[Ibadan Journal of Sociology, Dec., 2018, 8 ] 5 [© 2014-2018 Ibadan Journal of Sociology] 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 [Ibadan Journal of Sociology, Dec., 2018, 8 ] 6 [© 2014-2018 Ibadan Journal of Sociology] 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 [Ibadan Journal of Sociology, Dec., 2018, 8 ] 7 [© 2014-2018 Ibadan Journal of Sociology] 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.