The Minority Question and Democracy in Africa: Nigeria as Case Study

The Minority Question and Democracy in Africa: Nigeria as Case Study

Owoyemi Deborah Oluwasola, Olagunju Ayomide Ezekiel

Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Arts, Ekiti State University, Ado-Ekiti, Ekiti State

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.906000387

Received: 22 June 2025; Accepted: 26 June 2025; Published: 19 July 2025

ABSTRACT

The pursuit of democracy in postcolonial Africa, particularly in Nigeria, has been riddled with profound contradictions and failures, especially concerning the political recognition of minority groups. This paper critically examines the minority question in Nigeria, arguing that the failure of Nigerian democracy to meaningfully integrate ethno-cultural diversity reflects a broader crisis of governance in Africa’s democratization journey. Tracing the historical evolution of democratic ideals and the structures inherited from colonialism, this paper underscores the persistent marginalization of minority groups, arguing that despite the formal establishment of democratic institutions, the political system remains entrenched in majoritarianism, corruption, and elite dominance. Drawing on Chinua Achebe’s critique of postcolonial leadership, this paper highlights how democratic processes in Nigeria remain disconnected from the realities of marginalized communities, reinforcing patterns of exclusion. The paper concludes by advocating for a decolonial re-imagining of democracy, one that addresses the historical injustices faced by minorities and fosters a more inclusive, pluralist political order.

Keywords: Democratic Failure, Postcolonial Governance, Minority Exclusion, Nigeria.

INTRODUCTION

The minority question in Africa is not merely a demographic or political concern; it is a fundamental philosophical challenge to the legitimacy, structure, and ethical foundation of the postcolonial state. In Nigeria, this challenge takes on a paradigmatic character. Since independence, successive democratic regimes have failed to reconcile the deep pluralism of the polity with the imperatives of equality, autonomy, and political recognition. The result is a structurally embedded politics of exclusion, in which minority identities are subordinated to dominant regional, religious, and ethnic coalitions that present themselves as national consensus.

The term “minority question” in this context refers not only to the numerical under-representation of specific ethno-cultural groups, but more critically, to their ontological invisibility and systemic marginalization within a state framework shaped by colonial modernity. Nigeria thus serves as a case study of how postcolonial African democracies, under the guise of liberal constitutionalism, reproduce structures of domination and exclusion.

This paper contends that Nigeria’s democratic experience reflects a broader crisis within Africa’s democratization journey: namely, the transplantation of Western liberal-democratic models onto fractured and historically unequal societies. Drawing on critical political theory, African philosophy and postcolonial thought, the analysis interrogates the philosophical foundations of a democracy that is procedurally functional yet substantively exclusionary. At its core, this study asks: Can democracy in Africa be reconstituted from the ground up, as a politics of recognition and pluralism, rather than remain a procedural construct shaped by elite interests and colonial inheritance?

This paper is primarily conceptual and philosophical in nature. It draws on history, political theory, and postcolonial critique to examine the structural exclusion of minorities in Nigeria’s democratic trajectory. Its methodology is normative and interpretive, not empirical. This is a conscious choice: the aim is to interrogate the underlying assumptions of Nigeria’s political order and to provoke a theoretical reimagining of what democracy ought to mean in deeply plural societies. Nonetheless, future research could build on this foundation by conducting comparative case studies, community-based participatory research, or data-driven analyses of minority political participation, representation, and access to justice. By acknowledging these limits, the paper situates itself clearly within the tradition of critical African political thought, while inviting interdisciplinary collaboration and empirical expansion.

Historical Construction Of The Minority Question In Nigeria

The minority question in Nigeria is deeply embedded in the colonial governance structures imposed by the British from the late 19th century onward. The policy of indirect rule, which became the cornerstone of British administration after the early 1900s, governed Nigeria’s vast and diverse populations through local traditional authorities. This governance system did not merely accommodate existing identities but actively reified ethnic divisions, transforming fluid cultural communities into politically significant categories. As Edward Said (1978) observed in Orientalism, colonial regimes constructed fixed identities to maintain control over colonized societies. In Nigeria, this process produced an artificial hierarchy that privileged dominant ethnic groups, especially in the Northern, Western, and Eastern Regions, while marginalizing smaller ethnic minorities.

The formal division of Nigeria into three major regions (the Northern, Western, and Eastern Regions) during the 1950s entrenched majoritarian political control and systematically sidelined minority groups without a defined regional base. The 1954 Lyttleton Constitution devolved substantial powers to these regions, reinforcing ethnic territoriality and exclusion. Minority communities, dispersed across these regions, faced political vulnerability both regionally and federally.

Recognizing growing minority discontent, the British government established the Willink Commission in 1958 to investigate these concerns. The Commission acknowledged that:

The fears of minorities are real and should not be dismissed… yet constitutional mechanisms alone may not suffice to ensure their protection (Willink Commission, 1958).

This statement reveals the paradox of Nigeria’s constitutional architecture: formal mechanisms promised inclusion but lacked effective enforcement or political commitment to minority protection.

At independence in 1960, Nigeria adopted a federal constitution designed to balance ethnic diversity and national unity. However, in practice, federalism became a tool for major ethnic groups to consolidate power rather than to empower minorities. Subsequent constitutional developments, including the 1963 Republican Constitution and the state creation exercises of the 1960s and 1970s, sought to manage ethnic tensions but often resulted in top-down, elite-driven reforms that failed to address the structural causes of minority exclusion.

Thus, the “majority–minority” binary in Nigeria is not a natural or sociological fact but a historically constructed and politically institutionalized division. This legacy of exclusion, inherited from colonial rule and reinforced by postcolonial state-building, underpins Nigeria’s persistent democratic challenges.

This historical reflection prompts a critical philosophical question that guides the paper’s inquiry: What does it mean to pursue democratic inclusion in a state whose very foundation was built on political exclusion? Addressing this question is crucial for understanding why formal democratic institutions alone have not resolved the minority question in Nigeria, and why new models of political recognition and inclusion are necessary.

Theoretical Perspectives: Democracy, Recognition, And Political Inclusion

The exclusion of minority groups in Nigeria cannot be understood solely through historical or legal analysis. It requires a deeper engagement with the philosophical structures that underpin democratic governance, identity, and justice. This section draws on three theoretical strands: (1) liberal democracy and its limitations, (2) recognition theory, and (3) postcolonial critiques to critically examine the normative failures of democracy in plural postcolonial societies like Nigeria.

Liberal Democracy and Its Limits

Liberal democracy, premised on majority rule and equal citizenship, often assumes a culturally homogeneous society bound by shared civic values. In deeply pluralistic contexts, however, this assumption breaks down. Arend Lijphart (1977) warns that in divided societies, majority rule risks becoming a vehicle for permanent domination, not democratic fairness. Nigeria illustrates this clearly: electoral politics and institutional design often favor dominant ethnic and religious blocs, reducing minority voices to symbolic participants.

While Nigeria formally adopted a federal system to manage diversity, its democratic institutions remain overly centralized. The “federal character” principle in the 1979 and 1999 Constitutions was intended to prevent regional domination by mandating inclusive representation in federal appointments. In practice, however, it has evolved into a bureaucratic quota system that satisfies appearances rather than ensuring actual power-sharing or minority empowerment. As Osaghae argues:

Federalism in Nigeria has not been a genuine instrument of autonomy but a strategy of elite consolidation at the center (Osaghae, 1998).

John Rawls’s (1993) idea of “overlapping consensus”, where citizens with diverse worldviews agree on political principles of justice, remains elusive in Nigeria. The failure to generate a sense of shared national identity makes liberal democratic procedures fragile and often manipulated. In many cases, elections serve more to entrench ethnic allegiances and elite patronage than to mediate political disagreement.

Recognition Theory and the Demand for Inclusion

Recognition theory shifts the question of justice from distribution alone to the normative status of individuals and groups in a political community. For Axel Honneth (1995), recognition is foundational to self-respect and political agency. Where groups are denied visibility, respect, or participation, social pathologies, such as alienation, resentment, and political disengagement, emerge. This is particularly relevant to Nigeria’s ethnic minorities, who often experience both material deprivation and symbolic erasure.

The Niger Delta’s decades-long struggle for resource control, for example, is not just about economic justice but about political recognition. Activists consistently argue that the region’s contributions to national wealth have not translated into political visibility or self-determination. In a widely cited communiqué, the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) emphasized this point starkly:

We are not part of the Nigerian state except when our oil is needed (Rand, 2007).This declaration sharply captures how oil revenue justifies the region’s extraction without fostering inclusion; highlighting the persistent exclusion of minority stakeholders from decision-making and recognition within the formal state structure.

Nancy Fraser (2000) distinguishes between affirmative recognition such as token inclusion or symbolic appointments and transformative recognition, which restructures political relations. In Nigeria, affirmative strategies like creating additional states or local governments for minorities often serve short-term goals, but they do not challenge the systemic biases that exclude minority narratives from national discourse. A truly transformative approach would require decentralization of power, legal pluralism, and mechanisms for deliberative participation that reflect minority epistemologies and political visions.

Postcolonial Critiques: State Power and Democratic Illusion

Postcolonial theorists provide a broader critique of how power operates in African states, especially in the wake of colonial rule. Frantz Fanon (1963) warned that without a radical break from colonial structures, newly independent African states would reproduce systems of control, this time under local elites. He described the national bourgeoisie as “a class which has no mission,” more interested in preserving colonial privilege than in transforming society.

In Nigeria, this is manifested in how political elites use ethnicity not to empower their communities but to consolidate personal power. Ethnicity becomes a tool of clientelism rather than solidarity. Achille Mbembe (2001) uses the term “commandement” to describe how postcolonial states operate through a mixture of symbolic authority, bureaucratic opacity, and coercion. This helps explain why Nigeria’s democracy remains simultaneously procedural and authoritarian; elections occur regularly, but democratic life remains shallow and exclusionary.

Mbembe’s later work on “necropolitics”, the power to decide who may live and who must die, is also revealing. In the Middle Belt, for example, repeated cycles of ethnic and religious violence have met with state inaction, a silence that communicates whose lives are politically grievable and whose are not. The minority question here is not only one of marginalization but of existential precarity.

These theoretical frameworks converge on a shared insight: Nigeria’s democracy, like many in Africa, suffers not just from institutional weakness but from foundational contradictions. Liberal models assume unity where deep diversity exists. Recognition is promised but rarely realized. And postcolonial state power often suppresses rather than includes. A just democratic order in Nigeria must begin with this philosophical reckoning. It must ask: Who counts as part of the “people” in a democracy, and under what conditions can that inclusion be made real?

Nigeria as a Philosophical Case Study Of Democratic Exclusion

Nigeria’s democratic experience offers a profound case study of the tensions between formal democratic institutions and substantive political inclusion, particularly regarding minority groups. Despite the establishment of electoral processes and constitutional frameworks, Nigeria’s democracy has consistently failed to reconcile ethno-cultural diversity with meaningful political participation, resulting in persistent exclusion and conflict.

One of the most salient examples is the Niger Delta, a region rich in oil resources but marked by severe environmental degradation, poverty, and political marginalization. Local communities, predominantly ethnic minorities, have been systematically excluded from the benefits of Nigeria’s vast oil wealth. This exclusion contradicts democratic principles of equality and justice. Chinua Achebe (1983) famously argued in The Trouble with Nigeria that “The trouble with Nigeria is simply and squarely a failure of leadership,” reflecting how elite corruption and neglect disconnect democratic rhetoric from the realities of marginalized peoples. The Niger Delta crisis thus illustrates how resource politics, combined with state neglect, transforms democracy into a mechanism of exclusion rather than inclusion.

Similarly, the Middle Belt region exemplifies the complex intersection of ethnicity and religion, where minority groups suffer political marginalization alongside recurrent violence. The persistent clashes, including ethno-religious conflicts and land disputes, highlight the failure of Nigerian federalism to accommodate plural identities. A recent report by the International Crisis Group (2023) estimates that thousands have died in violent conflicts within the Middle Belt over the past decade, underscoring the human cost of political exclusion. The centralization of power in Abuja privileges majority groups, leaving minorities vulnerable and voiceless. This points to a systemic weakness where formal democratic structures mask deeper social fractures.

The unresolved Igbo question offers another poignant example. The Biafran War (1967–1970), ignited by demands for secession amidst perceived ethnic marginalization, remains a lingering trauma in Nigeria’s democratic history. The Igbo continue to experience political sidelining, as highlighted by Mbembe’s postcolonial critique that:

The African state is a colonial invention that continues to produce exclusion and violence” (Mbembe, 2001).

This insight reflects how state legitimacy is compromised when political identity and power are imposed without inclusive dialogue or recognition of minority claims.

Data from Nigeria’s 2023 general elections highlight patterns of disenfranchisement in minority-dominated areas. According to reports by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC, 2023), states such as Benue, Plateau, and Bayelsa recorded both lower voter turnout and higher incidents of electoral violence, particularly in rural constituencies with ethnically diverse populations. These dynamics are compounded by under-representation in the federal executive. Despite their economic significance, e.g., the Niger Delta accounting for more than 75% of Nigeria’s export revenues, many of these regions continue to be politically marginalized in appointments to security agencies, revenue boards, and strategic ministries (BudgIT, 2023). Moreover, the rise of vote-buying, as documented by the Centre for Democracy and Development (CDD, 2023), further distorts the democratic process, disproportionately affecting poorer, minority communities where political awareness is often suppressed by patronage politics. These contemporary trends affirm the paper’s core argument: that formal democracy in Nigeria continues to operate in ways that structurally exclude minorities from real influence.

Institutionally, Nigeria’s federalism largely exists in theory rather than practice. Power remains heavily centralized, undermining the autonomy of minority-dominated regions. Electoral processes, though regular, are frequently tainted by violence, vote-rigging and recently the introduction of vote-buying, further eroding democratic trust. For example, Transparency International’s 2022 report ranked Nigeria low on electoral integrity, citing repeated instances where political elites manipulated outcomes to maintain dominance.

Together, these realities expose a critical philosophical insight: democratic procedures alone cannot ensure justice or inclusion in deeply plural societies. Nigeria’s experience reveals the limits of a procedural democracy that divorces elections and institutions from substantive recognition and fair resource distribution. This calls for a redefinition of democracy as a political project deeply committed to recognizing marginalized groups and fostering genuine pluralism.

While Nigeria presents a complex and compelling case of democratic exclusion, it is not unique. Across the African continent, multiethnic states struggle to balance national unity with the political recognition of minority groups. Ethiopia, for instance, adopted a system of ethnic federalism, granting significant autonomy to regional ethnic states. Although intended to foster inclusion, the model has produced new tensions, as seen in the Tigray conflict and the broader crisis of state cohesion. Cameroon faces a different configuration: its Anglophone minority has been locked in a protracted conflict with a Francophone-dominated central government that resists decentralization and power-sharing. Meanwhile, South Africa offers a contrasting model, where the 1996 post-apartheid Constitution explicitly protects cultural and linguistic minorities through institutions like the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities.

Each of these cases underscores a common dilemma: how can postcolonial African states build democratic systems that are both inclusive and unified, without reverting to centralization or ethnic authoritarianism? Briefly situating Nigeria within this broader pattern enriches the analysis by demonstrating that the minority question is not merely national but continental in scope.

Rethinking Democracy In Africa: A Pluralist And Decolonial Framework

Nigeria’s democratic challenges, symptomatic of broader African experiences, demand a fundamental rethinking of democratic theory and practice. The failures of procedural democracy to accommodate ethno-cultural diversity reveal the necessity of moving beyond mere elections and formal institutions toward a model centered on substantive inclusion, rooted in recognition, representation, and redistribution.

Liberal democracy’s emphasis on individual rights and majoritarian rule, while foundational in Western political thought, proves inadequate in contexts marked by deep pluralism and historical injustice. As Nancy Fraser (2000) argues, justice in diverse societies requires a “participatory parity” that goes beyond legal equality to ensure all groups have equal access to political and economic power. Axel Honneth’s theory of recognition further highlights that political exclusion inflicts social and psychological harm, undermining democratic legitimacy. For African states like Nigeria, this implies that democracy must actively recognize minority identities, ensuring they possess both cultural dignity and political agency.

Decolonial theory offers important insights into reimagining democracy as a project that challenges colonial legacies embedded in African state structures. Achille Mbembe (2016) stresses that African political futures depend on dismantling inherited hierarchies of exclusion and crafting systems that reflect indigenous values and realities rather than imported templates. This calls for pluralist democracy models rooted in African philosophies such as Ubuntu, which emphasizes relationality, community, and mutual respect, and “Palaver theory”, a traditional deliberative practice that encourages inclusive dialogue and consensus.

Practically, this pluralist vision demands reforms that can address Nigeria’s specific challenges. One such reform is “asymmetrical federalism”, which allows differentiated autonomy for regions or groups based on their unique identities and needs, thereby enhancing political inclusion without threatening national unity. Nigeria has seen ongoing debates around restructuring its federal system to grant greater autonomy to regions such as the Niger Delta and Middle Belt, reflecting a growing recognition of the need for flexible governance structures.

Alongside, the constitutional recognition of group rights, such as language, cultural practices, and political representation, can safeguard minorities from majoritarian dominance. South Africa’s post-apartheid constitution provides a notable example where group rights and protections for cultural and linguistic minorities are explicitly enshrined, offering a model of substantive inclusion in a deeply divided society.

Moreover, institutionalizing deliberative democratic mechanisms inspired by indigenous practices can create spaces where marginalized voices are genuinely heard and negotiated. These mechanisms must be designed to complement electoral democracy rather than replace it, thereby enhancing legitimacy and social cohesion. Ultimately, rethinking democracy in Nigeria and Africa requires embracing a decolonial political imagination, one that transforms democratic governance into a lived reality of inclusion, justice, and pluralism, rather than a mere procedural formality.

CONCLUSION

This paper has argued that Nigeria’s experience with democracy reveals a broader crisis in Africa’s democratization journey: the persistent exclusion of minorities undermines the legitimacy and functionality of democratic governance. The historical construction of the minority question, rooted in colonial legacies and postcolonial state practices, entrenches majoritarianism, elite dominance, and political violence. As Chinua Achebe reminds us, the failure of leadership and meaningful inclusion lies at the heart of Nigeria’s democratic struggles.

Philosophical insights from recognition theory and postcolonial critiques demonstrate that democracy must be more than procedural formalities; it must be a substantive practice of inclusion that recognizes and empowers marginalized groups. Indigenous African political philosophies like Ubuntu and Palaver offer valuable alternatives to Western liberal models by emphasizing relationality, dialogue, and consensus.

To move from critique to constructive engagement, this paper offers several practical pathways for operationalizing a more inclusive, pluralist democracy in Nigeria. First, constitutional reform should revisit the notion of federalism, not merely by creating new states, but by adopting elements of asymmetrical federalism that allow historically marginalized regions greater legislative and fiscal autonomy. Second, Nigeria should consider electoral system reform, such as incorporating proportional representation at the federal legislative level. This would allow for more equitable representation of minority voices, especially those geographically dispersed. Third, the recognition of group rights, including cultural, linguistic, and political rights should be enshrined in the constitution, modeled partly on South Africa’s post-1996 rights framework. Civil society must also be empowered through legislation that guarantees independent minority commissions, protects the right to self-determination in cultural matters, and ensures minority access to public institutions. Lastly, efforts must be made to support minority-led political parties and community-based organizations, allowing them to contest mainstream narratives of nationhood. These recommendations are not exhaustive, but they provide a foundation for a democratic model that is substantively inclusive, not merely procedurally representative.

As you reflect on this analysis, consider: Can African democracies truly reconstitute themselves from below, through a politics of recognition and inclusion, rather than through top-down majoritarian control? The answer to this question will shape the future of democracy on the continent.

REFERENCES

1. Achebe, C. (1983). The Trouble with Nigeria. NH: Heinemann. ISBN: 0-435-90698-4
2. (2023). State of States 2023: Safeguarding Subnational Fiscal Resilience. https://budgit.org
3. Centre for Democracy and Development (CDD). (2023). Vote Trading and Voter Suppression in Nigeria’s 2023 Elections: A Situational Report. https://cddwestafrica.org
4. Ekeh, P. P. (1975). Colonialism and the Two Publics in Africa: A Theoretical Statement. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 17(1), 91–112. https://www.jstor.org/stable/178372
5. Fanon, F. (1963). The Wretched of the Earth (R. Philcox, Trans.). NY: Grove Press. (Original work published 1961). ISBN: 0-8021-5083-7
6. Fraser, N. (2000). Rethinking Recognition: Overcoming Displacement and Reification in Cultural Politics. New Left Review, 3, 107–120.
7. Habermas, J. (1996). Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy (W. Rehg, Trans.). MA: MIT Press.
8. Honneth, A. (1995). The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts (J. Anderson, Trans.). Cambridge: Polity Press. ISBN: 0-262-58147-7
9. Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). (2023). 2023 General Elections Report. https://inecnigeria.org/elections
10. International Crisis Group. (2023). Ethno-religious Violence in Nigeria’s Middle Belt. https://www.crisisgroup.org/africa/west-africa/nigeria/ethno-religious-violence-middle-belt
11. Mbembe, A. (2001). On the Postcolony. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN: 978-0-520-20435-5
12. Mbembe, A. (2016). Decolonizing Knowledge and the Question of the Archive. Africa Spectrum, 51(1), 15–27.
13. Obi, C. (2010). Oil Extraction, Dispossession, Resistance, and Conflict in Nigeria’s Oil-rich Niger Delta. Canadian Journal of Development Studies, 30(1-2), 219–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/02255189.2010.9669289
14. Osaghae, E. E. (1998). Crippled Giant: Nigeria Since Independence. London: C. Hurst & Co.
15. Rand, M. (2007, March 22). MEND: The Niger Delta’s Umbrella Militant Group. Council of Foregin Relations.
16. Rawls, J. (1999). The Law of Peoples.Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
17. Said, E. W. (1978). Orientalism. Canada: Pantheon Books. ISBN: 0-394-74067-5
18. Southall, R. (2008). The State of Democracy in Africa: The Importance of the Political Regime. Journal of Contemporary African Studies, 26(1), 1–20.
19. Suberu, R. T. (2001). Federalism and ethnic conflict in Nigeria. Washington: United States Institute of Peace Press. ISBN: 1-929223-28-5
20. Transparency International. (2022). Electoral Integrity Report: Nigeria. https://www.transparency.org/en/countries/nigeria
21. Willink Commission. (1958). Report of the Willink Commission on Minorities in Nigeria. Government Printer.
22. Young, C. (1994). The African Colonial State in Comparative Perspective. NH: Yale University Press. ISBN: 0-300-05802-0
23. Zartman, I. W. (1995). Collapsed States: The Disintegration and Restoration of Legitimate Authority. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers. ISBN: 1-55587-560-2