




































EVAIA: International Journal of Ethics and Values, Vol. 2 No. 1, December 2021 (ISSN: 2787-0448) 

 

 

Ogu                                                                                                              45 
 

ISAIAH BERLIN’S VALUE PLURALISM: IMPLICATIONS FOR 

ETHNO-RELIGIUOS TOLERANCE IN NIGERIA 

 

Uchechukwu Kizito Ogu, PhD 

Dept of Educational Foundations 

College of Education, Zing Taraba State 

(ucheogu14@gmail.com, +234 803 663 8947) 

ORCID 0000-0002-8869-7804 

 

Abstract 

This work discusses Isaiah Berlin’s insight on value pluralism and its 

implication for ethno-religious tolerance and respect in Nigeria. Nigeria’s 

ethno-religious diversity and plural nature has posed one of the greatest 

challenges to her development. The history of Nigeria has thus been a history 

of strife, crises and conflicts largely borne out of ethnic and religious 

differences. The crises facing Nigeria as visible in Jos Plateau crises therefore 

largely predicate on indigene-settler dialectic, minority question, ethnic 

hegemony, religious differences, religious fundamentalism and, ethnic and 

religious politics. These have become signs that Nigerians have failed to 

appreciate the multiplicity of human values, ends and incommensurable and 

incompatible nature people according to Berlin share with one another. It is 

against these backdrops, that this paper attempts to employ Berlin’s insight on 

value pluralism to promote a culture of ethno-religious tolerance. With 

expository method the paper espouses the meaning of relevant concepts such as 

tolerance, ethno-religious tolerance and multiculturalism. With the analytic 

method, this paper examines Berlin’s value pluralism and how it can be used to 

boost ethno-religious tolerance in Nigeria. This paper submits that the lack of a 

single metric with which to judge human values, and  the fact that human cannot 

dependably evaluate the truth claims of competing moral standpoints, means 

that Nigerians must accept everyone as he is, tolerate and respect the beliefs 

and choices of others both at the social and private levels. This paper therefore 

concludes that no religion or tribe can dependably claim to be superior to others 

and so enforcing a single religion would backfire as belief cannot be compelled 

by force. As such, Nigerian institutions charged with the responsibility of 

promoting peace and tolerance in Nigeria should be strengthened and stiffer 

penalties imposed on perpetrators of religious and ethnic crises in order to curb 

the rise of religious crises in Nigeria. 

Keywords: Incommensurability; Incompatibility; Value Pluralism; Tolerance; 

Multiculturalism. 

 

Introduction 

The multicultural and plural nature of Nigeria is a reality. This diversity could 

be seen in the areas of language with the country said to have over 250 

indigenous languages, religion and ethnicity. Nigeria has three dominant 

mailto:ucheogu14@gmail.com


EVAIA: International Journal of Ethics and Values, Vol. 2 No. 1, December 2021 (ISSN: 2787-0448) 

 

 

Ogu                                                                                                              46 
 

religions; Christianity, Islam and ATR with a multiplicity of ethnic groups said 

to be over 400 (Aghemelo and Osumah, 2009). Other areas where this plurality 

manifests are in occupation, dress and food patterns etc. This has been a major 

source of division rather than of strength. Unfortunately, the numerous efforts 

to mold the people into one cohesive unit has not succeeded in overcoming the 

challenge of diversity. As such, each passing day, gets Nigerians further divided 

along religious and ethnic lines. Shuaib (2014) rightly notes the most potent 

tools used by mischief makers to cause disaffection, hatred, disunity and tribal 

war in the country are ethnicity and religion. This affects not just social 

cohesion but also economic and political development. The diversity crises in 

Nigeria is, however, manifest in the indigene-settler conflicts, minority 

questions, religious fundamentalism, ethnic politics, religious politics, resource 

control conflicts, agitation for self-determination and other conflicts especially 

in some parts of the middle belt states, south south, south east and south west 

states. These conflicts with their multidimensional consequences have posed a 

great obstacle to the progress, economic growth, political instability and overall 

socio-economic development of Nigeria (Edewor, Aluko and Folrain, 2014; 

Salawu, 2010). 

 

Today almost every ethnic nationality and religion has a body speaking for it 

and ostensibly protecting its interest. In the ambience of religion, there is the 

Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN), Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria 

(PFN), Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs (SCIA) and Jama’tu Nasril Islam 

(JNI) for Christians and Muslims respectively. Socio-culturally, there is 

Ohaneze Ndigbo for the Igbo nation, Afenifere and Odua Peoples Congress for 

the Yoruba nation Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF) and Northern Elders 

Forum (NEF) for the Northern part of the country.  

 

Indeed, the discordant tunes being played by these groups and bodies have led 

to a fractured relation among the various ethnic groups and religions. The 

implication of this is that national unity suffers while cherished national values 

such as patriotism, tolerance, social justice, equity and inclusiveness which are 

values clearly spelt out in the national philosophy of Nigeria to promote 

national unity and social cohesion are lost          

 

Conceptual clarification 

 

Toleration/tolerance 

Andrew Murphy opines that the tendency to use toleration and tolerance 

interchangeably has encouraged a misunderstanding of the liberal tradition and 

impeded efforts to improve upon it. He defines “toleration” as a set of social or 

political practices and “tolerance” as a set of attitudes (Murphy, 1997). Here, 

however, the two terms are employed interchangeably for the use here involves 

the dispositions – institutional practices and individual attitudes. Murphy 



EVAIA: International Journal of Ethics and Values, Vol. 2 No. 1, December 2021 (ISSN: 2787-0448) 

 

 

Ogu                                                                                                              47 
 

further suggests that toleration denotes forbearance from imposing punitive 

sanctions for dissent from prevailing norms. This is what Harrison (1987:427) 

calls “the practice of deliberately not curtailing the freedom of others. Horton 

and Nicholson (1992:4) describe it as “a deliberate choice not to interfere with 

conduct that is disapproved.   

 

Toleration involves at least, a disapproval of the conduct/action that is tolerated, 

for if we approve of an action, it is then difficult to see how we can be said to 

tolerate it. In other words, toleration involves a complex blend of rejection and 

acceptance. At the heart of toleration is self-control. When we tolerate an action, 

we resist our urge and the inner push to forcefully prohibit the expression of the 

action or activity we find unpleasant.  

 

It is the conditional acceptance of or non-interference with beliefs, actions and 

practices that one considers to be wrong but still ‘tolerable’. In this sense, it is 

strictly a ‘negative freedom’ which Murphy says fits well into the classical 

liberalism and other traditions that define liberty as absence of constraints. In 

practice, toleration and tolerance – the tendency towards toleration – indicates 

support for practices that prohibit ethnic or religious discrimination and allows 

for various forms of dissent. It can be understood as a political practice aimed 

at neutrality, objectivity and fairness on the part of political actors. These ideas 

are related in that the goal of political neutrality is deliberate restraints of the 

power that political authorities have to negate the life activities of citizens and 

subjects. The understanding of toleration is usually grounded upon an 

assumption about the importance of the autonomy of the individual which is 

central to the liberal tradition. 

 

Ethno-Religious Tolerance 

Religious tolerance according to Zagorin signifies forbearance and the 

permission given by the adherents of a dominant religion for other religions to 

exist, even though the latter are looked at with disapproval, as unfair, mistaken 

or harmful. In that regard. Therefore, ethno-religious tolerance refers to the 

ability to appreciate spiritual beliefs, values and practices which are different 

from one’s own. This goal is a great one due to the great diversity of religious 

beliefs and ethnicity in the world today. Both religion and ethnicity are 

emotional topics. It is often difficult for people to put aside personal biases and 

consider issues and situations objectively.  

 

Value pluralism in Berlin’s political and moral thought 

Berlin’s determination to understand cultures and their characteristic thinkers 

on their own terms has given rise to the suspicion that he was a relativist but he 

was not (Galston, 2009). The incommensurability theory which as a value 

pluralist he holds could easily give lead to the conclusion that value pluralism 

is a form of relativism, the school of thought that according to Berlin holds that 



EVAIA: International Journal of Ethics and Values, Vol. 2 No. 1, December 2021 (ISSN: 2787-0448) 

 

 

Ogu                                                                                                              48 
 

there is no objective value. Berlin (1995) appreciates diversity both culturally 

and morally, but at the same time wanted to protect certain universal values. He 

distinguished between pluralism which he espoused and monism which he 

repudiates when he writes:  

Pluralism, with the measure of 

‘negative’ liberty that it entails, seems to 

me a truer and more humane ideal than 

the goals of those who seek in the great 

disciplined, authoritarian structures the 

ideal of ‘positive’ self-mastery by 

classes, or peoples, or the whole of 

mankind. It is truer, because it does, at 

least recognize the fact that human goals 

are many, not all of them 

commensurable, and in perpetual rivalry 

with one another. To assume that values 

can be graded on one scale, so that it is a 

mere matter of inspection to determine 

the highest, seems to me to falsify our 

knowledge that men are free agents, to 

represent moral decision as an operation 

which a slide-rule could, in principle 

perform (1995:167). 

 

Berlin describes his philosophical position as follows: “If, as I believe, the ends 

of men are many, and not all of them are in principle compatible with each 

other, then the possibility of conflict— and of tragedy—can never wholly be 

eliminated from human life, either personal or social. The necessity of choosing 

between absolute claims is then an inescapable characteristic of the human 

condition” (1995: 168). This is an acknowledgment of diversity and plurality in 

values and ends in both personal and social life. Berlin denied that there is a 

single highest value, that there is a single metric by which all values can be 

ranked, and that the many goods and principles we regard as worthy form a 

harmonious whole. 

 

His fundamental notion is that in our (moral) universe, not only is there a 

diversity of values and ends but that which we consider to be good and 

worthwhile is itself filled with tension and conflict. These conflicts and tension 

occur not only between societies, but also within societies, within groups with 

their different subcultures and even within the various roles individuals play in 

life. Berlin (1999) writes: 

in life as normally lived the ideals of one society and culture 

clash with 



EVAIA: International Journal of Ethics and Values, Vol. 2 No. 1, December 2021 (ISSN: 2787-0448) 

 

 

Ogu                                                                                                              49 
 

those of another, and at times come into conflict within the 

same society,  

and often enough, within the moral experience of a single 

individual;  

that such conflicts cannot always, even in principle, be wholly 

resolved  

(171).   

 

An example of a value conflicts which Berlin cited is the conflict between 

liberty and equality, justice and mercy, tolerance and order, liberty and social 

justice, resistance and prudence which is intrinsic to human life. Berlin (1999) 

argues that:  

It follows that when the pursuit of equality 

comes into conflict with other human 

aims, be they what they may - such as the 

desire for happiness or pleasure, or for 

justice or virtue, or colour and variety in a 

society for their own sake, or for liberty of 

choice as an end in itself, or for the fuller 

development of all human faculties it is 

only the most fanatical egalitarian that will 

demand that such conflicts invariably be 

decided in favour of equality alone, with 

relative disregard of the other 'values' 

concerned. 

 

We are confronted not only with the problems of the incompatibility of values 

and ends but also with that of commensurability. There is no commonly shared 

yardstick available by which these value conflicts can be resolved. Thus, Berlin 

not only showed that there is moral diversity, but also that there are conflicts 

within the good, including different value system and different concepts of 

justice for resolving these conflicts. Thus, human lives should not be molded 

into universal and monist systems of values and norms. 

 

Berlin is so subjectivist in moral matters by teaching that fundamental values 

spoke to objective features of the human species and the circumstances in which 

we are placed. But the things we rightly value are multiple, incommensurable 

and in conflict with one another. In practice (and often in theory), to realize 

one’s value is to subordinate another. And not just in individual lives, cultures 

and moral codes constitute clashing assemblies of goods and principles. There 

is much to be said for magnanimous pride, and also for reverent humility; for 

an ethics that gives pride of place to citizenship and for one that focuses on the 

well-being of the soul. But they cannot be made to cohere with one another; we 

must choose between them, “The world that we encounter in ordinary 



EVAIA: International Journal of Ethics and Values, Vol. 2 No. 1, December 2021 (ISSN: 2787-0448) 

 

 

Ogu                                                                                                              50 
 

experience is one in which we are faced with choices between ends equally 

ultimate and claims equally absolute, the realization of some of which must 

inevitably involve the sacrifice of others” (171). 

 

Incompatibility and Incommensurability in the Value Pluralism of Berlin 

Value conflicts (dilemmas) are characterized by a necessary combination of 

incompatibility and incommensurability, which in turn leads to a situation in 

which something needs to be sacrificed. 

 

Incompatibility means that in life not all values (or different priorities in values) 

can be successfully combined with one another at the same time. Thus, it 

follows that not all the values can be accepted at the same time. Incompatibility 

arises because of the limitations of time, space, resources and means which 

make it difficult for one to choose to do everything at the same time. Thus, one 

cannot have or do everything and so must have to choose. Scarcity and 

finiteness of man and human existence lead to conflicts. These according to 

humanists, are important roots of evil (Aarsbergen-Ligtvoet, 2006). 

Incompatibility needs not lead to conflict if it is very clear which of the values 

at stake is better or more important. However, it becomes a true dilemma if both 

values in conflict are equally important. For instance, a policeman is chasing a 

criminal and at a road junction, encounters an accident victim writhing in pains 

and begging to be taken to the hospital: 

There are many objective ends, ultimate 

values, some incompatible with others, 

pursued by different societies at various 

times, or by different groups in the same 

society, by entire classes or churches or 

races, or by particular individuals within 

them, any one of which may find itself 

subject to conflicting claims of 

uncombinable, yet equally ultimate and 

objective ends (Berlin, 1990:172). 

 

The term ‘incommensurability’ is thus used by Berlin to describe the 

phenomena that within a specific (personal or common) value system, values 

are considered equally compelling and there is no common and pre-given higher 

value to which one can refer to in order to resolve the value conflict. Thus, value 

conflict becomes a true dilemma when there is not only incompatibility but also 

incommensurability. Incompatibility is therefore a necessary but not a sufficient 

characteristic for a value conflict. For Berlin “objective ends” are ends that are 

recognizable as a human end by other people. He believes in a common horizon 

of values. The number of values and ends cannot be finite and therefore, we can 

recognize them, although we may not share the same importance other people 

attach to them.    



EVAIA: International Journal of Ethics and Values, Vol. 2 No. 1, December 2021 (ISSN: 2787-0448) 

 

 

Ogu                                                                                                              51 
 

The Power of Choice 

Berlin states that choice is essential to man and it is important that the human 

power of choice be respected and not be destroyed. Humans should be allowed 

certain areas in which they can act without obstruction (negative liberty). Berlin 

also characterized humans as beings who shape their lives as well as other 

people’s lives “…active beings, pursuing ends, shaping their own and others' 

lives, feeling, reflecting, imagining, creating in constant interaction and 

intercommunication with other human bangs” (Berlin, 1999: 181).  

 

Again, he calls men “unpredictably self-transforming human beings” (Berlin, 

1995: 181). These characterizations presuppose that man has no fixed or 

essential nature and is not destined to follow some pre-fixed goals, that is, a 

goal or end which he does not contribute to. 

 

When Berlin defines human beings as self-transforming beings, he agrees with 

the existentialists’ principle that “existence precedes essence.” This means that 

human beings have no predetermined essence. When they are born, they exist 

and then create their own essence afterwards by their own actions. There is no 

human nature fixed in advance of human existence.  

 

The manifestations and causes of ethno-religious crises in Nigeria 

According to Symth and Robinson (2001), Nigeria is a state where major 

political issues are variously and violently contested and examined along the 

lines of religious, ethnic and even regional divisions in the country. This is why 

Osaghae and Suberu (2005) have rightly described Nigeria as one of the most 

deeply divided states in Africa. The issues that generate the fiercest contestation 

they said include those that are considered fundamental to the existence and 

legitimacy of the state, over which competing groups tend to adopt 

exclusionary, winner-takes-all strategies. These include the control of state 

power, resource allocation, and citizenship (Osaghae and Suberu, 2005). 

 

The history of Nigeria since independence has been one of ethnic and religious 

crises, the high point being the Civil War fought between the Igbo of then East 

Central Nigeria and the rest of Nigeria between 1967 and 1970. Since then, it 

has been one case of bizarre experiences in the domain of religious violence 

after another. Some of the worst cases include the Kasuwan Magani in 1980, 

Zango Kataf and Gure Kahuga in 1987, Kafanchan and Lere in 1987, Ilorin and 

Jerein of 1989, Tafawa Balewa in 1991 as well as the 1992 crisis in Zango 

Kataf. There is also the highly violent and devastating crisis of Kaduna in 

February and May of 2000, as a result of the introduction of Sharia Law in some 

Northern states which claimed thousands of lives and destruction of property 

worth billions of naira.  

 



EVAIA: International Journal of Ethics and Values, Vol. 2 No. 1, December 2021 (ISSN: 2787-0448) 

 

 

Ogu                                                                                                              52 
 

Aside these crises that have seeming religious undertone, there are also ethnic 

inspired crises such as the Ife and Modakeke crisis in Osun State, the ongoing 

and protracted Tiv and Jukun crisis in some parts of southern Taraba State, 

Itsekiri and Ijaw crisis in Warri, Delta States, the Ilaje and Ijaw crisis in the 

riverine area of Ondo State. In the view of Sulaiman (2016), most religious 

crises have occurred mostly in the Northern part of the country between the 

Hausa/Fulani Muslims and Christian ethnic minorities. The two dominant 

religions have had their fair share of violence based on religious affiliations and 

policies. The situation is not helped by the multi-ethnic nature of Nigeria. The 

over 180 million people of Nigeria are divided among about 250 ethnic groups. 

On this, Dan Isaac (2004) of the BBC wrote:  

The broad categorization of a Muslim Hausa-

speaking North and a Christian South made up of 

two dominant tribes – the Yoruba in the south-

west and the Ibo in the south-east – is a vast over-

simplification. In some states across central 

Nigeria, for example, it is possible to drive down 

a road, stopping at each tiny settlement, 

encountering a different language spoken in 

every single one. And to further complicate this 

ethnic mix, over the decades and even centuries, 

people have moved around what is now modern 

Nigeria.   

 

Given the presence of these religions that supposedly preach peace, one would 

expect that the relations between the different ethnic nationalities would be 

peaceful and harmonious, but they have tended to impart negatively on the 

nation creating mistrust, tension and unrest. Religion as Dukor (1988) rightly 

said is not intrinsically bad but its disintegrating force can be attributed to the 

organizers and organization of religion, the preachers and their preaching, the 

propagators and the propagation of religion. 

 

In congruence with this, Sulaiman (2016) has identified several factors which 

have caused and continue to cause religious crisis in Nigeria. They include: 

1. Religious intolerance, which is a blind and fixated mental and 

psychological negative attitude towards religious beliefs and practices 

that are contrary to one’s cherished beliefs and practices. 

2. Religious fanaticism, which is a violent and unreasoning religious 

enthusiasm and an excessive irrational zeal to defend one’s religion. 

3. Negative reportage by the media. Some religious crises are known to 

have been instigated by misinformation by the press through junk 

journalism and sensational headlines. 

4. Aggressive or militant preaching/evangelism. This means an offensive 

and coercive approach to conversion and propagation of one’s religious 



EVAIA: International Journal of Ethics and Values, Vol. 2 No. 1, December 2021 (ISSN: 2787-0448) 

 

 

Ogu                                                                                                              53 
 

faith. This happens when any religious group or individual preacher 

within that group sets out to use force to convert those they consider 

infidels or unbelievers to their own religious system.  

5. Indoctrination. When people are wrongly taught, what follows is 

obsession which invariably leads to violence. 

6. External influence. There is mutual suspicion and distrust among 

Nigerians. While some people think that Christianity is a tool for 

western imperialism and expansionism, others think that Muslims have 

ties with Saudi Arabia (Sunni) and Iran (shia).  

7. Ethnic crisis in Nigeria have largely been caused by disagreement over 

ownership and access to land. 

 

Cost of ethno-religious violence in Nigeria 

The devastating consequences of ethno-religious conflicts can be felt in the 

destabilization of the stability order. These conflicts and crises have inflicted 

untold hardship on both individuals in terms of loss of lives and property and 

the government in terms of provision of relief materials to victims of the crises. 

For instance, the February 2000 religious crisis in Kaduna alone claimed not 

less than 3000 lives (Sulaiman, 2016). 

 

Secondly, it has also dented the image of Nigeria abroad as many countries are 

forced to issue travel warnings to their citizens not to visit Nigeria as a result of 

ethnic and religious tensions that may arise without warning. According to 

information obtained from the US Embassy and Consulate in Nigeria, The US 

Department of State in a travel advisory dated 5th April, 2017 warned U.S. 

citizens of the risks of travelling to Nigeria and recommended that U.S. citizens 

avoid all non-essential travels to Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Kano, and 

Yobe states because of the precarious security situation in Northeast Nigeria. 

Similarly, the Government of Canada in February, 2021 advised Canadian 

citizens to avoid non-essential travels to Nigeria due to the unpredictable 

security situation throughout the country and the significant risk of terrorism, 

crime, inter-communal clashes, armed attacks and kidnappings (ICIR, 2021) 

There is no doubting the fact that these security warning do not augur well for 

the economic development of Nigeria. 

 

Implications of Berlin’s Value Pluralism for Ethno-Religious Tolerance in 

Nigeria 

In no country today is Isaiah Berlin’s pluralism and liberalism more relevant 

than in Nigeria. This is given the challenges she faces particularly but not 

limited to national integration. Nigeria is a multicultural and of course a 

culturally diverse country. This diversity could be seen in the areas of language, 

religion, occupation, food and dress patterns etc. While in other countries such 

as the United States, Canada, Ghana and so on, diversity has been a source of 

strength. However, in Nigeria, it has been a divisive factor. 



EVAIA: International Journal of Ethics and Values, Vol. 2 No. 1, December 2021 (ISSN: 2787-0448) 

 

 

Ogu                                                                                                              54 
 

The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) in 

Chapter 4 section 38(1) states that “Every person shall be entitled to freedom 

of thought, conscience and religion, including freedom to change his religion 

or belief, and freedom … to manifest and propagate his religion or belief in 

worship, teaching, practice and observance”  (FRN, 1999). The afore mentioned 

provision of the constitution recognizes and appreciates not only the plural 

nature of Nigeria but also individual complexity and differences which Berlin’s 

value pluralism seeks to protect. 

 

While successive governments in Nigeria have enacted policies to promote 

national integration, the tolerance level of Nigerians of different religious and 

ethnic groups, however, remain ridiculously low, aided in most parts by state 

sanctioned policies which seem to promote the interests of one ethnic group and 

religion above the interests of others. This is only going to lead to more conflicts 

in the society. For as Berlin opines, no culture and by implication, no religion 

or ethnic group is superior to the other. This is because the human society 

contains a panorama of a variety of cultures, each pursuing different and 

sometimes incompatible ways of life and possessing different ideals and 

standards of values.    

 

His acknowledgement of the lack of a single metric by which all values can be 

judged shows that there is no way to determine which of the religion or ethnic 

group in Nigeria possesses the highest truth value and so superior to others. 

This compels every Nigerian to accept people’s right to hold any religious belief 

and opinion even if it does not agree with his. When government’s policies and 

programmes reflect this Berlin’s proposal, the frequency and incidence of 

religiously motivated crises and conflicts in Nigeria would reduce. It would also 

ensure that there is no forceful and violent conversion of the adherents of one 

religion to another. It would also create an open playing field for everyone to 

operate without fear of being victimized and killed.  

 

While Christianity and Islam have opposing worldviews and thus 

incommensurable and incompatible with each other to some degree, there are, 

however, common values which their adherents can refer to build a culture of 

tolerance. Such values include peacefulness, truth, justice, forgiveness, love and 

empathy, courage and patience, respect for the sanctity of human lives and so 

on. However, the presence of these common values in both religions does not 

make both the same. The different values of both religions are compelling, 

competing with each other and there is no common or pre-given value to which 

one can refer in order to resolve conflict arising from their interaction. Thus 

given this situation, Berlin advocates a compromise. This compromise involves 

accepting every religion for what it values and this demands tolerance on the 

part of individual citizens of Nigeria as painful and difficult it may be. 



EVAIA: International Journal of Ethics and Values, Vol. 2 No. 1, December 2021 (ISSN: 2787-0448) 

 

 

Ogu                                                                                                              55 
 

Tolerance is a choice which every Nigerian is condemned to make so as to 

maintain a free social life.  

 

The government of Nigeria at all levels must create a level playing field for all 

religious groups to flourish and ensure that no Nigerian is discriminated upon 

on the basis of religion or ethnicity. The government must enact policies that 

promote inclusiveness and which gives every Nigerian a sense of belonging 

rather than of religious and ethnic particularism. No religion or ethnic group 

should by a deliberate (or otherwise) policy of the state be given the impression 

that it is superior to others. 

 

This demands that government’s programmes designed to promote 

inclusiveness such as the Federal Character Principle should be strengthened. 

The principle as stated in the constitution aims to ensure that all public service 

institutions fairly reflect the diversity (linguistic, ethnic and geographic) of the 

country. It is meant to ensure that there is no predominance of persons from a 

few states or a few ethnic groups or other sectional groups in that government 

or in any of its agencies. Keeping to the provisions of the principle ensures that 

every Nigerian is giving a sense of belonging notwithstanding the diversities of 

ethnic origin, culture, language and religion. Thus the government must ensure 

that there is equitable distribution of appointments, natural and economic 

resources for the benefits of all. 

 

In addition, Berlin’s position that communication between cultures is only 

possible “because what makes men human is common to them, and acts as a 

bridge between them” (1990:11) demands the promotion of interfaith dialogue. 

Interfaith dialogue is aimed at creating greater understanding and cooperation 

between Christians, Muslims and adherents of other faiths in Nigeria. Interfaith 

dialogue Gerard Forde says refers to cooperative and positive interaction 

between people of different religious traditions at both the individual and 

institutional level. It does not take away a party’s right to their own beliefs but 

it respects the right of the others to practice their own faith freely. Interfaith 

dialogue is a necessity that counters terrorism and promotes the justice and 

peace that befits our common faith in our God that creates all. It maintains and 

promotes understanding, cooperation and mutual respect that will ensure that 

Nigerians live a peaceful and harmonious social life. This paper calls for an 

Interfaith Commission to be established by the government and charged with 

the responsibility of promoting dialogue at both the federal, state and local 

council levels. The commission chairmanship should be on a rotational basis 

and should have equal numbers of Christians and Muslims as members.  

 

Finally, the government as Berlin suggests, should maintain a precarious 

equilibrium that will prevent the occurrence of desperate situations of 

intolerable choices. This will greatly minimize political and social conflicts and 



EVAIA: International Journal of Ethics and Values, Vol. 2 No. 1, December 2021 (ISSN: 2787-0448) 

 

 

Ogu                                                                                                              56 
 

ensure that the country’s diverse nature is maintained. Furthermore, Berlin’s 

(1990) liberal proposal that the government should aim to give “each human 

group sufficient room to realize its own idiosyncratic, unique, particular ends 

without too much interference with the ends of others is very much applicable 

to Nigeria today. So long as groups do not harm or damage others, the 

government should interfere or intervene as little as possible in their affairs. In 

other words, the government should not try to impose a specific vision of the 

common good that contains an ideal for society like the government of Nigeria 

is doing currently with the proposed enforcement of ‘decent’ dressing. 

 

Conclusion 

Indubitably, ethno-religious tolerance is one of the outstanding banes of 

development in Nigeria. This is based on the crises, tension and conflicts it 

breeds in the country. These conditions are exacerbated by the mutual distrust, 

suspicion, rivalry and intolerance among Nigerians of different ethnic 

nationalities and their ethno-religious affiliations. In all these, the Nigerian state 

has been detrimentally polarized in such a way that people generally work 

against others. This has been the basis of present Nigeria’s instability and chaos.  

Against these backdrops, there is great need for Nigerians to cultivate the 

culture of ethno-religious tolerance, appreciate cultural and religious diversities 

and respect the different human beliefs, feelings, practices and opinions which 

are what Berlin’s value pluralism calls for.     

 

Works cited 

Aarsbergen-Ligtvoet, C. (2006). Isaiah Berlin: A Value Pluralist and Humanist 

View of Human Nature and the Meaning of Life. Amsterdam-New 

York: Rodopi. 

Aghemelo, T. A. & Osumah, O. (2009) Nigerian Government and Politics: An  

Introductory Perspective. Benin City: Mara Mon Bros & Ventures 

Limited. 

Berlin, I. (1990). The Crooked Timber of Humanity. Edited by Henry Hardy, 

 Princeton: Princeton University Press. 

Berlin, I. (1995). Liberty: Incorporating Four Essays on Liberty, Edited by  

 Henry Hardy Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Berlin, I. (1999). Concepts and Categories, Edited by Henry Hardy, London: 

 Pimlico Publishers. 

Berry, J.W., Kalin, R. & Taylor, D. (1997). Multiculturalism and Ethnic 

attitudes in Canada. Ottawa, Canada: Ministry of Supply and 

Services. 

Colombo, E. “Multiculturalisms”, Sociopedia.isa, 1-17. 

Edewor, P.A., Aluko, Y.A. & Folarin, S.F., 2014, ‘Managing ethnic and 

cultural diversity for national integration in Nigeria’, Developing 

Country Studies 4(6), 70–76. 

 



EVAIA: International Journal of Ethics and Values, Vol. 2 No. 1, December 2021 (ISSN: 2787-0448) 

 

 

Ogu                                                                                                              57 
 

Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999). The Constitution of the Federal Republic 

 of Nigeria. Lagos: Government Printers. 

Galston, W.A. (2009) Moral Pluralism and Liberal Democracy: Isaiah Berlin  

Heterodox Liberalism. Review of Politics, 71(1). Cambridge: 

Cambridge University Press, 85-99.  

Harrison, J. (1987) Utilitarianism and Toleration”, Philosophy, 62, 421-434. 

Heywood, A. (2007). Political Ideologies: An Introduction (4th ed.). New York: 

 Palgrave Macmillan.  

Horton, J. and Nicholson, P. (1992). Toleration: Philosophy and Practice,  

 Brookfield VT: Avebury. 

Isaac, D. (2004) “Analysis; Behind Nigeria’s Violence”, Accessed from 

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/ on October 27th, 2021. 

Lukes, S. (1998) “Isaiah Berlin in conversation with Steven Lukes” Samagundi,  

 No 120, New York: Skidmore College, 52-134. 

Dukor, M. “Religion and the Nigerian nationhood”, Nigerian Studies in  

 Religious Tolerance, Edited by Momoh C. S. Vol. 3, 1988, 61.  

Mishra, S. and Kumar, C.B. (2014). “Understanding Diversity: A Multicultural  

Perspective”, IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 19(9), 

62-66. 

Murphy, A.R. (1997). “Tolerance, Toleration and the Liberal Tradition”, Polity,  

 29(4), New York: Palgrave Macmillan Journals, 593-623.    

Osaghae, E. and Suberu, R.T. (2005). “A History of Identities, Violence, and 

Stability in Nigeria”, CRISE Working Paper No. 6, (Oxford: Centre for 

Research on Inequality, Human Security and Ethnicity (CRISE). 

Salawu, B. (2010). “Ethno-Religious Conflicts in Nigeria: Causal Analysis and 

Proposals for New Management Strategies” European Journal of 

Social Sciences, 13(3), 343-353. 

Sam, D.L. and Berry, J.W. (Eds.), (2016). The Cambridge Handbook on  

 Acculturation Psychology, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Shuaib, A.I. “Towards Achieving Ethno-Religious Peaceful Co-

Existence in Nigeria” Paper presented at the First Annual International 

Conference on Ethnic and Religious Conflict Resolution and 

Peacebuilding in New York October 1st, 2014.  

Smyth, M. and Robinson, R. (Eds.). (2001). Researching Violently Divided 

Societies: Ethical and Methodological Issues. Tokyo: United Nations   

University Press. 

Sulaiman, K.O. “Religious Violence in Contemporary Nigeria: Implications 

and Options for Peace and Stability Order” Journal for the Study of 

Religion, 29(1), 2016, 86. 
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/

