Humanity Before Ethnicity- 

“I Am Because We Are: Why Africa Must Put Humanity Before Tribe”

• Tribal loyalty often overrides moral duty — but Ubuntu teaches us that no community thrives while others suffer.

• Explore how ethnic divisions erode trust, morality, and national unity. Highlight stories where tribalism caused injustice.

The Old Bonds That Divide and Define

Tribalism is one of Africa’s most enduring and complex social realities — a double-edged sword that has simultaneously anchored identity and fragmented unity. Long before the arrival of colonialism, Africa’s ethnic groups functioned as sovereign political units with distinct languages, traditions, and governance systems. These identities were not inherently divisive; they structured community life, shaped kinship, and ensured social cohesion. But the colonial encounter — with its borders drawn without regard to ethnic or cultural lines — transformed tribal identity from a marker of belonging into a weapon of manipulation. In the postcolonial era, the legacy of tribalism continues to shape politics, power-sharing, and governance across the continent, nowhere more visibly than in Nigeria.

Colonial Foundations: Divide and Rule as Political Architecture

When European powers partitioned Africa at the Berlin Conference of 1884–85, they created political entities that ignored historical, linguistic, and cultural boundaries. Colonial administrators, lacking understanding or interest in indigenous systems, relied on a strategy of divide and rule to maintain control. In Nigeria, the British merged over 250 ethnic groups into one administrative unit — an artificial construct that united the Hausa-Fulani in the North, the Yoruba in the West, and the Igbo in the East under a single flag.

This amalgamation was less about building a nation and more about administrative convenience and resource extraction. The British used “Indirect Rule” in the North, preserving the power of emirs and traditional hierarchies, while applying a more Westernized system in the South. This uneven policy institutionalized regional disparity: the North remained conservative and less exposed to Western education, while the South became more economically and educationally advanced.

These early divisions planted the seeds of ethnic suspicion. The idea of “us versus them” was reinforced not by the people themselves, but by a colonial system that rewarded loyalty to the Crown through local ethnic elites. Thus, at independence, African countries inherited not just artificial borders but also political systems built upon ethnic competition.

Post-Independence Nigeria: Ethnicity as Political Capital

At independence in 1960, Nigeria’s leaders faced the impossible task of forging national unity out of deep ethnic diversity. Rather than transcending tribal loyalties, political elites often exploited them. Parties emerged along regional and ethnic lines — the Northern People’s Congress (NPC) representing Hausa-Fulani interests, the Action Group (AG) dominated by Yoruba leaders, and the National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons (NCNC) aligned with the Igbo.

This alignment turned elections into ethnic censuses rather than contests of ideas. The First Republic (1960–1966) was marked by fierce competition for control of federal power and resource allocation. Political leaders, instead of building inclusive national institutions, distributed appointments, contracts, and development projects to their “own people.”

When this ethnic imbalance intensified, it fueled the 1966 military coup and counter-coup, which were interpreted along tribal lines. The resulting civil war (1967–1970), when the Eastern Region attempted to secede as the Republic of Biafra, remains Nigeria’s bloodiest reminder of how tribal mistrust can tear a nation apart. Over three million people died, mostly from starvation. The war did not merely end a secessionist dream — it solidified a political culture in which ethnicity became a survival tool.

Military Rule and the Politics of Ethnic Balancing

Even under military rule, tribalism did not disappear; it simply changed form. Every coup plotter justified his intervention by accusing the previous regime of ethnic favoritism. Military rulers, though often proclaiming national unity, relied on ethnic balancing to secure loyalty.

General Yakubu Gowon’s post-war slogan of “No Victor, No Vanquished” sought reconciliation, yet his creation of 12 states (now 36) was itself an ethnic strategy — meant to weaken regional dominance by dividing large ethnic groups. Successive regimes continued this approach, using federal character principles and quota systems to ensure representation across ethnic lines.

While this “federal character” system was intended to promote inclusion, it institutionalized ethnicity as a political currency. Rather than merit, appointments often depended on “where you come from.” The Nigerian constitution even mandates that the president must win at least 25% of votes in two-thirds of the states — a legal recognition of ethnic diversity turned political necessity.

Across Africa: The Shared Burden of Tribalized Politics

Nigeria’s experience mirrors a wider African pattern. In Kenya, ethnic rivalry between Kikuyu, Luo, and Kalenjin groups has defined every major election since independence. The violence following the 2007 elections, which left over 1,000 dead, underscored how ethnic manipulation can turn democratic competition into tribal warfare.

In Rwanda, colonial favoritism toward the Tutsi minority set the stage for decades of resentment, culminating in the 1994 genocide, when approximately 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were massacred.

In Sudan, the Arab-African ethnic divide fueled a 22-year civil war and later contributed to South Sudan’s independence — only for tribal divisions to erupt again within the new nation. In Ethiopia, the federal system grants autonomy to ethnic regions, but it has also deepened tensions between Tigrayans, Oromos, and Amharas.

Across these cases, the pattern is clear: ethnicity has been both a fallback identity in moments of crisis and a convenient tool for political elites seeking to maintain control. Instead of using diversity as a source of cultural richness, leaders have too often turned it into a ladder for personal ambition.

The Political Economy of Tribalism

At the heart of Africa’s tribal politics lies the struggle over resources. In countries where state institutions are weak and the economy depends heavily on centralized control of oil, minerals, or foreign aid, politics becomes a zero-sum game. Winning an election means gaining access to the “national cake.”

In Nigeria, the oil wealth of the Niger Delta has made control of federal power a matter of life and death. Ethnic groups lobby for resource control, and militants justify violence as a fight for justice. The same dynamic appears in Congo’s mineral-rich east, where ethnic militias battle for control under the guise of identity.

Thus, tribalism persists not only because people are loyal to their kin, but because state systems have failed to distribute wealth fairly. Where corruption thrives, ethnic identity becomes a shield — a means to justify loyalty and access opportunity. The failure of governance perpetuates the tribal mindset.

The Psychological Dimension: Identity, Insecurity, and Belonging

To understand the persistence of tribalism, one must look beyond politics to the psychology of belonging. In societies where institutions are fragile and justice systems unreliable, people seek protection from the most familiar unit — the tribe. Ethnic identity becomes a substitute for national identity when citizens cannot trust the state to defend their rights or provide for their welfare.

This psychological insecurity is reinforced by narratives passed through generations: myths of superiority, historical grievances, and stories of betrayal. Politicians exploit these emotions, turning legitimate cultural pride into political fear. In such a climate, “our turn to rule” becomes a rallying cry that replaces the idea of a shared national destiny.

Paths Forward: From Tribal Loyalty to National Unity

The challenge, then, is not to erase tribal identity — that would be impossible and undesirable — but to redefine its role. African societies need to transition from ethnic consciousness to civic consciousness.

1. Inclusive Governance: Federal systems must ensure fair representation without sacrificing merit. Nigeria’s federal character principle could evolve toward transparent inclusion rather than tokenism.

2. Civic Education: Schools and media should emphasize shared history, national symbols, and inter-ethnic cooperation rather than glorifying ethnic stereotypes.

3. Economic Justice: When development reaches all regions equitably, the incentive to cling to tribal politics diminishes. A fairer distribution of resources reduces the stakes of ethnic competition.

4. Constitutional Reforms: Systems that reward coalitions — such as proportional representation — can encourage multi-ethnic alliances, making politics less about tribe and more about ideas.

5. Cultural Exchange and Dialogue: Platforms that promote inter-ethnic dialogue, festivals, and youth exchange programs can break psychological barriers and humanize “the other.”

Reclaiming the Spirit of Ubuntu

Tribalism, at its root, is not evil. It is an ancient form of social organization that once sustained African civilizations. The problem lies in how it has been weaponized in modern politics.

Nigeria and Africa at large stand at a crossroads: they can either continue allowing tribalism to define power and limit progress, or they can harness it to build inclusive societies grounded in mutual respect.

As the African proverb says, “The clan is like a forest — when you are outside it looks dense; inside, each tree has its own space.”

The challenge before Africa is to find that shared space — where identity is not a cage, but a canopy under which unity can finally take root.