federalism, ethnic minorities and the national 

question in Nigeria: Revisiting the case of the Niger Delta people. African 

Research  Review Journal; 10(13), 246-260. 

Cohen, A. 1994. Custom and politics in urban Africa. London: Routledge and Kegan 

Paul. 

Cortese, A. 1990. Ethnic ethics: The restructuring of moral theory. New York: state 

University  of New York Press. 

Edewo, P. A., Aluko, Y. A. & Folarin, S. F. 2014. Managing ethnic and cultural diversity 

for  national integration in Nigeria. Developing Country Studies, 4(16). 

Erhagbe, E. 2016. Ethnicity in the matrix of peace and reconciliation in Nigeria. 

European  scientific Journal; 8(16), 83-85. 

Ibrahim, J. 2000. The transformation of etno-regional identities in Nigeria. In Jegs (Ed). 

Identity  transformation and identity politics under Structural Adjustment 

in Nigeria. Kano:  Normadic African Institute and center for research 

Documentation, 41-61. 

Irukwu, J.O. 1989. Nigeria: The case for a better society. Enugu: Fourth Dimension 

Publishers. 

Momoh, A. 2002. The philosophy and theory of the national question. In Momoh, A & 

Adejumobi (Eds), The national question in Nigeria: Comparative perspecrive. 

Aldershot:  Asgate. 

Melvin, M. T. 1979. Ethnicity and fractionalism in Zimbabiwe nationalist politics. Ethnic 

Racial  Studies, 3 (1). 

Nnoli, O. 1980. Ethnic politics in Nigeria. Enugu: Fourth Dimension Publishers. 

1991. National identity. Las Vegas Nevada: University of Nevada Press. 

1994. Ethnicity and democracy in Africa, intervening variables. Lagos: Malthouse Press. 

Oladiran, A. 2013. Ethnic politics and democratic consolidation in Nigeria. International 

Journal  of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 3 (12). 

Omu, F. I. A. 1998. Ethnicity, nationalism and federation in Nigeria: An interactive 

trinity of  relationships. Benin Journal of Historical Studies, 2(1&2), 1-22. 

Osaghea, E. 1995. Structural Adjustment  and ethnicity in Nigeria. Research Report. 

Uppsale:  Nordiska Afrikain Institute.  

Oyinola, D. & Dazang. N. 1994 (May, 18).”We can’t forget the past”. Tell magazine, pp 

12-18. 



 

 

148 | P a g e  

 

 

Richard, J. 1999. Democracy and prebendal politics in Nigeria: the rise and fall of the 

second  republic. Ibaban: Spectrum Books Ltd. 

Rodrick, D.1999. where did all the growth go? External shocks, social conflict and 

growth  collapses. Journal of Economic Growth, 4(4). 

Saluwa, B. & Hassan, A. 2011. Ethnic politics and its implication for survival of 

democracy in  Nigeria. Journal of Public Administration and Policy 

Research, 3(2), 28-33. 

Stark, R. 19996. Sociology (6th edition). New York: Wads Worth Publishing Company. 

Tylor, E. B. 1994. Primitive culture. New York: Brentano Press. 

 


