One of the existential threats to Nigeria’s statehood despite its sixty-three-year status as a democratic republic is the absence of Political justice. That might sound somewhat assertive as an opening statement to a very sensitive topic considered by many Nigerian politicians as an elephant in the room. Yet, I make no bones about it and remain unperturbed. The title of Lateef Ishowo’s 2015 book – Nigeria, A Bizarre Contraption: An Account of Contemporary Socio-political Issues in a Fragile Nation-State’, is a statement of fact that speaks volumes about the origin and current situation of the Nigerian state. In my humble opinion, in terms of statehood, the Nigeria of today is still not much different from the one amalgamated in 1914 by Lord Frederick Lugard – an amalgam of diverse ethnic civilizations struggling to forge a peaceful coexistence with one another despite over a century of being lumped together under a national umbrella by the colonialists. Reasonably, one would expect that after almost twenty decades of coexistence, the country would evolve into a melting pot like the United States of America, China, and Russia. Sadly today, Nigeria is still like a potpourri whose condiments are yet to melt. It requires no deep assessment to conclude that the country which comprises approximately 371 Nigerian tribes across over 250 ethnic groups, is alarmingly polarized along ethnic, tribal, religious, socioeconomic, and political lines. Even after twenty-five years of an uninterrupted democratic dispensation of an ongoing era popularly referred to as the Third Republic, Nigeria’s democracy has yet to optimally yield the dividends expected of democratic governance, particularly that which has to do with the promotion of mutual trust, a sense of belonging, patriotism, allegiance, political cum distributive justice and equal citizenship. 

         Before progressing further, it is important to note that the evolution of Nigeria’s constitutional democracy is drenched in history. It is a democracy whose evolution can be traced back to the period of British Colonial rule, with only a few intermissions engendered by military incursion into politics. It is also instructive to note that the British colonialists brought a template of their style of democracy and foisted it on the people within the perimeters of a contraption they created, fostered, and exploited. In giving us a form of government, the colonialists, either by design or oversight, failed to consider the absence of important prerequisites that their type of democracy needed to thrive and succeed. The great philosopher from Athens, Socrates, in a skeptical but not utterly condemnatory analysis of Democracy as a form of government, insisted that Democracy cannot work in a society where the electorate lacks the skill and knowledge required to make rational choices in the interest of public good. In one of his many expressions, Socrates likened this to mob rule. Similarly, in a noisome and denunciatory manner, another renowned ancient philosopher – Plato, emphasized that Democracy is bound to fail. He described Democracy as a denial of the principle of qualification which holds that every citizen has a right to participate in government. In Plato’s wisdom, a right must correspond to capacity, thus, in his vivisection of Democracy as a form of government, he opined that the average person has neither the knowledge nor the native intelligence requisite for governance. Indeed, Socrates and Plato were very prophetic in their postulations especially when one considers the outcome of democratic governance in countries where the electorate is largely uninformed and unable to make rational choices. In the case of Nigeria, while the British colonialists were presenting us with their style of democracy, they failed to foresee the potential impediment of a primordial tribal sentiment compounded by a lack of or poor political education. Indeed, Socrates and Plato were very prophetic in their postulations especially when one considers the outcome of democratic governance in countries where the electorate is largely uninformed and unable to make rational choices. In the case of Nigeria, while the British colonialists were presenting us with their style of democracy, they failed to foresee the potential impediment of a primordial tribal sentiment compounded by a lack of or poor political education. As a result, they ended up doing a shoddy job of imposing on us a style of government that evolved in their own country over centuries. This they did, without first making an effort to alter the political behavior of the people through appropriate political education. 

         Like the philosopher Socrates, I agree that Democracy is better than the monarchical dictatorships that the British style of Democracy came to replace. However, I regret that as a people, we were not allowed the opportunity to evolve a home-grown democracy – an autochthonous constitutional democracy founded on the nexus between evolving indigenous cultures and core democratic principles. It is most likely that the British colonialists did not also take into account the unevenness of ethnic and tribal populations and the seemingly ingrained ethnic sentiment of locals vis a vis the probability of a political future plagued by an undesirable consequence known in Political Science as the ‘Tyranny of the Majority’. For those who are not conversant with the phrase – ‘Tyranny of the Majority’, in simplified terms, it is an inherent weakness to majority rule in which the majority of an electorate pursues exclusively its own objectives at the expense of those of the minority factions and marginal individuals. It portrays a situation whereby the decisions made by a majority place its interests above those of an individual or minority group, constituting active oppression comparable to that of a tyrant or despot.

           Information sourced from the ‘Common Wealth Commission on Freedom of Religion or Belief (CIFORB)’, shows that Nigeria has over 250 ethnic groups with a very uneven population distribution. According to the report, Hausa-Fulani has (29%), Yoruba (21%), Igbo (18%), Ibibio (3.5%), Tiv (2.5%), Kanuri (4%), Ijaw (10%), and others as many as they are in numbers share the rest. Ever since Nigeria became an independent country in 1960, historical antecedents have shown that the lopsidedness in the population distribution of its constituent ethnic groups encourages the tendency of political domination and enables the tyranny of the majority as the undesirable outcome of democratic elections. All over the country, major ethnic groups, either unilaterally or collaboratively with another ethnic group, have whipped up divisive ethnic sentiments to suppress and override rational voters’ choices while relying confidently on their numerical superiority to win elections and hold on to political power, particularly at the federal level. At times, they also use the federal might so acquired to influence the outcome of state elections to the disadvantage of minority groups. This absence of political cum distributive justice has significantly affected the trust, loyalty, patriotism, and sense of belonging of many members of Nigerian minority groups. Lamentably, against these backdrops is the emergence of various militant separatist movements and violent agitations for self-determination by some minority groups across the country. These are minority groups who felt that their dreams and goals of nationhood were not fulfilled by being part of the colonial contraption called Nigeria. This brings us to a classic case of the Igbo and the Biafran question.

        Over the past three decades, growing discontent and bad blood among a cross-section of the Igbo people which stemmed from perceived systemic marginalization of their ethnic group, political relegation at the federal level, and a seemingly second-rated membership within the Nigerian Federation have steadily elevated the level of agitation and militancy for self-determination to an alarming state. Likewise, it is now also over five decades since the Nigerian civil war between the Igbos and the rest of Nigeria ended, yet, the national reconciliation agenda initiated by the former military Head Of State, General Yakubu Gowon has yet to produce an appreciable impact. There is a growing concern among the Igbo people that their nation is being politically repressed and strategically excluded from the presidency. Many complained about their political influence being significantly curtailed within the federal space as part of continuous collective retribution for their role in the Nigerian civil war. Recall that after the 1966 Nigerian counter-coup that ousted the Military Regime of General Aguiyi Ironsi, no Nigerian of Igbo extraction has gotten close to being elected as the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in spite of the enormous leadership resources that the region possesses. Also, since the nation achieved independence on October 1st, 1960, Northern and Western Nigeria have dominated Nigerian leadership at the federal level where they wield considerable federal powers to the detriment of the Igbo race. Quoting copiously from Senator Shehu Sanni’s speech at a Kaduna meeting organized by the ‘Association of Eze-Ndigbo in Diaspora’ and reported in TheCable on May 8, 2021, the guileless Senator said, “There has been a systemic exclusion and marginalization of your people, stemming from the historical Biafra war — this is a collective punishment”. Waxing philosophical, he continued, “Most of those who want to divide this country aren’t picking their reasons from the sky. They are building their reasons on injustice and inequity meted out to them. The only way to defeat a secessionist who doesn’t believe in one Nigeria is by giving justice to them”. He continued, “Each time we have a government, they give juicy positions to other tribes, excluding the Igbos. When you exclude an Igbo man from appointment, you are proving those who don’t believe in one Nigeria right. To finally conclude his cautionary tale, he opined, “Since the end of the civil war, Igbo have been distrusted and regarded as unfaithful and unpatriotic Nigerians. The violence going on in the country is capable of thwarting the stability and peace of the country.” 

       One important factor that has made the negative impact of the Majority Rule severely felt by Minority Groups is the continuous adulteration of the Nigerian Federal System of government by vested interests. Over the years, successive military governments have manipulatively tinkered with the allocation of powers as enshrined in the Nigerian constitution before 1999. They have continued to whittle down the residual powers of the state governments while concentrating more powers in the Federal Government to the detriment of minority groups. This obnoxious exercise culminated with the passing of the 1999 constitution that is currently in operation.

        Since Nigeria achieved her independence in 1960, presidential aspirants and candidates of Igbo extraction have had their political ambitions thwarted during democratic elections. These were election losses not strictly based on merit considerations but mainly on numerical superiority. The Igbo ethnic group, going by available latest population statistics only has a share of about 18% of the total population of Nigeria, meaning, if Majority Rule is truly a game that is based on numbers, no Igbo politician regardless of his or her superlative competence will ever emerge as the President of Nigeria without the overwhelming support of one or more ethnic groups. However, while the political act of seeking support across the broad spectrum of a society to achieve electoral victory is not an aberration in Democracy, it is an exercise that requires the participation of a skilled and knowledgeable electorate to materialize. Regrettably, in a peculiar political environment like ours, where there is a dearth of mind-refining political education, primordial ethnic jingoism tends to forestall the deployment of rationality in political decision-making. Therefore, in considering the inherent deficiencies of the preceding framework and its attendant adverse consequences such as the erosion of trust, a feeling of exclusion and lack of a sense of belonging, unpatriotic feelings, the sacrifice of merit and competence on the altar of numbers, and flagrant disloyalty, Power Rotation, a form of Consensus Democracy, appears to be a more effective means of addressing the question of Majority Rule concerning Minority Groups, until a time our country can attain cultural pluralism and possess a well-informed electorate that is capable of making rational choices in the interest of national progress and development. I am referring to the type of cultural pluralism and the political enlightenment that has led to the emergence of six French Canadian Ministers out of twenty-three that have ruled the country between 1867 and the present, despite the Minority Group status of French Canadians in Canada.

        Finally, it is important to note that the issue of Minority Group exclusion and the political proposition of Power Rotation in Nigeria is not limited to the Igbo question, but extends to all Minority Groups. For some reason, most especially, the central role played by the Igbos in the Nigerian civil war as well as their long-drawn-out agitation for self-determination, the Igbo ethnic group has become an excellent model for analysis. In conclusion, it would be advisable and right to suggest that since Nigeria has over the years been judiciously divided into geopolitical zones that cover every ethnicity and tribe by Nigerian political actors, giving constitutional backing to these geopolitical zones and working out the modalities for power rotation should be the prior concern of our National Assembly at this critical stage in the life of our country.