Addressing the Crises in Southern Kaduna State, Nigeria: the Way to Go

Home , Kaduna, Kaduna State, Southern Kaduna

Addressing the Crises in Southern Kaduna State, Nigeria: The Way to Go

Akume, Albert. T (PhD) 1 & Michael, Solomon2 1&2 Department of Public Administration, CASSS, Kaduna Polytechnic, Kaduna, Kaduna State, Nigeria. [email protected] +2348032928851

3Rosecana, Ankama. G Department of Legal Studies CASSS, Kaduna Polytechnic, Kaduna, Kaduna State, Nigeria.

Abstract

Kaduna state is located in Nigeria’s north-west, with over thirty ethnic nationalities that have over the years been divided along majority/minority and ethno-religious lines. The result of the division is that the state has been the theater of constant conflict. For political exigencies, those rows have been blamed on ethno-religious differences that exist in the state. A careful examination of the situation however reveals that the gross inequalities that exist in the state accounts for the incessant violent disputes. Seeing that the main cause of the persistent communal conflicts in Kaduna state is inequality, the objective of this paper is to explore how the principle of equality can be used to solve the challenge posed by unfairness that is behind the lingering problem of consistent community conflicts in Kaduna state. To achieve this goal, the paper uses documentary and analytical research methods to examine the theoretical and conceptual issues relating to equality and how the concept of equality can assist the government to mitigate such destructive discords that have polarized, undermined peaceful relations and hampered development in Kaduna state.

Keywords: Capabilities; Community; Conflict; Distribution; Equality; Justice and Resources

Ib.J.Soc. Dec., 2018. Vol. 8 www.ibadanjournalofsociology.org

INTRODUCTION

A reflection on history obviously shows that virtually all societies are confronted by one form of conflict or another. In the pre-modern era, the clash for territorial supremacy has remained a character of communal relations. While in the modern era, conflicts of liberation against domination between groups and communities remain evident. Different groups have used this medium to establish their place in history either for the right reasons or for unwholesome intention. The causes of conflict vary and its occurrence cannot be limited to one group, community or nation alone, but one common denominator that knits most conflict is violence. This is evident from the outcomes of the first and second world wars to the struggle for independence and the present pockets of conflicts that are scattered around the world, most especially, the Russian instigated conflict in Ukraine, the religious motivated conflicts in Somalia, Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan. The quest for political change has been linked to conflict in Angola, South Sudan, Iraq, Egypt, Syria and a host of others. Criminalities arising from drug gang and illicit drug lords’ search for influence and control over national government, also, have consequence for conflict in places such as Mexico and Colombia to mention a few.

Conflict is a worldwide phenomenon. Since 1939, there has not been a single day that war was not being waged somewhere in the world (Shivey, 2008:413). It is however most recurrent in Africa and at present, has engulfed most of the countries in the Middle East. The above identified dimensions of conflict sources in some cases cannot be isolated, because political, economic, religious and liberation factors may combine to propel it. The case of the Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria are related examples. To be specific, in Africa, the issues of abuse of power and sectional or a particular ethnic group dominance have been fingered as the main causative factor of conflict. Nigeria like some Africa countries has been a theater of conflict (Mustapha, 2003) and the most pervasive factor inflaming conflict is not unconnected with the obvious socio-political and economic deprivation, exclusion and inequalities that are inherently systemic in the Nigerian-state (Suberu, 1996). In Nigeria’s case, especially at the state and local government levels, the dominance factor significantly reclines behind the many cases where communities that were hitherto once living peacefully, overnight turned and picked up arms against each other. The results of such actions are evident yet immeasurable in terms of the wanton destruction that results from such rash mob actions between communities. From 1980 to date, the Nigerian-state has experienced over 140 cases of ethno-religious violence (Eliagwu, 2005:57-71). The bulk of these conflicts are traceable to the North-

Ib.J.Soc. Dec., 2018. Vol. 8 www.ibadanjournalofsociology.org

West region where Kaduna state is located. This region is described in the literature as very combustive (CLEEN, 2014:11).

Many cases of crises in Nigeria are by no means limited to this region or period; it should be noted that it was as a result of these upheavals that the first post-colonial government collapsed (Akinboye and Anifowose, 2005:246) paving way for the military to take over the helm of government in 1966. In all this, the Nigerian state has regularly been part and parcel of ethnic conflicts because of its ethnically discriminatory policies, and also, because of the ethnic colouration of those who control or dominate it. It is partly for this reason that the state itself is a contested terrain for ethnic interests and programmes. Bearing in mind that the main cause of the persistent communal conflicts in Kaduna state is inequality, the focus of this is very germane not only for resolving the problem in the state but appropriate for this conference. The objective of this paper therefore is to explore how the principle of equality can be used to solve the challenge posed by inequality that hind the lingering problem of communal conflicts in Kaduna state. To achieve this goal, the paper uses documentary and analytical research methods to examine the pertinent factor that have exacerbated community conflicts and how the concept of equality can assist the government to mitigate such destructive challenge in the state.

CONCEPTUAL DISCUSSION-COMMUNITY

A community represents a group of two or more people who, regardless of the diversity of their backgrounds have accepted or are able to accept and act in solidarity towards each other in ways that transcend their physical differences. They are able to communicate openly and effectively; work together toward common goals, while having a sense of unusual safety with one another (Scott, 2013). All over the world, people live in communities. But the real importance of living in community is that people-and groups of people-develop the ways and means to care for each other, to nurture the talents and leadership that enhance the quality of community life, and to tackle the problems that threaten the community and the opportunities that can help it. In this kind of community, both moral and social differences are key variable that are used to strength their cohesion. This is essential for the community in order for it to affect its functions rightly while still maintaining her social and moral codes. If those are weakened, this induces anomie’: that is, feelings of isolation, loneliness and meaninglessness (Heywood, 2006:172).

In communal relations, moral and social differences do conflict at times, and it is sometimes difficult to resolve. In this reconstruction, the case

Ib.J.Soc. Dec., 2018. Vol. 8 www.ibadanjournalofsociology.org

[Ibadan Journal of Sociology, Dec., 2018, 8 ] 8 [© 2014-2018 Ibadan Journal of Sociology] for different principle requires taking seriously an objection to the morally arbitrary inequalities. But the difference principle allows inequalities that are morally arbitrary (Japa, 2010). In spite of the complexity, it is expected that moral disagreements on what gives value to life will persist in a free society and reasonable people will set these aside to evolve rules for social cooperation (Acharya, 2012:241). This is expedient for building a strong community. This is couched on the fact that a strong community is held together by the bonds of comradeship, loyalty and duty (Heywood, 2006:172) to each other. When people do these things, communities become healthy; when they do not, communities deteriorate. Communities that have the ways and means to undertake challenges demonstrate capacity. Without capacity, communities are merely collections of individuals acting without concern for the common good; they are without the necessary ingredients required to develop a healthier community. Communities without capacity really are not communities in any meaningful sense, but have given way to negative conditions like apathy, poverty or ineptitude (Aspen Institute, 1996:1). Evidently, a community that lacks capacity and loyalty cannot function properly, and the requirement to evolve rules of social cooperation on the basis of a shared agreement flies in the face of deep and persistent moral disagreements that divide society on the basis of caste, community, religion, ethnicity, language and other markers of identity (Acharya, 2012:241).

While human capacity is valuable for enhancing the community’s common good, what principle should guide their individual contributions to the common good of the community becomes an issue of contention. This challenge can be resolved if the socio-political system of relations seeks to garner trust by applying at all times the ground rules of equality. Basically, the equality principle is not a misplaced element because it blurs difference that lies at the root of divisive disagreement in the community. As a cohesive factor, it strengthens the bond that ties the people together and it transcends common language, lineage or heritage. The spirit of interlinkage and cooperative relationship in healthy communities is not superimposed and it is stronger because it originates from within the subconscious of the members of the community. This is typical of the imagined community (Anderson, 1983). This kind of community strives for sustainable development by ensuring that it meets the social needs of its members, assist in promoting their economic success and tries to protect and preserve their environment (Stanford British Borough, 2014). This type of community always seeks to strike a balance between economic interest and responsible productive actions on the one hand, and on the other hand, between the environment and its citizens without necessarily generating tension and conflict in the community.

Ib.J.Soc. Dec., 2018. Vol. 8 www.ibadanjournalofsociology.org

Communities differ in their size, organization and degree of integration. There are four types of communities they include: i) full-tilt-is one that knows what it wants but does not have enough to make it happen or disagree about the best way to get there; ii) gridlock-is one that remains indecisive because of stubborn, divisive, long-standing fights between opposing camps over what to do; iii) Trojan horse-represent a community that is threatened by frequent unstable change that is too quick or by lack of change; and v) the ghost town community is that which has given up on itself and nobody seems to care (Aspen Institute, 1996:1-2). Every nation desire to build cohesive and functional communities in order to fast track her national development seamlessly. This means that it has to ingrain in its diverse communities the following personas which are: optimism, focus on unification, we are in together, solving problems, reconciliation, consensus building broad of public interest, interdependence, collaboration, win-win solutions, tolerance and respect, trust, patience, politics of substance, empowered citizens, diversity, citizenship, challenge ideas, individual responsibility, listening, healers, community discussion, focus on the future, sharing power, renewal and the we can do spirit (Aspen Institute, 1996:3). If, however, a considerable proportion of these elements are missing in the internal workings of a community then, her dream of development is compromised due to the challenge of antagonism and conflicts between her constituent elements. Ironically however, these characteristics of a healthy community as identified above are evidently missing in most communities in Nigeria. This relapse has been exploited by some retrogressive political forces for selfish ends with consequence for deep divisions and violent destructive clashes. The existence of these identified challenges in Nigeria indicates that there exist substantial development challenges in and between communities which need to be resolved through deliberate public action and strong political will. The failure to make such needed change has continued to hamper development in local communities. As such, the drive of local communities for self-development is being undermined as is the case in Kaduna State (Akume., Michael, & Bello, 2011).

CONCEPTUAL REFLECTION: EQUALITY

One knot that binds us together as humans is the moral capacity that has moral resonance which in turn connects us to one another in more than one important way. These moral capacities form the core of our egalitarian belief which reflects in our desire to be treated equal. This desire is so strong that it has impelled it inclusion as a cardinal principle in federal or unitary constitutions of diverse nation-state and every reasonable government is obliged to uphold and promote. These moral capacities should not be limited

Ib.J.Soc. Dec., 2018. Vol. 8 www.ibadanjournalofsociology.org

[Ibadan Journal of Sociology, Dec., 2018, 8 ] 10 [© 2014-2018 Ibadan Journal of Sociology] to just political rights and obligations but should reflect the totality of human experiences that aim to protect the vital core of all human lives in ways that enhance human freedom and human fulfillment by bringing together the human desired elements of security, rights and development (UNTFHS, 2002 and JICA, 2010). These are vital for safeguarding the vital core of human lives from critical pervasive threats, in ways that are consistent with long- term human fulfillment (Alkire, 2003). These elements are fundamental to all human existence and the foundation upon which human progress and that of communities revolve around.

Although, it may sound political, yet it is also steep deep in economics because it does not only raise the distributional questions of who gets what, when and how that resonates loudly in Harold Lasswel definition of politics which have been usurped and used to define public policy by public policy scholars. That nonetheless, it has also reawakened the indispensable question of how to adequately produce what is to be distributed. Heywood, (2006:414) had acknowledge this equality concerns when he observed that this issue is not merely about how wealth can be generated, but also about how it is distributed. The capability of various human communities through joint efforts, to set the ground rules of what individual contribution should be, in order to keep producing in a consistent manner what is needed to be distributed, is equally dependent on the ability of how their political organization permits the system to authoritatively allocate such values that have been produce, fairly among the various groups capsuled in that geopolitical community. The whole concern here is on the question of balance which can be resolved by a system of welfare and redistribution that revolves on the wheel of equality tampered by procedural fairness. Even in the face of neo-liberal expansion into the political space that crystallized around the values of freedom and a minimal state (Acharya, 2012:241) which has limited the scope of the government intervention in the production process. Even though this ideal allows the private community to make those production choices, political values still regulate and define how the system produces and redistributes resources that enhance production.

Though, it may be assumed that the matrix for production is easy to define and assign to members of the community to produce, it is however, a thorny issue when it comes to the issue of distributing what is produced without setting in motion cries of dissent. This is so, considering the fact that human character to acquire more is insatiable, always seeking to act rationale and beneficial to one’s self or the group one is aligned with irrespective of the society he/she belongs to. Based in this, it then follows that equality concerns, lies at the heart of political challenging question of who gets what, when and how. It therefore means, addressing this problem, the notion of

Ib.J.Soc. Dec., 2018. Vol. 8 www.ibadanjournalofsociology.org

[Ibadan Journal of Sociology, Dec., 2018, 8 ] 11 [© 2014-2018 Ibadan Journal of Sociology] equality is needed to guide, defined and determine the distribution of what has been produced in the system in a consistent manner. This is fundamental because, the political values of justice and equality offer the entire system a moral framework to make judgment, explain, prescribe or criticize (Acharya, 2012:59) how those resources are distributed. This framework is not just an essential tool for handling rightly the dissenting voices that arise as a consequence of this distributional question, but evidently needful for dissolving such dissensions as they may arise. This is pretty necessary, because no matter how human effort may be expressly exerted to produce what is presumed to be enough, the outcome of such effort may still not be sufficient to go around everybody adequately because of the constraint of resource limitation. The shortfall that is evident has to be resolved by the system’s distributional pattern.

Though faced by the shortfall dilemma, it does not diminish the hope for a peaceful community if, the concept of equality can yield various conception depending on how the system unpacks the building-blocks- relationships, person, relevant attributes-and proposes an appropriate relationship between them (Acharya, 2012:60) no matter how healthy a community may be. Obviously, in a community that is governed arbitrarily, highly atomized with deep divisive and centrifugal forces, the distributional process is highly explosive which makes the utility of the concept of equality even more germane. In both kinds of communities, the concept of equality is relevant for four principal reasons, which are: to be fair, for self-respect, to show respect for others, and to foster fraternity (Acharya, 2012:65-66) among the members of the community. The argument to be fair on grounds of distributive justice focuses on the equal satisfaction of basic needs. The second rationale makes a case for equality of status, while the third reason is a prerequisite for equal opportunities for self-development, and the last motive, impels the need for social equality (Acharya, 2012:66). These four reasons put together, guarantee the achievement of certain ends, and, by so doing, augments it moral appeal and its separate standing as an autonomous value set that captures different reasons for a general defense of equality (Acharya, 2012:65).

Equality ordinarily means the principle of uniform apportionment, but it does not imply identity, or sameness; in which case, it is a state of treating equals equally and unequal unequally. The term has differing implications, depending on what is being apportioned. Equality can be dissected into three main groups:-formal, equal and outcome. Formal equality means the equal distribution of legal rights, equal opportunity then connotes that everyone has the same starting point or equal life chances. And equality of outcome refers to the equal distribution of income, wealth and

Ib.J.Soc. Dec., 2018. Vol. 8 www.ibadanjournalofsociology.org

[Ibadan Journal of Sociology, Dec., 2018, 8 ] 12 [© 2014-2018 Ibadan Journal of Sociology] other social goods (Heywood, 2006:414) among all members of the community. In a community where these factors are ingrained in her socio- political relations, the possibility of incessant conflict is significantly minimized unlike the one that has failed to embed them in her socio-political choices and actions. The proponents of equality contend that it promotes justice and community, while its detractors view it as leveling downwards and a form of social engineering (Heywood, 2006:414) by seeking to equalize opportunity where it is not necessary. Naturally, the theoretical ideal that we all compete on equal terms is an illusion. To be specific, some have much greater opportunities than others (Bowles and Gintis cited in Haralambos and Holborn, 2008:604).

In the midst of those contesting positions, the starting point for discussing equality between individuals or communities must first begin with an understanding of what exactly is to be equalized. What is to be equalized according to Acharya, (2012:66) are: equality of welfare, resources, and capacities. The elements of welfare, resources, and capacities are at the heart of the equality and inequality discussion in the extant literatures. Since these are vital core for better human living, achieving some levels of equality must be desired. Contrastingly however, in solving the problem of equality in order to bridge the socio-economic divide in the society, some level of inequality is inevitable because the system will not be fair if it ordinarily allocates resources equally to those who work hard and those who do not. Defined from the angle of personal (capacities) contribution to production, some form of inequality is inevitable. This side of fairness also invokes the need to equalize the system for the reason that the production patterns and processes that generated opportunities for some are the same sources that create inequalities for most of those who are underprivileged in the society.

Considering the prevalent differences in opportunities that exist in a society, there is the moral need to bridge the opportunity disequilibrium. In other words, since people have different capacities to turn resources into worthwhile activities, people will need different resources to be equally capable of worthwhile activity (Ikeanyibe, 2013:174). Based on this moral position, the differences that arise due to difference in capacity can be resolved using the equality of welfare at the individual level. At the level of communities, fiscal allocation of resources through the IGR system should significantly equalize the resource anomalies between communities. On the contrary, the suggestions that special help through social and welfare policies be granted to those who have unequal access to opportunities to bridge the gap, have been challenged by the argument that it is this consideration that often justifies the unequal allocation of resources. While the above view is incontestable, the fact still remains that the disadvantaged must be helped. If

Ib.J.Soc. Dec., 2018. Vol. 8 www.ibadanjournalofsociology.org

[Ibadan Journal of Sociology, Dec., 2018, 8 ] 13 [© 2014-2018 Ibadan Journal of Sociology] that is not done, it has its later harsh consequences on the society hence, finding a middle-point to this moral issue is necessary. An addition to the above three matrixes of equality is the complex equality (Walzer, 1983). The expedience of this form of equality is based on the misplaced emphasis on the three-equality matrix identified above. This type of equality directs its focus on the element of conception and creation of public goods unlike the other three that concentrate their attention more on distributive ends. From this point, the shift in attention is anchored on the process of social creation of public goods across communities. That is to say, the meaning a society gives to a particular good determines its social value. And so, the value of such goods is not dependent on how it is distributed but on how it is socially rated. Horning on this position, the argument that primary goods need to be distributed fairly in society is significantly nullified. It then holds that all distributions are just and unjust relative to the social meaning at stake…there is no reason to expect that the same distributive standard must prevail in different spheres of social (Walzer, 1983) life, considering the differences in capacities and the individuals’ will to apply same to meaningful productive enterprise. More so, returning to the issue of social creation, it is a process that varies significantly across societies or these meaning changes across space and time.

Captured within this context, complex equality does not permit any citizen standing in one sphere or with regard to one social good can be undercut by his standing in some other domain, with regard to some other good (Walzer, 1983 and Hooghe, 1999). If this line is not respected, the outcome for minority communities is reflected in their continued suppression and domination. This is unavoidable, because the infractions that arise from such contempt permit the disregards of the element of distinctiveness of spheres, and the principle internal to them which accounts for subsequent multiplies inequalities (Acharya, 2012:71). It for this reason that the complex form of equality is pertinent because it has diversity of distributive criteria that mirror the diversity of social goods (Acharya, 2012:71) which if applied rightly tends to eliminate significantly, the likelihood of tyranny and domination. Despite this obvious value, complex equality is faced with barrage of attacks especially from scholars like Linda, (1984) and Arneson, (1990). Specifically, the latter scholar referred to the whole idea of complex equality as a weak brew. These cutting criticisms nevertheless, the thought behind the concept presents a refreshingly different perspective than those struggling over the matrix; simply because it focuses attention on the meaning of goods and the plurality of the spheres of justice.

In this realm of relations, the role of the government is to provide a level playing field for the expression of social interest where no one is

Ib.J.Soc. Dec., 2018. Vol. 8 www.ibadanjournalofsociology.org

[Ibadan Journal of Sociology, Dec., 2018, 8 ] 14 [© 2014-2018 Ibadan Journal of Sociology] subjected or short-cut; this is where justice truly expresses itself for the good of all communities. Justice in this sense should rest on both the side of procedural and social justice so that persistent discriminations in subtle and indirect forms are all together eliminated in the society. This will assist in promoting integration and better utilization of talents and a more equitable distribution (Menon, 2012:80) of welfare, resources, and capacities (opportunities) in the society. In the case of the latter, justice is seen in a broad sense and as a real feature of a society. From this stand point, the distribution and evaluation of opportunities in the society is not done with specific focus in terms of what individuals get or do not get, but in terms of how just a society is, according to some agreed criterion. It therefore goes to say that, the norms for distributing goods within each are internal to each (society) and ideally, should not spill-over.

Kaduna state is a mix bag of different ethnic nationalities. But despite the evident diverse ethnic mix in the state, it has been politically coloured craftily to reflect the majority/minority configuration bias that only facilitate the control of the suppressed so-called minorities. In the socio- economic and political arrangement, the minority group is a subordinated group whose members have significantly less control or power over their own lives while the dominant or majority group has the power not only to define itself legally but to define a society’s value (Schaefer, 2006:241 & 244). This has been used to the disadvantage of the minorities. In spite of the broad majority/ minority categorizations, it has by no means masked the reality of the ethnic and religious complexities that exist in Kaduna. This picture is further complicated by the fact that millions of non-indigenous Nigerians are resident in the state (Mustapha, 2003). The collection of tribes that are satirically referred to as ‘pagan groups’ by the Hausa-Fulani ethnic group is because of their refusal to be overwhelmed by the tradition of the emirate government and due to their strong will to hold on to their individual identities and traditions. In Nigeria, as in other parts of Africa, tradition defines one’s identity as such it forms a part of who a person is. Hence, stripping an individual of his/her tradition means desonating his/her identity. The fact that people’s identities are constituted in large part by their membership in different communities, for underestimating the significance of shared values, and for wrongfully asserting the virtues of individualism and universalism that are either hallow or impossible to achieve (Acharya, 2012:241) is a major trigger of misunderstanding and conflict.

Despite the flare for self-identity by the individual southern Kaduna autonomous communities to retain their traditional practices and life-styles, there has been some degree of penetration by the Hausa-Fulani emirate system. Those that were subsumed by the emirate system were as a result of

Ib.J.Soc. Dec., 2018. Vol. 8 www.ibadanjournalofsociology.org

[Ibadan Journal of Sociology, Dec., 2018, 8 ] 15 [© 2014-2018 Ibadan Journal of Sociology] the use of force rather than close proximity of geographical settlement. Quintessentially, Kagoro, Jaba and Moroa ethnic groups of the south had effectively resisted the overshadowing grip of the emirate system (Suberu, 1996) that sought to infiltrate and superimpose itself on other nationalities. The southern communities differ in their degree of penetration by the Hausa- Fulani authority due to the strength of the resistance and geographical distance. The resistance of the emirate government by the southern minorities was not received calmly by the hegemony considering that they saw the quest for penetration as a divine right that has to be accepted by those presumed ‘pagan’ communities. As such, the emirate government did not just desire to simply rule but to also obliterate the traditions and identities of those southern Kaduna communities’, and in its place, impose and ingrain their own standard over them. This inordinate quest is one of the primary causes of conflicts between those communities during the colonial and post- colonial era.

THE SOUTHERN KADUNA STATE QUESTION: THE IMPORT OF EQUALITY

Conflict can be better understood from the angle of a continuum considering the fact that its manifestations can metamorphosis from mere verbal disagreement to violent eruption. The main source of conflict is discontent arising from the failure of a constituted authority to resolve perceived inequality or injustice. The situation is worsened when the power that be seek to cover-up or fail to address rightly, the hurt the aggrieved has suffered. The inability of the aggrieved to seek redress in the proper public legal system because of corruption or inherent systemic arbitrariness that has in no way, helped to heal the hurt of the aggrieved. Although the root cause of conflict can be traced to colonialism (Omorogbe and Omohan, 2005:554) in the sense that they failed to pay attention to the regional, cultural and political differences and inequalities, but rather, employed the principle of divide-and- rule to their own advantage. Since theirs was a government that paid little or no attention to the needs of the local people, most of the cries to correct those inequalities that emerged from the amalgamation of communities and placing them under the control of a native authority that had very different cultural and traditional values from those of the southern Kaduna communities, fell on deaf ears.

Arguably, not all the agitations of southern communities went unnoticed, to be fair to the colonial federal and state governments Various policies have been implemented to address the problem posed by ethnic politics in Nigeria. Some of them were implemented by the colonialist, some

Ib.J.Soc. Dec., 2018. Vol. 8 www.ibadanjournalofsociology.org

[Ibadan Journal of Sociology, Dec., 2018, 8 ] 16 [© 2014-2018 Ibadan Journal of Sociology] by both the colonialist and Nigerian leaders and others, exclusively by the Nigerian leaders. The objective has been to contain, not eliminate, ethnic conflicts (IDEA, 2000:95). This very exposition explains why those communal conflicts have refused to go away. The specific policies implemented by the various political authorities over the years include but not limited to, the establishment of the native authority, the adoption of federalism in 1954 and the federal character principle. It was not that these policies did not have the capacity to remediate the problem but the skewed manner in which they were implemented only ensured the continuation of the majority ascendancy over minorities. As such, the main issue that had generated the problem was not properly resolved thus, leaving them to re- emerge in a more virulent manner than it had hitherto existed.

Heywood, (2002:171) however, disagrees that structural inequalities and internal colonialism cannot in themselves explain the emergence of ethnic politics. The issue is that if the structure of penetration became exploitative, abusive and bias against the subjugated communities should they fold their hands and leave everything to fate, believing that one day it will be alright. It should be reiterated here that the group that benefits from dominating any other community seeks to consolidate their holds while the dominated on their part, endeavour to overthrow their oppressor. There is no known case where the tyrant gave up his/her privileged position easily without a strong resistance from the subject. The oppressed desire (as a result of “self-consciousness”) to be liberated is always the starting point for ethnic mobilization or community politics (Heywood, 2002:172) that in turn, produces agitations that have consequence for violent eruption, social disorder and disruption in the society, if the main cause of such community agitation is not attended to by the appropriate authority.

The ruthless pattern of expropriation, control and dominance that accompanied colonialism ensured that those expressed disaffections were only bury but not resolved. And that advantage was given to those groups that assisted colonial authority to achieve their goal. To this end, the Hausa- Fulanis were willing collaborators in so far as they were placed at the helm of control of the traditionally structural delineated local communities’ kingship systems that were indirectly incorporated into the main structure of colonial government administrative arrangement. This political control continued after independence. It was however, not free of agitations and confrontations from the southern Kaduna minorities to be traditionally self- governing. Those protests were worsened by the fact that the socio-political relations were grossly unequal. The remonstration that resulted from such domination often escalated during periods of major political developments or

Ib.J.Soc. Dec., 2018. Vol. 8 www.ibadanjournalofsociology.org

The introduction of self-government meant that those old divides and inequalities resurfaced to seek government’s attention for their proper resolution. Sadly, the post-independent leaders were overcome by tribalism, nepotism, fiscal recklessness and the desire to perpetuate themselves in power; that they were not interested in engaging those southern minority communities in order to properly resolve those ingrain problems of inequality in the system. The elitist political class that emerged was so parochial that they relegated serious national issues such as this to the background for tribal and regional interests (Sanusi, 2009:4; Omorogbe and Omohan, 2005:555). The sidelining of the minorities sparked further stir from the southern Kaduna communities due to the majority’s deliberate neglect of the complains of the minorities. The inaction was part of the majority calculated attempt to consolidate their dominance under the guise of nation-building (Heywood, 2002:171). Although, riots that ensured from such ethnic mobilization was destructive. In another respect, those ethnic mobilizations brought to light the need for justice and equality to the forefront of people’s consciousness (IDEA, 2000:93-94).

The insensitivity of the post-independent government to adequately resolve the lingering problem of inequality meant that they had to find a viable excuse to cover-up for their failure. As such, even the minor disagreements that were remotely distant from religion were cast in the frame of religious conflicts. Suffice this paper to state here that, the fundamental reasons that recline behind the legitimate discontent of the southern Kaduna communities, is nested in the structure of governance that has over time foster their deprivation, marginalization and dominance by the majority ethnic group (Sanusi, 2009:4). The by-product of these three causes of discontent created deep rooted deprivation that is responsible for widening the scope of inequality for southern Kaduna communities in such a manner that the political, cultural, and religious cleavages between majority and minority communities in the emirate have been reinforced by economic imbalance (Suberu, 1996).

This unequal historical political relationship between the Hausa- Fulani ethnic group and the ‘pagan’ community has been compounded by religious differences (Suberu, (1996). The consequence of these ethno- religious suppressions and political inequalities is that they have continued to generate tensions and conflicts that have probably, far more serious violence than any other forms of communal instabilities in recent Nigerian history (Suberu, 1996). Under the ethnicized electoral politics associated with

Ib.J.Soc. Dec., 2018. Vol. 8 www.ibadanjournalofsociology.org

[Ibadan Journal of Sociology, Dec., 2018, 8 ] 18 [© 2014-2018 Ibadan Journal of Sociology] decolonization, minority status became associated with the smallness of population size and the related question of limited electoral clout (Mustapha, 2003). Arising from this phony assumed hegemonic delusion that is premised on false claims of superiority, the ruling hegemony within the state used all known tactics to scheme out the southern nationalities from access to public resources and political power in the state. Since they controlled virtually all aspects of the state government, the call for fairness and equality did not go beyond the ceiling of those houses from where the echoes of inequality by southern Kaduna minorities emanated. Those protests were geared towards the realization of specific southern Kaduna demands which include, increased autonomy and control, over local matters, the indigenization of all district heads and appointment in southern Kaduna, the establishment of independent chiefdoms for all southern Kaduna tribes and more recently, the subdivision of Kaduna into one or two states in order to mitigate or eliminate the minority status of the southern Kaduna population (Suberu, 1996).

Some of those agitations had taken roots during colonial era and had cascaded into the post-colonial and then transcended past military and civilian governments to the present democratic dispensation. The persistence of those agitation had paid off as the former state governor Ahmed Mohammed Makarfi, now a serving Senator granted all the requests of those communities in southern Kaduna except the request for the subdivision of Kaduna into one or two states in order to mitigate or eliminate the minority status of the southern Kaduna population. The success gained was not without its cost in terms of violent conflicts (Akume, et. al., 2011:9) that had consequence for wanton destruction of lives and properties. Despite the slight but minimal change, the federal presence in terms of the allocation of public infrastructures in southern Kaduna communities remains non-existent. This absence had forced Rev. Kukah to ask the satiric question that what it is about Southern Kaduna State that there isn’t a single evidence of federal government presence in terms of either a parastatal, institution, or industry (Mustapha, 2003). The social, economic and political configuration of the state was crafted in such a manner that those from southern Kaduna are hopelessly too weak economically and politically to even participate in the affairs of the state in any meaningful way. The social, economic, political and even bureaucratic inequalities that have been institutionalized in the state from colonial times up till now, have heightened the tensions that have turned Kaduna into a cauldron that is permanently on the boil (Mustapha, 2003).

It is on record that since the creation of Kaduna state in 1967 to 2010, when late Patrick Yakowa became the governor of Kaduna state, no one of southern Kaduna extraction had risen to that position. Equally too, not

Ib.J.Soc. Dec., 2018. Vol. 8 www.ibadanjournalofsociology.org

[Ibadan Journal of Sociology, Dec., 2018, 8 ] 19 [© 2014-2018 Ibadan Journal of Sociology] until recently, precisely from 1999, those from southern communities were not allowed to assume sensitive political position at the state government or federal level. The concern is how were the Hausa-Fulani able to influence and impose this limitation on those southern communities? Simply, during the military administration there was a terrible delineation that worked against the interest of the minorities in the north that today, Kaduna State House of Assembly for instance, does not have more than 12 members, as against 34 members of Assembly (Mordecai, Sunday Ibrahim in an interview with The Nation of February, 2nd 2009). The reasons for the orchestrated political scheme are two prongs, the: i) is to ensure that Northern Kaduna maintains its control of the state, ii) to keep the southern Kaduna minorities perpetually submissive to the former. Those actions directly contravene S14 (3), S153 (1) of the 1999 Federal Constitution of Nigeria that states that the composition of the government of a state, a local government or any agencies shall be carried out in such a manner as to recognized the diversity of the people within its area of authority and the need to promote a sense of belonging and loyalty among the people of the federation.

Similarly, the 1999 Constitution in its preambles and S17 (1) (2) (3) (a-h), S18 (1) and S23 clearly emphasize that Nigeria and the States within it shall be governed on the principles of equality and justice. This is highly appreciated by the diverse communities for three main reasons: i) because their application will guarantee their inclusion, ii) it has the capacity to protect their individual values and traditional sanctity, and iii) it will guarantee their rights and liberation from continued subordination to any other ethnic group. Paradoxically however, the existence of these sections of the Federal Constitution to most minority communities is more of a legal and political cliché that is easily expressed in political speeches than its actual enforcement in practice. For the southern Kaduna communities, this observation is reinforced by the total absence of federal presence in these communities. This has long helped to limit their access to further development opportunities. This neglect has over the years questioned the essence of the principles of equality upon which the past and present Nigerian Constitution is presumed to be established on. If we are to follow through on the proposition of the federal constitution as espoused in section…equality therefore should mean equal apportionment of federal presence, legal and political rights, equal opportunities and outcomes for all the different communities in Kaduna state. This semblance of equal treatment for now still remains a distant dream for southern Kaduna communities.

The failure of both the state and the federal governments to secure for the southern Kaduna communities these socio-economic and political goods is a contradiction of the theoretical argument which posits that the best

Ib.J.Soc. Dec., 2018. Vol. 8 www.ibadanjournalofsociology.org

[Ibadan Journal of Sociology, Dec., 2018, 8 ] 20 [© 2014-2018 Ibadan Journal of Sociology] way to reduce social inequalities in societies as a whole, is to target the resources of the most disadvantaged (Haralambos and Holborn, 2008:616). The focus should be on assisting those who are not equal (marginalized) to receive special help (in terms of services and resources) in order to gain equal access to life opportunities (Harrington, 2009:124). This can be honestly done if the government is guided by the spirit of fairness and justice. On the contrary, in Kaduna’s case, the distribution of those resources over the years did not place emphasis on the principle of justice and fair play rather she was misdirected by the self-centered principle of the winner-takes- it-all. This rule did not take cognizance of the fact that compared to the Hausa-Fulanis, the southern Kaduna communities had unequal capacity and lacked access to resources and political opportunity unlike the former. The use of this principle was rather quite despicable considering that in all the southern communities, the main issue of inequality centers on the absence of access to scarce resources and opportunity which is necessary for enhanced production, growth and poverty reduction as a liberating tool for oppressed communities. It follows that in all ramification, the distributional methodology adopted to address this problem only further widens the gulf of access to scarce resources and inequality for the southern Kaduna communities. This has since remained a challenging concern for not just Kaduna state but the Nigerian-state.

Narrowing the focus of the paper to the issue of resource distribution, it is evident that all the resources of the state have all been diverted to the north, precisely, Zaria, leaving the southern Kaduna communities to fend for themselves. It is estimated that there are about fifty (50) federal and state institutions in Kaduna state. Forty-seven of those institutions are located in the northern part of the state while a paltry remaining three are situated in the southern Kaduna communities. What the situation in Kaduna raises, is the fact that quotas and concessions given to a territorially defined state or local government, could still be distributed with ethnic bias within the state or local government. And this is more the case when different ethnic groups within a territory have accumulated different historical advantages and opportunities (Mustapha, 2003). In fact, even within the southern Kaduna communities, socio-economic opportunities and infrastructural improvements have tended to be concentrated in areas or enclaves inhabited by the Hausa settlers (Suberu, 1996). The outcome of this kind of blatant state bias is that it is responsible for aggravated frustration among the southern Kaduna communities that are located near those better served enclaves.

Ib.J.Soc. Dec., 2018. Vol. 8 www.ibadanjournalofsociology.org

CONCLUSION

The Nigerian-state has enough resources to go around every community if they are well harnessed and justly redistributed among communities. This has in part been hampered by corruption, and lack of government foresight. She has been unable to produce to meet the needs of those communities in the Nigerian geopolitical space. Cocooned within this self-inflicted limitation, sectional cleavages, bias and arbitrariness have trailed the process of resource distribution in Kaduna state that has resulted in the under-privileging of some communities by others in the state. The afore-mentioned differences between majority and the minority communities in Kaduna over traditional, political, control, culture, religion and resource distributions, have predictably often escalated into violent agitations and confrontations (Whitaker cited in Suberu, 1996) due to State-led exclusion, suppression and bias. This should not be the case, because the real importance of living in community should be that people and groups of people-develop the ways to care for each other, to nurture the talents and leadership that enhance the quality of community life, and to tackle problems that threaten the community and the opportunities that can help it (Aspen Institute, 1996:1).

Predictably, these apparent inequalities can be remedied by upholding and applying in practice, the true value of equality and social justice. The virtues of social justice is that, by taking the distribution of wealth away from the vagaries of political bias, it ensures that all citizens have a stake in the society and that each of them has an incentive to contribute to her growth and prosperity. In tolerating wide social inequality, the state thus runs the risk of promoting social exclusion, reflected in the growth of underclass communities which is the breeding bed for social unrest. For the sake of long-term /sustainable prosperity it is requires that government material incentives operate within a broader framework of fair distribution (Heywood, 2006). The capacity of the state government to resort to the equality principle is the most valid outlet for minimizing the persistent conflicts between communities in Kaduna state.

Ib.J.Soc. Dec., 2018. Vol. 8 www.ibadanjournalofsociology.org

REFERENCES

Acharya, A. (2012). Equality. In B. Rajeev & A. Ashok (Eds.), Political Theory: An Introduction (pp. 58-72). New Delhi: Pearson.

Akinboye, S. O & Anifowose, R. (2005). Nigerian Government and Politics. In: R. Anifowose & F. Enemuo (eds), Elements of Politics. Lagos: Sam Iroanusi Publications.

Akume, A. T., Michael, S & Bello, M. F (2011) Conflict and the Challenge to Effective Conflict Management in Kaduna State. Lapai Journal of Sociology Review. 3(1), 1-18.

Alkire, S. (2003). A Conceptual Framework for Human Security Being a CRISE Working Paper 2 University of Oxford.

Aspen Institute. (1996). Measuring Community Capacity Building: A Work Book-In-Progress for Rural Communities. Retrieved from http://www.aspeninstitute.org

Arneson, R. J. (1990). Against Complex Equality. Public Affairs Quarterly, 4(2), 99-110.

CLEEN. (2014). Election Security Threat Assessment: Towards 2015 Elections. (5th ed). Monograph Series, No.22. Retrieved from www.cleen.org

Eliagwu, J. I. (2005). Crises and Conflict Management in Nigeria since 1980. In A. M. Yakubu., R. T. Adegboye., C. N. Ubah & B. Dogo, (Eds.). Crises and Conflict Management in Nigeria since 1980 (pp. 28-82). Kaduna: Nigerian Defence Academy.

Halarambos, M & Holborn, M. (2008). Sociology: Themes and Perspectives (7th Ed). London: Collins.

Heywood, A. (2006). Politics (2nd ed). New York: Palgrave Foundation.

Hooghe, M. (1999). The Notion of Complex Equality: The Beauty of Alcibiades. In Ethical Perspectives, 3-4, 211-214.

IDEA. (2000). Democracy in Nigeria: Continuing Dialogue(S) for Nation- Building. Capacity-Building Series 10. Stockholm: IDEA.

Ib.J.Soc. Dec., 2018. Vol. 8 www.ibadanjournalofsociology.org

Ikeanyibe, O. M. (2013). Public Policy in Nigeria: Perspectives on Social Policy and Administration. Enugu: John Jacob’s Publishers Limited.

Japa P. (2010). Review of G. A Cohen’s Recuing Justice and Equality. Retrieved from Retrieved From www.pitt.edu/japa/papers/Cohen.pdf

JICA. (2010). Human Security and JICA. Retrieved

Kaduna State Government, (2008) Education Sector Analysis in Conjunction with UNESCO with Technical Assistance from Gwang-Cho for Cube Project.

Linda, M. (1984). The Limit of Complex Equality. In Harvard Law Review, 97, 1801.

Menon, K. (2012). Justice. In B. Rajeev & A. Ashok (Eds.) Political Theory: An Introduction (pp. 74-87). New Delhi: Pearson.

Mustapha, A. R. (2003). Ethnic Minority Groups in Nigeria: Current Situation and Major Problems. Being a Paper Presented to the Human Right Commission Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights Working Group on Minorities. Ninth Session 12-16 May 2003. UN.

Nwagwu, E. J. (2009). Poverty, Unemployment and Poverty Alleviation/Eradication Programmes in Nigeria (1999-2004). In University of Nigeria Journal of Political Economy, 3(1&2), 217- 235.

Omorogbe, S. K & Omohan, M. E (2005) Causes and Management of Ethno- Religious Conflicts: The Nigerian Experience. In A. M. Yakubu., R. T. Adegboye., C. N. Ubah, & B. Dogo, (Eds.). Crises and Conflict Management in Nigeria since 1980 (pp. 550-562). Kaduna: Nigerian Defence Academy.

Schaefer, R. T. (2006). Sociology: A Brief Introduction (6th ed). New York: McGraw hill.

Scott, M. P. (1987). Different Drum: Community Making and Peace. Retrieved from www.goodreads.com/book/show/4443.the_different_drum

Ib.J.Soc. Dec., 2018. Vol. 8 www.ibadanjournalofsociology.org

Stanford British Borough. (2014). Characteristic of Sustainable Community. Retrieved on 7th July, 2014 from www.staffordbc.goc.uk/characteristics-of-a-sustainable- community.

Suberu, R. T. (1996). Ethnic Minority Conflicts and Governance in Nigeria. Retrieved from http://www.ifraa-nigeria.org

The 1999 Federal Constitution of Nigeria as Amended 2011.

United Nations Trust Fund for Human Security (UNTFHS). (2002). Human Security in Theory and Practice. Retrieved from docs.unocha.org last accessed on 9th June, 2014.

Ib.J.Soc. Dec., 2018. Vol. 8 www.ibadanjournalofsociology.org