Federalism and Ethnic Conflict in Nigeria

FEDERALISM AND ETHNIC CONFLICT IN NIGERIARotimi SuberuWashington DC: United States Institute of Peace Press, 2001, xxvi, 247pp, 14. 95, ISBN 1-929223-28-5ETHNICITY AND SUB-NATIONALISM IN NIGERIAMichael VickersOxford: WorldView, 2000, xviii, 410pp, Symbol Not Transcribed49. 95 cloth (ISBN 1-872142-43-5), Symbol Not Transcribed29. 95 paper (ISBN 1-872142-44-3) These ambitious volumes address the development of Nigerian federalism and the complex internal challenges to it. Michael Vickers offers a comprehensive treatment of the pre- and immediate post-independence struggles by ethnic minorities for a restructuring of the then tri-regional arrangement into one that would give them statehood within the federation. Rotimi Suberu explores issues of revenue allocation, state creation, political representation, and population enumeration that have been at the centre of Nigerian federal design. Vickers provides a wealth of information concerning the evolution, development, and triumph of the Midwest State movement in an age when majority group elites held veto powers over political demands of minorities, and international norms were against self-determination for subnational groups. He makes the insightful observation that, apart from separate historical links with Benin, the various minority groups of the western region were not united. He provides a detailed account of how the Oba of Benin toured all the minority areas to try to forge a pan-midwest unity (pp 76-82). This invention project, Vickers shows, had limited success as the Itsekiri, the western Ijaw, and the western Ibo refused to be part of a new state in which they would be marginalized. Without a defined territory, the midwest movement could barely prove a case before the Minorities Commission of 1957-8. The same difficulty arose in the east and the north where there were separatist demands. What is missing from Vicker's rich narrative is the Commission's major justification for dismissing the state creation demands: the proposed states contained groups that preferred to opt out, and it was difficult to draw a definite boundary without creating fresh minorities with new demands. The fears of the Commission seem to have been justified. Although the Midwest state was constitutionally created in 1963, separatist movements emerged soon after, and it finally gave way in 1991 to Delta and Edo states. Still, there are ongoing pressures for Anioma and True Delta states. This is representative of the rest of the country where majority subgroups are continuously differentiating and receiving recognition in separate states. …