2 - Violence, Identity Mobilization and the Reimagining of Biafra

Abstract

The events leading to the Nigeria Civil War marked the triumph of force and violence over dialogue and negotiation as a means of conflict resolution. The success of the Nigerian state in imposing a military solution on the preceding political crisis, and then suppressing the ensuing Biafran rebellion, has had a lasting effect on state-society relations. As a result, the state has not refrained from using violence at the slightest provocation against competing and conflicting ethno-religious groups. The tendency of the state to exercise domination through the deployment of violence implies an ongoing crisis of state hegemony rather than a resolution of civil unrest. This article argues that state violence was more important than ethnic divisions in triggering the secessionist attempt of Biafra, and has continued to create rather than resolve ethnic divisions across the country. The emergence in post-Civil War Nigeria of regimes that perpetrated or permitted mass violence against restive social groups remains critical to understanding the contemporary rise of ethno-nationalist movements and waning allegiance to the Nigerian state, particularly among the Igbo. The aim of the article is to underscore the understated salience of state violence in the debates on identity and citizenship in multi-ethnic societies. Résumé Les événements qui ont conduit à la guerre civile au Nigéria ont marqué le triomphe de la force et de la violence sur le dialogue et la négociation comme moyen de résolution des conflits. Le succès de l'État nigérian dans l'imposition d'une solution militaire à la précédente crise politique, puis dans la répression de la rébellion Biafra, a eu un effet durable sur les relations entre l'État et la société. En conséquence, l'État n'a pas renoncé à utiliser la violence contre les 10

The Asaba massacre and the Nigerian civil war: reclaiming hidden history

“…As Chinua Achebe noted in the memoir published just before his death, 93 there has been a deep-seated reluctance to discuss the war and its consequences; standard Nigerian history curricula largely ignore it. 94 Some commentators argue that violence and ethnic hatred in contemporary Nigeria are partly attributable to the legacy of the war; 95 our research suggests that the unresolved burden of memory has indeed become a potent symbol of festering injustice. However, our hope, shared with many in Asaba, is that an understanding of the community's complex history, and its acknowledgement in the nation's sanctioned memory, will not only enrich the record of the Nigerian civil war but may also help to address this lingering legacy and ultimately contribute to meaningful reconciliation.…”

Towards a Democratic New Normal? Investor Reactions to Interim‐Regime Dominance during Violent Events

“…A regime that uses strong force against civilians tends to deploy vast military and police resources throughout its territory (Bellin, ; Ukiwo, ), leading it to inflict many civilian fatalities and suffer limited losses among its own actors during instances of government‐related violence. In other words, the use of strong force against civilians is likely to result in a high share of civilian fatalities in the total number of fatalities of government‐related violence (Levy, ).…”

Explaining Political Violence Against Civilians in Northern Ireland: A Contention-Oriented Approach

“…Interactions among combatants often contribute to changes in both the levels and types of political violence against civilians. An escalation in political violence by one actor is likely to be reciprocated by opponents in an effort to raise the costs of such behaviors (Herman and O'Sullivan 1989;Maney 2005;LaFree, Dugan, and Korte 2009;Ukiwo 2009). In the process, a tit-for-tat dynamic ensues, often culminating in an outward spiral of political violence.…”