A teething problem within Nigeria’s social fabric is evolving into a critical sore point with multifaceted implications. On one hand, it defines the country and its diverse population, reflecting the rich tapestry of cultures, languages, and traditions that coexist within its borders. Conversely, it casts a troubling light on the failures and shortcomings of the country’s leadership in effectively managing this diversity. 

This teething issue, which has escalated from a mere challenge of birth to a pressing societal concern, is currently debilitating for every segment of the population. If this situation is not addressed with a comprehensive and sustainable solution, the ramifications could be profoundly destructive, leading to further divisions and unrest that might ultimately devastate the country and its people. The crux of the matter lies in the intricate presence of diversity in Nigeria and the often inadequate approaches taken towards its management, which have far-reaching implications for national cohesion and progress.

General educational books on history, politics, and even cultural anthropology and ethnography agree in portraying Nigeria as a country with numerous cultures, languages, and subgroups, totalling over 200 or even 300, depending on the text you are reading or the teacher you are listening to. Since its formation with the amalgamation of 1914, through its independence from British rule in 1960, its transformation into a republic in 1963, and its official shift to a unitary system in 1966, followed by a significant return to a federal system in 1970, the country has been grappling with the challenge of managing its diversity up until 2025. 

In the present day, the daily chronicles reported by newspapers, alongside the myriad of commentaries circulating within the vast expanse of cyberspace, vividly illustrate a nation composed of individuals striving to coexist amid an atmosphere thick with mutual mistrust. This pervasive sentiment often leads to interactions that are not only strained but, at times, erupt into violent and barbaric confrontations, leaving a trail of discontent and suffering in their wake.

The consequences and manifestations of these ongoing struggles, characterised by deep-seated mutual suspicion, are alarmingly evident in extreme instances of violence, including homicides that shock the conscience. Moreover, there are also subtler yet equally destructive attitudes towards addressing social issues leading to intellectual and societal degradation, such as the widely practised error of viewing matters through the divisive lenses of ethnicity and, regrettably, religion.

We must clarify two fundamental points regarding this situation. Firstly, I firmly believe that the challenge of diversity management is essentially a teething issue. This notion arises from the understanding that handling diversity is a complex challenge intrinsic to any human collective, regardless of its nature, be it within the confines of a school, the corporate environment of a company, the dynamics of a club, or even the intimate relationships found within marriages. Each of these settings encounters unique challenges in promoting genuine coexistence and understanding among diverse groups. 

Secondly, it is crucial to note that the failure to manage this inevitable challenge has allowed what could have been a temporary physiological imperfection to fester and evolve into a debilitating sore that undermines social cohesion. At the heart of this failure lies a fundamental flaw in leadership. Leaders are tasked with guiding their communities towards cohesion for peace, progress, and prosperity. When they falter or avoid tackling the complexities of diversity, they inadvertently exacerbate the divide. Thus, to move forward, we must reflect on the nature of our leadership and its impact on our collective journey towards a more harmonious coexistence.

Most of the leading Founding Fathers of the Republic recognised the necessity of managing diversity while pursuing development and progress. They opted for a robust regional system of governance that allowed regions to develop at their own pace and compete with one another for the accolade of being the most developed region. In this context, people from various regions had the opportunity to grow within and contribute to the advancement of their regions or explore other regions for personal fulfilment. This changed in 1966.

The revolutionaries who arrived in khakis with guns instead of words and ideas believed that diversity should be abolished and that the various groups of people within the Nigerian context ought to be transformed into Nigerians by decree.

That idea and experiment failed woefully; however, it has left a lasting set of debilitating legacies from which the country still suffers. One of such legacies is the tendency of politicians in Nigeria to present themselves as detribalised.

There are three fundamentally wrong aspects of the expression “detribalised.” First, it is one of the ugliest words in the English language, which might be merely a semantic concern to some but a major one to me. Second, at a more substantial level, and one that is particularly vexatious, is the fact that the same politicians who vie for positions do so using ethnic factors disguised as zoning and rotation. The third point is that, in reality, only a foreigner or a fool can be entirely free from the ethnic background turned baggage in Nigeria. 

In dealing with this background-turned-baggage, rather than demonstrate leadership and set the pace, Nigerian politicians chose the short, inglorious, and unproductive path of using the peoples diversity to divide in pursuit of their self-serving ambitions and quest for power. They persist in playing the identity card over and to the detriment of merit, tangible deliverables, and sound governance. Nigerian politicians argue and even insist that a team must include nominees from all parts of the country to form a Nigerian team.

When a leader does not include someone from their ethnic group, you see them denounce the leader as a nepotist and tribalist, only for the same people to be silent when their group benefits from an imbalance in nominations. Mind you, the noise about imbalance is never about policies; it is always about power. To compound matters, they have also introduced the issue of religion into an already delicate balance. 

In an involutionary move, politicians succeed in turning religion into a tool for discrimination, selection, and exclusion in matters of state appointments and services, as if the price of petrol, food, electricity, or the quality of roads would be different depending on whether a person belongs to one faith or another. Once in power, these same politicians who got into power using the ethnic and religious door then enter the room to preach one Nigeria and tell people to abandon their differences and embrace their Nigerianess. I am not sure the tragicomic element of the scenario is lost on politicians, but I am worried it is entirely lost on most of the citizens who blindly follow or move against politicians based on ethnicity or religion. 

Empirical data show us that it is time to pursue a new Nigerian identity that is based on a clear understanding of reality, undergoes rigorous analysis, and results in Nigeria becoming a union of nations. 
Kila is a Jean Monnet Professor of Strategy and Development at the Commonwealth Institute of Advanced and Professional Studies. He can be reached via: @anthonykila