“Our diversity is neither a liability nor a curse; it is, in fact, a blessing and an asset. Diversity deepens the pool of sociocultural capital available to us.”
By Yemi Osinbajo, SAN.
My topic is “Creating a Homeland for All; Nation-building in a Diverse Democracy.”
When I say diversity, I’m referring in particular, to ethnic and religious diversity, and to see how we can truly build a nation despite our ethnic and religious diversity.
Let me begin with the personal story of an encounter that I had many years ago.
In 1989, I was about to get married and I was searching for a good house to rent. I met my landlord who happened to be an elderly lawyer who obviously did more real estate than legal practice.
He let me know that there were three categories of people he would not rent property in his care to – Igbos, Ijebus and lawyers. I was disqualified on two accounts. He then said to me, pointing behind him at a few shrivelled-up books on a small bookshelf, that he had the arsenal to destroy any tenant in court if I gave him any trouble. He later, to his embarrassment, discovered that I was a Law teacher and adviser to the then Attorney General of the Federation and of course, that I am also Ijebu.
I have shared this story to illustrate a point that I think is hugely important which is that prejudice and bias are natural aspects of human nature. Everyone has prejudices and preferences that are reinforced by stories and narratives.
Prejudice is a function of the environment in which one is socialized and the level of exposure that one has.
All across this country, different ethnicities are the subjects of popular stereotypes, whether it is the notion that Ijebus are stingy or that the Igbos have an excessive love for money or that the Fulanis are cunning and more recently, violent or that the Ebiras and the Ikas are practitioners of seasoned witchcraft.
These stereotypes are of course, by the very nature of stereotypes, wild generalisations that are unlikely to hold up were an empirical test conducted. But they are the narratives people have woven about other tribes and people of other religions.
Sometimes, these stories are repeated so many times that they are soon accepted as facts. And when we accept these stories as facts about other people’s religions that we have never met or interacted with, they shape our judgements about them, even before they have spoken.
In other words, we prejudge them – this is the nature and power of prejudice. This is how entrenched biases and prejudices come to be and become established.
However, when ethnic or religious prejudices are weaponised for political purposes, we are confronted with a lethal potentially destructive situation.
Elections by their very nature, tend to be divisive affairs. Partisan democratic competition compels us to align ourselves with the camps that most reflect our ideals and aspirations. In a diverse society such as ours, democratic competition is intensified by the sociocultural cleavages that exist in society. This is true of any heterogenous society or democracy.
Elections by their very nature, tend to be divisive affairs. Partisan democratic competition compels us to align ourselves with the camps that most reflect our ideals and aspirations. In a diverse society such as ours, democratic competition is intensified by the sociocultural cleavages that exist in society. This is true of any heterogenous society or democracy.
In an election cycle in which the major contenders come from different ethnic-regional classes or zones, there was always a sense that the competition was going to be particularly intense. But at the same time, it would not be accurate to reduce the election to an ethnic census.
As we saw, the contenders performed strongly in parts of the country other than their natal regions. Unfortunately, one of the unsavoury tendencies that were witnessed in this election cycle was the weaponization of ethnic, religious and sectional prejudices in ways that are damaging to social cohesion.
Religion was quite clearly made an issue, and in some parts of the country, political biases are introduced even between denominations of the same religion.
In some cases, ethnic profiling took place at polling booths. A popular female food blogger and YouTuber called Sisi Yemi, a Yoruba woman took to her verified Twitter handle to say “My husband and I were not allowed to vote, they said we look like Igbo people. I can’t believe this!”
Almost without fail in every election cycle, politicians have forcefully, either overtly or covertly, sought to persuade voters that voting for their particular party or candidate is the will of God and that voting for the opposing party was a violation of that divine will. Repeatedly, we hear of prophets who support political parties one way or the other.
This is a matter of great concern because long after an election is over, and long after the leading contenders have sheathed their swords, the rhetoric, the words and the means used to compete can have adverse long-term effects on society.
Where the forces of primordial division and polarization are harnessed for the sake of electoral gain, the venom of such devices remains and continues to poison communal relations setting neighbours against neighbours.
We have witnessed the catastrophic consequences of the political weaponization of prejudice in places such as Rwanda. No one could have believed that in a small country with two ethnic groups – the Hutus and the Tutsis who speak the same language, ethnic sentiments would be exploited to the extent that it set both groups against each other and led to the Rwandan genocide in which nearly 1 million people died.
In that conflict, people who had lived together side by side for decades were set upon by their own neighbours and murdered in a gruesome fashion.
Even in our own history as a people, there are ample milestones that serve as a warning against indulging in bigotry and prejudice. Some of the political rhetoric that we have heard in the course of this election cycle have been disturbing because they recalled similar rhetoric used by politicians during some of the darkest chapters of our country’s existence.
During the First Republic, the exploitation of prejudice and the incitement of hatred against ethnic communities led to the collapse of that democratic dispensation, bloody pogroms, and a civil war that cost in excess of two million lives.
We talk about the civil war, but we seem to ignore the fact that it is the manipulation of ethnoreligious sentiment that eventually boiled over into that tragedy. The demons released by that bloody conflict among brothers are yet to be fully caged and we pay the price of that healing process every day.
This is not a chapter of our history that we should ever allow to repeat itself. The Rwandese took deliberate steps to ensure that the tragedy would never be repeated, including even a memorial to the dead. But more importantly, the strict enforcement of laws against the use of ethnically or religiously charged rhetoric, and a raft of laws that criminalize divisive attitudes and behaviour.
We also must do the hard work of providing and implementing a framework for fair, just and unifying dealings amongst our people. We must create a framework that enables us to enforce strictly the laws against the use of divisive rhetoric, and ethnic and religious bigoted rhetoric.
Let me be clear, people do not suddenly start hating each other during elections. While political actors may invoke ethnic or sectional sentiments in an election, these social and cultural antipathies already exist, lurking beneath the surface. As we reflect on the takeaways from the last election cycle going forward, we must also consider the prevalence of ethnic profiling and other forms of day-to-day discrimination that occur.
We must consider the various forms of bigotry and prejudice that are not only present in our politics but transmitted and effectively mainstreamed by the media and other social forces. The association of whole ethnic communities with certain types of criminality which amounts to the wholesale criminalization of an identity and the habit of tarring groups with the misdeeds of individuals are deeply problematic. If we normalize these attitudes and habits, it should not surprise us that they come to the fore during a heated electoral campaign.
Just for emphasis, when individuals, no matter how many they may be, do certain things, it is so easy for us to simply criminalize an entire tribe of people because of the actions of a few. We have done this sort of profiling of a few people in so many ways, such that when you ask someone, “who is doing this?”, the response would be, “it is people of this tribe.” But the vast majority of the people of that tribe do not even know that such a thing exists. This kind of ethnic profiling is dangerous and has to be contained.
It has been contained in other places and I am sure that part of the policies I hope we would develop from here will be studying these other societies that have been able to contain ethnic profiling in a way that is destructive in our societies.
But believe it or not, Nigeria is changing; there are no longer any ethnically homogenous enclaves in Nigeria. As our own nation has evolved, one of the most discernible changes that we have witnessed is the disappearance of ethnically homogenous spaces.
Everywhere across this country, people from diverse ethnic and religious backgrounds are schooling together, doing business together, co-mingling, inter-marrying and raising families. Our much-talked-about linguistic diversity is not a barrier as many Nigerians are multilingual.
Increasingly, we see that the heart and face of the new Nigeria is socio-culturally hybrid, appreciative of the cultural diversity of our society, attuned to his culture but also blessed with an inclusive, cosmopolitan outlook. For many of these Nigerians, young Nigerians in particular, their ethnic and national identities are not in contradiction.
For young Nigerians who belong to the most globalized generation in their country’s history, this is especially true. Their friendships, their education, and their lived experiences have brought them into contact with the febrile variety of identities and cultures in their society and on this planet. We see their multicultural outlook in their social networks, their entrepreneurial partnerships and their political activism which transcend the old primordial allegiances.
We saw a lot of that in the politics of this past election cycle, a lot of young people simply chose how they wanted to vote and many of them disregarded old primordial allegiances and in many cases, tribe.
It is not only intentional migration that is diversifying our communities. Over the past three decades, conflicts and climatological events including floods and droughts, have displaced large populations of our people, driving them from their homesteads in search of survival and safety.
As they take refuge in safer communities, they plant roots there and make those places their new homes. This is one of the engines of change that has been transforming our communities and neighbourhoods. And there is nothing wrong with this – this is how nations evolve. All Nigerians are guaranteed the right to freedom of movement by the Constitution.
However, as human societies have evolved, there was a realization that prosperity and progress lay in widening the circle of inclusion and broadening our definitions of sameness. Tribes have given way to nations and along with these, new forms of sociopolitical organization, and more expansive interpretations of kinship have emerged.
Common citizenship based on a cosmopolitan worldview has become the standard for societies across the world. Discrimination against people on the basis of their identity is explicitly condemned by most legal codes including our own Constitution.
But there is still a tension that exists between this new Nigeria and the old Nigeria as understood by a generation that is much more accustomed to political mobilization on the basis of identity. But we must ennoble and validate the Nigeria that our young people are consciously or sometimes even unconsciously building.
This is the future we want. But as human beings, it is natural to react to changes in our environment with some degree of anxiety. For many Nigerians, as we witness our communities become more diverse and more complex, there are natural concerns about what it means for our homes and societies. These elections witnessed the exploitation by political actors of the fears and anxieties of people about so-called outsiders. Any attempts to deny people the right to vote in any locality on the basis that they do not belong in that place is condemnable in the strongest terms.
Social integration is one of the highest ideals of our Constitution which guarantees every citizen the right to traverse the length and breadth of this country without hindrance and to settle in any place of his choice.
It affirms the right of all Nigerians not to be discriminated against on the basis of their identity. Above all, it holds up integration as a priority. The framers of our Constitution did not intend to create an apartheid system that distinguishes between natives and settlers nor did they create one. They sought to create a Civic Nation.
So is it possible to conquer ethnic or religious prejudice and build a unified nation? Yes, it is but it is a journey, not an event. And it is perhaps the most important issue in nation-building.
Indeed as humanity sought to build a more durable, just and sustainable civilization, we learned that our natural prejudices and allied irredentist urges have to be disciplined, and sublimated in a mutuality-rooted shared humanity. Some of the disciplines come by the force of the law and we simply have to discipline our natural urges.
There is a recognition that sociocultural diversity while being a fact of life is neither a weapon nor a weakness. And the most prosperous places are countries that have learned to harness diversity while building ever more inclusive institutions. Singapore and Tanzania are countries that have gone far in conquering prejudice.
In Singapore, the Statesman, Lee Kuan Yew promoted policies aimed at establishing social cohesion in a racially and ethnically heterogeneous nation. Among such initiatives was the Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP) which sought to prevent the formation of ethnic enclaves and to promote the integration of minority groups.
It specified the proportion of flats that could be owned by the various ethnic groups. This created a more balanced ethnic mix in the various housing estates built in Singapore.
Singapore made English the official language and established legislative and policy safeguards to guarantee the rights of minorities and to ensure that the government does not pass laws that overtly or covertly discriminate against any race or religion. Lee Kuan Yew’s government also entrenched meritocracy as its dominant public philosophy.
In a 2019 Gallup World Poll, Singapore was ranked top out of 124 countries for tolerance of ethnic minorities, and 95 per cent of respondents stated that for racial and ethnic minorities, Singapore was “a good place to live”. This was higher than the global average of about 70 per cent.
Tanzania is another example of a country that has been able to effectively manage its diversity. Its founding president Julius Nyerere wanted to avoid the tribal prejudice that had plagued other African countries. He implemented three measures; he promoted an overarching national identity by establishing Kiswahili as the national language. Secondly, he promoted a pan-Tanzanian history which he introduced into the primary school curriculum which taught children to see themselves as first and foremost Tanzanians. In doing this, he was not attempting to erase ethnic identities but to ensure that ethnic prejudice did not blossom.
He achieved his aim of making Tanzanian citizenship the primary way in which Tanzanians saw and identified themselves. Nyerere was also a sincere preacher of national unity and coexistence.
I believe that Nigeria is neither unique nor exceptional on account of its diversity. The genre of scholarship and public polemic that problematizes our country’s profusion of ethnicities and religions and characterizes it as a profound flaw is one with which I differ strongly.
Our diversity is neither a liability nor a curse; it is, in fact, a blessing and an asset. Diversity deepens the pool of sociocultural capital available to us; we are enriched by the frothy ferment of the vast multiplicity of perspectives which provide us with a treasury of tools for growth and progress.
As I have long maintained, in Nigeria what is at issue is not and has never been our diversity but our capacity to manage it with a sense of fairness, equity and justice. There is no denying that diversity can be a harbinger of friction. It is natural. As different groups from various backgrounds and with different worldviews mingle, their interaction is characterized by a degree of tension and even conflict. All diverse nations find their unique ways of managing the tensions which inevitably arise from the co-mingling of an assortment of peoples.
Let me add that inclusion is essential to prosperity. As we go forward, this is another reason why divisive politics is completely counterproductive. Over the past five decades, we have sustained a political economy in which our crude oil wealth extracted at considerable cost to the Niger Delta, has been the fuel of the economic and administrative life of our country. In recent years, it has become clear that we are now entering a post-oil age. Our developmental and growth aspirations cannot be centred around the distribution of rents from oil.
We have realized what the advanced economies have long recognized. In the 21st century, the true wealth of nations is human capital. This means that places that have learned to attract and retain the most diverse pool of skilled human resources are easily winning the race for success.
Diversity means a multiplicity of perspectives and worldviews, but this also provides a broad range of cultural, philosophical and intellectual approaches to solving problems.
In this rich soil, nourished by various ideas and schools of thought, productive synthesis is possible and innovation flourishes. Thus, the world’s richest nations are those places that have learned how to attract talent from various places and harness diversity as a driver of growth.
In Nigeria, this will also increasingly be the case. A state’s chances of growth will depend upon how much qualitative capital it can attract and the richer the human capital pool at its disposal, the more taxes it can harvest to fund governance and social services.
In this scenario, the politics of division and tribalism will breed poverty because it can only alienate the human capital that a state desperately needs for growth. It would be counterproductive and destabilizing to exclude Nigerians from the political life of their communities on the basis of where they come from while simultaneously expecting and requiring them to pay taxes. Taxation without representation is a recipe for instability. These are some of the issues that should focus on our commitments.
Affirming the right of Nigerians to be free of all forms of discrimination is not just a moral idea. If we are truly committed to economic growth then we must also be committed to creating inclusive communities and strengthening social cohesion.
Put another way, the only thing that grows in a climate of tribal hatred is poverty. This is why justice, healing and a stronger commitment to the ideals of integration are so important.
Let me briefly return to the issue of Elite Responsibility. Leadership today and Nigerian leadership do not have the luxury of toying with prejudice.
The leadership elite, and not just the political elite, but I also refer to the religious and business elite, have a duty to conduct themselves with a high sense of responsibility even as we prosecute our contest for power. Historically conscious and patriotic elites all over the world recognize that, beyond what the letter of the law asserts, there are lines that must be crossed in the pursuit of political power especially in fragile societies and democracies such as ours.
One of such lines is the willful exploitation of sectional sentiments and the invocation of ethnic antipathies to mobilize a political constituency. It is dangerous because it is an attempt that seeks to mobilize by fostering division and hatred.
When elites fail to compete responsibly and moderately, they foster a sense that “everything goes” which breeds instability. We have seen this dynamic play out time and time again in our history. A model of competition that recognizes no ethical limits or boundaries is a threat to our democracy and the well-being of our country.
It is incumbent upon politicians to act and conduct their competition responsibly. In all the countries that have been relatively successful in the journey to overcoming prejudice, such as the examples of Singapore, Tanzania and Rwanda that we cited above, responsible leadership has been critical. The elites of those three countries recognized that cohesion and peaceful coexistence have to be intentionally prioritized and pursued.
This is the challenge of leadership in our country today. Elites have a responsibility to discipline themselves in the pursuit of their political ambitions and their exercise of power to ensure that the fabric of our communities is not rent asunder. We must recognize that if peaceful coexistence is sacrificed on the altar of partisan politics, then all will be lost.
We have spoken about the need for politicians to act responsibly. That burden is also on what is called the third sector, civil society including and perhaps especially, the media. The media has a twofold responsibility. As an institution that is uniquely influential in shaping public perceptions and attitudes, it has to be extremely mindful of what sort of narratives it is projecting and how it frames disputes, especially in our multicultural and heterogenous contexts.
There are a number of measures that we must consider as we attempt to chart a way forward. First, justice is necessary. Where crimes have been committed, they must be stridently prosecuted. We know that political actors for example, before the elections, signed a peace accord on the eve of the elections under the auspices of the National Peace Committee. One point of action is for us to assess the extent to which the actors complied with the undertakings to which they freely committed during the signing of that pact.
More broadly, the government has a responsibility to resolutely affirm the rights of all Nigerians to pursue their lawful business and be free from discrimination wherever they live in their country and to repudiate the idea that there is a hierarchy in which some Nigerians are second-class citizens.
There is absolutely nothing in our Constitution that supports the idea that Nigerians are barred from participating in public life or seeking political office because they allegedly do not belong in such places. And we must reject any hint of this precisely because Nigerians are everywhere across this nation.
The people that are most discriminated against in our nation are those that are referred to as “non-indigenes” wherever they may live in our country. And yet many of us are non-indigenes in some way or the other.
It makes no sense to exclude so many Nigerians from the public life of the communities in which they reside and to which they are contributing.
Incidentally, from the earliest days of the republic, Nigerians of various ethnic extractions have sought and won political office outside their natal regions. The first Mayor of the Enugu Municipal Council was Umaru Altine, a Fulani cattle dealer who held the position between 1952 and 1958. We have since had similar examples in our democratic practice. So we must dismiss the idea that these things are impossible.
Let me conclude with another personal story.
On the 16th of July 2022, I went in for surgery on my right femur at a hospital in Lagos. As I lay on the operating bed and was about to be anaesthetised, full anaesthesia which made me unconscious for the three hours it took for the surgery, a thought crossed my mind that I would be absolutely at the mercy of the surgeons, the paramedics and anesthesiologist, who surrounded the expert.
I had to trust them with my life. One was from the North, some from the Southeast, the head of the team was from Delta, some were Muslims, and some were Christians. In fact, I suspect one that I spoke to later, did not even believe in God. Yet it didn’t seem to matter because they were the experts.
When we make the decisions that affect our lives and those of our children the most, somehow we are able to ignore tribal or religious prejudices. The pilots who fly our planes, the teachers who teach our children in school, the soldiers and other law enforcement agents who put their lives on the line for our safety every day, the members of our national football team, we don’t care were they are from so long as they can perform.
This is the attitude we must adopt always to build the nation of our dreams. Mobilizing the people of a country as complex and heterogeneous as ours under the banner of a common purpose was never going to be an easy task, but this is not to say that it is impossible.
Let us never forget that although we may speak different languages, belong to different tribes and profess diverse creeds, we are bound above all else by the language of shared hope, by our common humanity as Nigerians and supreme faith in the possibility of our country.
INAUGURAL LECTURE DELIVERED BY HIS EXCELLENCY, PROF. YEMI OSINBAJO, SAN, GCON, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA AT THE MAIDEN EDITION OF THE POLICY MAKING AND GOOD GOVERNANCE LECTURE SERIES OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF POLICY AND STRATEGIC STUDIES (NIPSS), TITLED “CREATING A HOMELAND FOR ALL: NATION-BUILDING IN A DIVERSE DEMOCRACY” IN KURU, PLATEAU STATE, ON THE 17TH OF APRIL, 2023
