Project Description

CHAPTER ONE: Introduction

Ethnicity appears to have permeated every spheres of the socio-economic and political activities of Ghana and Nigeria. it seems to dominate and transcend every other social-force one can utilize to attain his goals in a body-politic, which means that ethnicity has appeared to have played and is still playing manifest and latent roles in determining who manned and who will man key positions in the body-politic of Ghana and Nigeria. With respect to this, it seems that ethnicity has been politicized and has become the only hitch-free accessible tool which the elite in the Ghanaian and Nigerian societies could employ to influence the voting behaviors of the electorate, to be successful in the various elections and get hold of state power.

However, it is due to the immense effects of ethnicity on the voting behaviour of the electorate in Africa over and against the manifestoes of political parties that prompted some scholar like Nnoli (1989) to see ethnicity as a social phenomenon associated with interactions among members of different ethnic groups. In the same vain Osaghae (1995) underscored the effect of ethnicity in the politics of Africa by conceptualizing ethnicity as the employment and mobilization of ethnic identity and differences to gain advantage in situation of competition, conflict or cooperation.

Briefly speaking, ethnicity was politicized in Ghana politics from the time of Dr. Kmame Nkrumah who turned the country politics into the affairs of the Akan ethnic group of Ashanti region. He ruled the country with one political party the CPP from 1964-1966 when he was overthrown by Kofi Busiar. In the same vain in Nigeria first Republic, ethnicity was instrumental to the death of the first republic and the killing of most Northern politicians, because the voting in the federal election of 1965 was smeared with ethnic violence by the ethnic party gladiators who wanted their regional political parties like NCNC, AG. NPC to control the seats both in the regional and federal legislatures, the coup of 1966 in Nigeria was seen as the southern coup against the Northern politicians; this sowed the seed of ethnic politics in the military, Dudley (1973).

As the second Republics in both countries were drawing closer; the issue of ethnicity and its determinant factor in politics and political parties formation in Nigeria and Ghana was reviewed by the members of the Constitution Drafting Committee, and it came out in the Nigerian constitution of 1979, section 202 prohibiliting the formation of political parties with ethic or religious connotation, but in spite of that  constitutional injunction against forming political parties along ethnic lines the emergent political parties in Nigeria in the second republic were formed along ethnic lines e,g are the National party of Nigeria with the flag-bear, Alhaji Shehu Shagari from North, NPP- Nigeria People’s Party with the flag-bear Dr. Azikiwe from South-East Nigeria, and the third major political party, UPN-Unity Party of Nigeria was formed by Western (Yoruba) veteran Politician, Chief Obafemi Awolowo. The leaders of those political parties in the second Republic appealed for votes along ethnic lines where they came from and in the general election, they won their overwhelming votes from their ethnic regions of origin. In the same way, Ghana in the third republic of 1979, which the military government of the half-bred Ghanaian/Scotland flight lieutenant Jerry Rawlings headed, who was an Ewe-speaking man from the volta region came into politics with ethnic inclination against the Akan people of the Ashante Kingdom where  Nkrumah and General Frederick Akuffo came from. He, Rawlings hated the domineering power of the Akan-speaking people of the Ashante ethnic group in the South-Ghana, he executed General Akuffo in 1978 and in September, 1979 handed over to the man from the upper-west region, an affiliate of the Northern region. Rawlings Politicized ethnicity in the present day Ghana between the south and north, believing that the southern predominant ethnic group of Akan-speaking people in the Ashante region where the first prime-minister Nkrumah and Akuffo came were marginalizing the North (Tordoff, 1984).

On the contrary, the so-called constitutional injunction in the 1979 constitution in Nigeria could not stop the ethnic chanting in the minds of the voters who could not stand the view of seeing another candidate from another political party other than their own to head the country’s highest political position, the presidency, resorted into violence in 1983 general election, which saw to the ousting of Alhaji Shehu Shagari in 31 December, 1983 by General Buhari from North. In politics of Nigeria, ethnicity determined who won the election in the presidency. The Nigerian military has been politicized along ethnic lines since 1966 by the ‘January majors’ who were predominantly Southerners. Politics becomes a war on ethnic lines between the south and northern regions/states in Nigeria. Political appointments were still made on ethnic lines instead of merits. The elite tried in 1979 and invented the federal character principle for equal representation of all states in the federal Bureaucracy, but the same elite still violet the principle by putting their cronies, brothers, sisters and girl friends there, Ibanu (2012).

In their third republic in Nigeria, politics was equally played along ethnic lines between the North and the South. The 1989 constitution repeated the same order instructing the emerging political parties to bear National out-look, ensuring that its members cut-across the entire states/ethnic groups of the Nation-Nigeria, but the military government of General Babangida that teleguided the transition brought out two political parties: The Social Democratic Party (SDP), and National Republican Convention (NRC) of which the flag-bears were Chief Abiola and Tofa respectively. The acclaimed winner of the election Chief Abiola of the SDP was from Yoruba, part of the southern region while Tofa was from the North, the military  president so hesitant to hand power to the South annulled the victory of chief M. K.O Abiola the winner of June 12, 1993 presidential election in Nigeria.

In the present fourth republic in both Ghana and Nigeria, constitutional measures have been adopted to end the call of ethnicity in soliciting for voting by the political parties’ flag-bears, but the tune of ethnicity on the voting behaviour is still high in determining electoral victory by the political parties in the countries under study.

As time progressed, ethnicity played down a little in the politics of 1999, which was the beginning of fourth republic in Nigeria. The ruling people’s democracy party which Chief Olusegun Obasanjo came out as the successful president-elect appeared to have towed the National outlook as instructed by the section 221 of the 1999 constitution.  In the same vain, in Ghana first Republic, the political parties law Act 574 (2000) also make similar provisions, prohibiting religious  and ethnically based political parties in the country which could not go along way in making the political leaders in Ghana think of one united Ghana first (Useh, 2011).

Again, in the both countries the issue of unequal representation by the different ethnic groups in the federal bureaucracy has been playing both countries politics and has been directing the voting behaviours of the citizenry towards ethnically-based party candidates, instead of voting in lines with the political parties programmes. In support of this claim, John Dramani Mahama (2012) stated in build-up to December 2012 general election in Ghana that the Northerners should vote for him because since 1979 a person from Northern Ghana had not ruled Ghana.

Nonetheless, the above statement reflected the kind of political behaviour of the political leaders in Ghana and Nigerian which has been a serious bane on democratization process, for their campaign strategies in wining elections only scale through in the polls when coloured with ethnic sentiments. So, this necessitated this study which is geared towards knowing the effects of ethnicity and voters’ behaviour: A comparative study of Ghana and Nigerian presidential elections from 2007-2012.

In a democratic society, election provides citizens the avenue to support candidates of their choice. How this choice is made is a different ball-game altogether. The electioneering campaigns are designed not only to educate the electorates politically, but also to lure voters for a particular candidate. On the course of this, it appears that the politicians are prone to many campaign strategies, policies or employ ethnic sentiments and make promises on that group to see themselves successful on campaign, so ethnicity is politicized.

On the other hand, it appears that the state power is central in the allocation of   resources in the society, and that informed the reasons why citizens from different ethnic groups in multi-ethnic states as Ghana and Nigeria employ the instrument of ethnicity, ethnic identity and ethnic party politics to get hold of the state power. Most often, Nigerian and Ghana leaders profess working for the unity of their countries while their utterances and actions elicit the opposite. It is not surprising that after over five decades of political independence in Ghana and Nigeria, the unity of the two countries is still shaky and shallow-rooted.

Moreover, Horowilz (1985) argues that ethnicity exerts strong direct effect on the electoral behaviour in the segmented societies. Ndegwa (1997) on the other hand attributes ethnic voting in Africa to the dual citizenship that exist in African states; a situation where one has to refer to one’s ethnic enclave to enjoy certain benefits which are not granted elsewhere, this tends to create dual loyalties within the same country.

Analytically, the first civilian regime of the first republic both in Ghana and Nigeria failed due to ethnic politics. In Nigeria, the January coup plotters that overthrown the government of Tafawa Belawa the prime-minister were carried on by ethnic reasons, although the coup plotters vehemently denied the allegation that the putsch was ethnically based, elements of the composition and tactic of the coup gave rise to growing suspicious (Young, 1993). First most of the conspirators were Igbos: This included 6 out of 7 majors, and 19 out of 23 second echelon ringleaders. Again, general Ironsi did not try the Igbo majors who plotted the coup. From the third republic to this present fourth republic inspite of the account of Article 55(A) of the 1992 constitution which ordered that all political parties shall have a national character and membership shall be based not on ethnic, religious, regional or other sectional divisions. Again in other to solve the problems of ethnic diversities and its negative effects on the National unit of Ghana; the electoral commission of Ghana in its political parties law Act 574 (2000) also makes similar provisions prohibiting religious and ethnicity inclined political parties in Ghana.

To curb the negative effect of ethnicity in the body-politic of Nigeria, the Nigerian government under General Yakubu Gowon (1973) under the ministry of National Planning formed National Youths Service Corps (NYSC) to re-orientate the Nigerian Youths to think and act as Nigerians instead of thinking as an Igbo. Hausa-Fulani or Yoruba, which will foster National unity and Nigeria-wide patriotism and Nationalist-mindset in them. In furtherance to curb ethnic politics in Nigeria, attempts by the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) in 1979 was made by introducing a constitutional method of sharing political offices, there by removing the fear of domination and marginalization through the instrumentality of federal character principle which became enshrined in the 1979 constitution. In the same manner, section 202 of the 1979 constitution, 220 of the 1989 constitution and finally section 221 of 1999 constitution as amended prohibited the formation of political parties with ethnic or religious connotation, all have been in place in Nigeria to foster National unity based on democratization process devoid of ethnic and regional overbearing.

Nevertheless, in spite of the contributions from the above scholars and the institutions, the problem of ethnicity on the party formations and voting behaviour of Ghanaians and Nigerians still remain glaring. However, the study observed that the scholars and the institutions have contributed greatly to scholarship, but the lacuna remains on the comparative effects of ethnicity in the voting behaviour of Nigerians and Ghanaians from 2007-2012 presidential elections. Hence, the study shall be anchored on the following research questions:

1. Did ethnic factors affect voting behaviour of Nigerians and Ghanaians in the 2007-2012 Presidential elections?
2. Did uneven distribution of government appointments among the ethnic groups influence the voting behaviour of Nigerians and Ghanaians in the 2007-2012 Presidential elections respectively?

1.3 Objectives of the Study

Generally, this study aims at critically analyzing the effect of ethnicity on the voting behaviour of Nigerians and Ghanaians in the presidential elections of 2007-2011 and 2008-2012 respectively. Specifically, the study aims at ascertaining:

1. Whether ethnic factors affected voting behaviour of Nigerians and Ghanaians from the 2007-2012 Presidential elections respectively.
2. Whether uneven distribution of government appointments among the ethnic groups influence the voting behaviour of Nigerians and Ghanaians from the 2007-2012 Presidential elections respectively.

1.4 Significance of the Study

This study has both theoretical and practical significance. Theoretically, the study will help to bring lasting, solution to the problem of ethnicity in politics and democratization process in Nigeria, Ghana, Africa and other parts of the world that are currently having the problem in their  Nation-building and governance. The students of Nigeria/Ghana, African continent and the world students at large will see this work as a base of acquiring the pre-requisite knowledge expected from them to organize and rule their countries in general and state in particular whose leadership they will come back to assume after the  pursuit of their higher education, practically, the study has the potential of serving as a useful tool for policy makers which will guide them for economic planning vis-as-vis job creation, government appointments, allocation of resources, etc. It will also serve as a guild to and motivate students  in social science to embark upon for further research on the subject matter.

1.5 The Historical Background of Ethnicity in Nigeria and Ghana

1.5.1 The Ethnic Politics in Nigeria (From Pre-Independence Till-Date)

As we have undoubtedly agreed that the seed of ethnicity was sown by the colonial masters in Africa and Nigeria in particular in the pre-independence days for their economic gains, germinated in the independence and First Republic, and the products started spreading during the 3^rd and fourth republics. However, with the coming of colonial rule, the prevalent political environment was altered completely. Thus, most ethnic nationalities were forcibly encapsulated into a political entity with a new name for instance, apart from the three major ethnic groups (Igbo, Hausa/Fulani and Yoruba) more than 250 other ethnic groups or nationalities were woven into what later became known as Nigeria (Manesch, and Edet, 2005).

With respect to the above statement, Emezi (1997) observed that the politicization of ethnicity in Nigeria politics had its genesis in the British colonial policies which through the obnoxious “divide and rule policy” encouraged the use of different application of colonial policies on traditional institutions and structures of the various ethnic groups in Nigeria. The results of this impact of colonial policies have been the distrust, rivalry and lack of cooperation that have characterized the relationship between the three dominant ethnic groups in Nigeria. Explicit in the above assertion is the fact that the political structures which the colonial masters left behind were the major cause of ethnicity in Nigeria, especially the federal political structure comprising three unequal regions engineered by Governor Bernard Bourdillion in 1939 and executed by Governor Author Richard in 1946 made the struggle for the control of the federal government to be extremely vicious and militant. Now, Nigeria for the past fifty-seven years has been engulfed with the fears of secession by one ethnic group and the other in the body-politic, due to the threat of domination by one ethnic. Again, Bourgeoisies in the pre-independence era played highly regional politics anchored on the regional nationalism that the division of the country into two political entities of North and South in 1914 by Lord Lugard and later three unequal regions brought.

In the 1920s and early 30s, the political landscape of Nigeria was dominated by the Yoruba in Lagos colony, hence the formation of the first political party by Herbert Macaulay in 1923 when elective principle was incorporated first in Nigerian’s first written constitution of Hugh Clifford in 1922 which gave the Nigerians the political right to vote and be voted for and to form political parties, then the Nigerian National Democratic Party saw its appearances in the polity to champion the cause of the early Nationalists on self-rule, self determination and economic freedom from the British colonialism (Nwanknow, 1990). The afro-mentioned era never saw unimaginable proportion of ethnic politics till the arrival of Nnamdi Azikiwe in the late 1930s in Nigeria from America.

To start with, Nnoli (1989) asserts that by 1953, the major political parties in Nigeria the National convention of Nigeria and Cameroon (NCNC), the Action Group (AG), and the Northern people’s congress (NPC) had become associated with the three major ethnic groups -Igbo, Yoruba and Hausa/Fulani of the three regions of East, West and North respectively. In respect with the multicultural and multi-lingual nature of Nigeria state, the leaders of the afro-mentioned political parties namely, NCNC, AG, NPC came from Igbo, Yoruba and Hausa/Fulani ethic groups – in the persons of Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, an Igbo- East, Chief Obafemi Awolowo of AG from the West (Yoruba) and Ahmed Bello of NPC from the North. The said political parties emerged from the tribal/ethnic unions. For example, the Igbo union/Igbo federated Union of 1936 metermorphosed into NCNC in 1944, and then AG was an offspring of Egbe Omo Oduduwa Yoruba cultural association of 1945 formed in London by chief Awolowo, followed by the NPC, which came out from Hausa/Fulani cultural group- Jamiyyar Mutane Arewa.

In this order, ethnic politics reared its head in Nigerian first in 1953 when a member of the Action Group, Chief Anthony Enahoro, in the House of Representatives moved a motion for self government to be granted the three regions come 1956, while the politicians from Southern region welcome the motion of self-rule in 1956, the Northern elements in the House Kicked against it with the counter-motion of “as soon as practicable” by  Ahmed Bello, the leader of NPC, in the heat of the debate in the Houses, the counter-motion by Ahmed Bello fuelled the anger of the agitating Southerners who wanted self-rule ‘now’ or ‘never’, then crisis ensued in the House of Representatives in which Northerners were Jeered at by the angry mobs in Lagos  (Coleman, 1958).

Consequently, the total rejection of the motion for self-rule appeared to have been the fact that Northerners believed that they were backward educationally and if such policy should be implemented, the Southerners with their skills and certificates of higher education which they had the advantages of gaining due to the arrival of European missionaries in the Southern region in early 19^th century, would out complete Northerners and take up public service in the North. The South had an edge over the Northern indigenes in Western education that could equip them with the knowledge and skills required for the civil service of the present political order due to their (north) rejection of European missionaries, who propagated Christianity and western education at the same time, because they believe in their Northern old order of learning Islamic education which Western education to the Northerners was a rival (Coleman, 1958).

In the heat of the exercise, the chieftain of AG Chief S.L Akintola, with some members of NCNC and AG carried their campaign to the Kano area of Northern Nigeria to sail their self-government agenda of 1956 through after disgracing their Northern counterparts in the House of Representatives, then, in the Sabon-gari area of Kano, fight ensured between the stalwarts of NPC and the Southern politicians under the aegis of AG/NCNC which resulted in the deaths of 15 Northerners and 21 Southerners and the 241 causalities. That occurrence saw the politicization of ethnicity in Nigerian politics and the attendant solutions from persons, institutions and scholarly inputs of ethnic politics in Nigeria.

Amidst speculations in the heat of the 1953 political impasses which marked the beginning of ethnic politics in Nigeria, the chieftain of NPC, Alhaji Ahmed Bello remarked, “the Amalgamation of Northern and Southerner protectorates in 1914 by Lord Lugard was a regrettable mistakes,” (Coleman, 1958). In the discussions that followed, it was agreed to make Nigeria a federation of three regions of Northern, East and West, with residual powers vested in the regions.

As the Nigerian politics continued on ethnic lines, Oliver Lytleton’s constitution came in place and answered the quest of the ethnic minded Nationalists by granting true residual power to the regional councils from which the founders of the three major political parties-NPC of North by Alhaji Bello, NCNC of East by Dr. Azikiwe, and AG of West by Chief Awolowo came who became the premiers of the three respective regional councils as they won massively in 1954 election from their respective ethnic-group where their parties had root. By 1960, when the country gained independence, the idea of fair representation of all the regions in the federal appointments has become accepted, although without specific quotas. However, in recruitment into officers corps of the armed forces and the police, a quota system was applied which continued till 1967 when states were created to replace the three regions, and the formula was reviewed and applied on the basis of equal numbers from each state.

In the wake of independence in 1960, most activities in Nigeria that seemed to be National affairs were ethnically politicized and at the end, the court would be equally used to end such ensuing conflict. Nigeria had its first census count in 1962/63 after independence and the whole exercise ended in a deadlock because of ethnic sentiments which seemed to override the National interest of the politicians. At the first head-court, the North had the highest number which was 22.5 million, being the largest most populated which had been dominating majority of seats in the House of Representative which politically implied that the NPC would continued to determine the nature of legislations to be passed into law, in fact, the NPC was in control of the country’s politics, then the census head-court figure of the East was 12.3 million, and this showed a rise of 70% in ten years. That of the North showed a rise of 30% in ten years which sent a wrong signal that the East would come up to dominate in the House of Representatives over and against the densely populated Hausa-Fulani and Benue-Platean people (Nkwankwo, 1990).

It was difficult to get the results of the West because of the political unrest there. Ethnic legal fight came into the census result when the chairman of census Mr. Warren ordered that the census be conducted again that it seemed the East inflated their result; but Dr. Micheal Okpara, the premier of Eastern region declared that the result was correct then, the prime minister took over the matter and a second count was conducted which saw the result of East maintained the same figure but that of the North increased to 31 million against 22.5 million earlier obtained. The then premier of Eastern region rejected the figure, and the third count was conducted in November 1963, which saw the East in the same level, but that of the North reduced a little to 29,986. It was only the North that accepted this figure while other regions didn’t. it appeared that it was due to ethnic Nationalism and identity politics carried by the Peti-Bourgeousie from the pre-independence Nigeria to the first republic that is still lingering till this day in Nigeria politics, which gave credence to the words of Gowon (1967) that “there was no Nigerian unity”, and that of Awolowo (1947) that “Nigeria was a mere geographical expression”.

Again, it was in the census-count of 1962/63 that ethnic politics blurred the National consciousness of Nigerian leaders that threatened the unity of Nigeria in the first republic of 1963, ethnic politics engulfed the entire Nation and retarded the effort of some Nationalists like Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe who kept chanting his Slogan of ‘one Nigeria’ till military saw him, Ahmed Bello, Awolowo, S. C. Akintola and Balewa off in 15^th January 1967 in a military coup. What’s more, the general election of 1964, was a significant land-mark in the political history of Nigeria due to ethnic politics that cumulated into massive rigging in the election, arson and kidnapping of parties chieftains in the heat of the voting. There was merger of political parties as the general election of 1964 was drawing by, in the light of these, Chief S.L. Akintola formed NNDP-Nigerian National Democratic Party which was a resuscitation of the defunct NNDP of Dr. Herbert Macaulay of 1923, then, he Akintola allied his NNDP with Northern people’s congress (NPC) of Ahmed Bello of North. The Igbo dominated political party of Zik and Micheal Okpara for the first time in Nigeria political history merged /allied with Awolowo’s Action Group (AG), that’s the NCNC and were called UPGA and the alliance political party of NNDP ad NPC was called the Nigerian National Alliance (NNA). As voting started, it followed ethnic lines where the UPGA-controlled place of Eastern Region declared fifteen of its candidate unopposed, while NNDP announced a return of Sixty-six candidates unopposed; in the same way Micheal Okpara and his UPGA members boycotted election, in protest against alledged irregularities in the nomination of candidates by NNA which the chairman of election failed to handle before the voting day (Nwankwo, 1990).

In fact, the whole election in the first republic was a satire due to ethnic consciousness of the party leaders against Nigerian Nation, which at this crucial period, it was evident that Nigeria was a ship in the sea without a captain because even the prime minister and the Head of state were ethnic-minded instead of thinking and acting in line of Nation-building. The story of Nigerian Nationalism has always been told against a background of strong ethno-regionalism, and intra-ethnic conflict which was exemplified by the rift between S. L. Akintola the premier of Western region from Egba land and the opposition leader in the House of Representatives, and the chieftains of AG, Chief Awolowo from Ijebu-Yoruba over whose political ideology would control Yoruba politics. In the heat of this intra-ethnic conflict between Akintola and Awolowo in the politics of Yoruba in 1965, fight broke of which made federal government to declare state of emergency in the West, that crisis in the West was the last straw that broke the Carmel’s back and first republic ended in the hands of the January majors coup of 1967.

It has been argued that the ethnic orientation of the political party’s regional politics and regional Nationalism caused the 1967-1970 civil war which took almost 2 million lives and was one of the reasons for the collapse of the first republic (Abubakar, 1997). However, it was in the second republic that ethnicity seemed to have played down a bit. The 1979 constitution stipulated that for political party to be registered, it must be National in outlooks, i.e having wide geographical spread, cutting across all the ethnic groups in its membership formation, but the newly formed political parties in the 1979 second republic jettisoned the acclaimed effort of the Constitution Drafting Committee trying to see that the force of constitution would direct the mindset of our leaders in the form in which the emergent political parties would take for example, the Unity Party of Nigeria was the new self of the old AG, and it was formed by Chief Awolowo who was the founder of Action Group in 1951, the political party that dominated the politics of Yoruba from 1951, till the military proscribed political parties in 1967. The newly formed UPN was ethnic because in the general election of 1979, the party won election in the entire five states in the western region. In same vain, the Nigerian People’s Party formed by Dr. Azikiwe was a new self of the defunct  NCNC, and the NPP has its major following from Anambra and Imo and won massively in these two states in the old Eastern Nigeria and in the Plateau  state of Middle belt in the 1979 general election (Nwankwo, ).

Then the said National Party of Nigeria (NPN) which was the acclaimed detribalized National Party was equally seen as Hausa/Fulani political party in spite of its purported National outlook in its leadership formation, for the flag-break of the party was a Fulani, Alhaji Shehu  Shagari, while his running mate was an Igbo man, Dr. Alex Ekmuweme, while the national chairman Chief Akinloye respectively was a Yoruba, despite that political arithmetic, ethnic and identity politics appeared to have controlled the minds of the voters because Northerners voted enmass to NPN and Alhaji Shagari and that saw him the winner of the general  election of 1979. Campaigns, followed ethnic lines as were in the pre-independence and after first republic era. Again other political parties in the second republic like the Great Nigeria People’s Party (GNPP) of Waziri Ibrahim controlled the Kanuri-speaking area of North and the party won in Gongola and Borno which was its ethnic base and in the same way, the People’s Redemption Party (PRP) of Balaraba Musa won massively in the Kaduna and Kano states which were the home states of the gubematoral candidate of PRP. It was due to ethnic and identity politics that led Balaraba Musa-led PRP won him governorship slot while the UPN controlled the Kaduna state Assembly. This unresolved political imbalance led to Musa’s 18 months administration without commissioners before he was impeached (Lawal, 1982). There was no era in the politics of Nigeria that any political analysis could say that ethnicity didn’t shape the minds of Nigerians, but the magnitude of it called for this study.

In a bid to infuse National consciousness in the minds of Nigerians so that an Igbo man or woman, an Hausa/Fulani, Yoruba, Tiv, Ijaw and rest of ethnic groups of about 250 would think of Nigeria first, National Youths service Corps was introduced in 1973, federal character principle followed suit in 1979, before 1999 and 1999, zoning arrangement, an off-shoot of quota system came on board, but ethnic politics has never reduced during campaign and voting in Nigerian election period. Again disparity in education between the south and North equally contributes to this age-long problem of unequal representation and the quest for federal character principle in the politics of Nigeria.

Consequently, the aborted third republic was equally engulfed with ethnic voting and identity politics. It seemed to be an era of two party system which appeared to be a formula of ethnic politics because the north and south were polarized along the two political parties. The mererick military-turned civilian politician hatched the formation of Social Democratic Party of which the acclaimed winner of June 12, 1993 election led as the flag-bearer, while the National Republican Convention (NRC) was headed by Tofa. There was no force of religion in the campaign bid to the election of 1993 because the two contestants for presidency were Muslims. The said election was seen as the fairest election in the history of Nigeria, but was annulled by the sitting president, General Ibrahim Babangida for the interest of National Unity, but it was on a hidden ethnic reason because the winner was from south-west Nigeria, which the then military president did not find pleasing to cede power of such magnitude-presidency as a Northerner. ( Ndegwe, 1997 ).

Finally, in the current political dispensation of fourth republic Nigeria-the voting exercise has not been going without the epileptic hand of ethnicity affecting the nascent democratization process in the polity. The fourth republic gave birth to North/South politics weared on ethnic sentiment, but hidden under the cloak of zoning principle that had no constitutional backing. The Northern elite having known that they had ruled for quite along time decided to give power to the Yoruba-born military-turned politician General Olusegun Obasanjo to placate the Yoruba who had been threatening secession due to the annulment of June12, 1993 election allegedly won by their son Abiola. However, Anugwom (2003) opines that lack of performance on the part of government create a fertile ground for ethnic politics as expressed in the election and election campaign, in the same order, Posner (2007) observed that the need for share of National resources is likely to influence the voting pattern of members of a given ethnic group, hence the massive voting from the southern part of the country especially the Yoruba’s in 1999 general election for their son, General Obasanji and the massive rigging in 2003 general election by the PDP led government, using INEC, just to ensure southern continuity in the presidency. One can rightly say that ethnic politics in Nigeria politics is a legacy of the colonial masters which the present Nigerian political elite appeared to have loved more than the game of politics itself and can’t do without it because the present fourth republic political parities still have ethnic colouraton and appeal for votes using ethnic sentiments for instance, APGA could only talk of the Igbos, the ACN of West talk of Yorubas CPC for the Hausa-Fulani’s and the present PDP that claimed to be National politics equally campaigned in the general elections using zoning arrangement which undermined the principle of true democracy that has to do with the voters judgement of the party’s programmes and manifestoes as the determinants of their voting behaviour – Nigeria fourth republic is still plunged in ethnic politics!

1.5 2 Ethnicity in Ghana’s Politics

Ghana is often regarded as West Africa’s best governed country with a relatively well established system of democratic rule; but the democratic process and practice in Ghana from the time of colonial days till at the time of this study is not devoid of ethnic politics which puts a question mark to the Ghana’s acclaimed best democracy in West Africa, because the best democracy in which identity politics based on ethnicity remain the best campaign option by most candidates from 1969 till date is not truly the best democracy in itself.

The relative homogeneity of Akan cultures, language and authority structures has not led to political unity among the Akans. With regard to this, the political events of the pre-colonial Ghana clearly indicated that the Akan states were created primarily to form a common defense against belligerent Akan state. The frequent attempts of belligerent Akan states to subjugate other Akan states led to frequent conflict, which led to the creation of dominant traditional states such as the Ashanti Kingdom. Historically, there has been animosity between the Akan in general and Ashanti in particular and the Ewe people, this goes back to the days of conquest when the Ashanti Empire dominated the Ewe. Although, there is no Akan unity, but there is Akan political dominance. The reality of Akan political dominance since independence, a political status due mainly to its population, wealth, and education, has united ethnic nationalism in Ghana, especially ethnic nationalism by the Ewe ethnic group of the volta region of Ghana. What’s more, the partition of the land of the Ewes into Ghana and Togo in 1956 created a political conscious minority ethnic group. So, Ewe nationalism in Ghana has since been a source of disunity in Ghana because of the fear of permanent political domination by the Akan group, predominant in Ashanti region (Useh, 2011).

More importantly, the Ashanti are an Akan-speaking group who had formed a powerful state in the pre-colonial days that successfully resisted British imperialism for decades. Also, the Ashanti nationalism still runs strong, and its traditional monarchy continues to function, reigning over a constitutionally protected sub-nation state. As in the Akan group, there was no overriding ethnic unity amongst the Ewe ethnic group until the May 1956 plebiscite that partitioned the land of the Ewes between the Gold Coast and Togo. At the end of plebiscite, the Ewe ethnic group, the dominant ethnic group of the former German colony, was divided between the Gold Coast and Togo. Even though a clear majority of the natives of British Togo land voted in favour of union with their Western neighbours that absorbed the area into the Gold Coast, there was vocal apposition to the incorporation from some of the Ewes in Southern British Togo land thus leading to a history of conflict between Akan and the Ewes. In this order, the plebiscite gave birth to Ewe nationalism and has since been a source of political tensions between the Ewes, and the Akans, mostly between the Ewes and the Ashanti’s, a sub-group of the Akan ethnic group Ghana as a country is made up of 10 regions, of which Ashanti region in the South Ghana had the highest population, and this has been given the Ashanti’s easy access to power over other regions. The predominant Akan speaking people of Ashanti region had been controlling the affairs of Ghana politics as just an ethnic group in a country numbering up to 100 ethnic groups (Useh, 2011).

Undoubtedly, ethnic rivalry has been endemic in Ghana and it is growing today mainly because each group in Ghana has a historical tradition of group identity to protect are equally fearful of each other, and have a great desire today to get hold of political power to be able to access the economic wealth of the state of Ghana. Moreso, the intensity of pursuit of the Akan group and the Ewe group to manipulate Akan group power to secure maximum protection has create a history of ethnic belligerence in Ghana and as the history of Ghana clearly indicates, the incessant pursuit to acquire political control of the central government of Ghana has caused ethnic rivalry, disunity, and political tensions in Ghana since independence for example, in February 1994, ethnic anger erupted in the Northern-Eastern Region of Ghana resulting in more than 1,000 people killed and 150,000 others displace din fighting between Konkomba on one side and Nanumba, Dagomba, and Gonja on the other. Although, the uprising was due to a longstanding grievance over land ownership and the prerogatives of chiefs, the confrontations were actually the emotion of piled-up ethnic sentiment and anger towards the governance system in general. Moreover, the North-Eastern Ghana local conflict brought to the fore from the underneath of the political landscape, an age-long deep dissatisfaction with a local governance system that has virtually made one ethnic group subservient to the other. Although, it could easily be interpreted as an exceptional case of ethnic conflict because of the likely peaceful co-existence of ethnic groups in the urban areas of Ghana, this violence was a sure evidence of ethnic tension coming from the prevailing unhappiness with the current political structure and system of governance at the local and National level by an overwhelming number of disadvantaged and aggrieved ethnic groups especially ethnic groups from the Northern and upper regions of Ghana. In this order, the ethnic discontent culminating in the ethnic conflict reflects a political situation that continues to aggravate political tension and rivalry in Ghana (Useh, 2011).

In furtherance to the above, the ethnic rivalry is continual in Ghana despite migration to the cities. With regards to the presence of major industrial, commercial, governmental and educational institutions in the cities, as well as increasing migration of other people into the cities, had not created a sense of unity in Ghana all due to the fear of logging ethnic identity and because of the belief by many ethnic groups of the prevalence of inequality in the distribution of power even in a democratic Ghana (Gyamfuaa and Awuakyerematem, 2011). Again the heterogeneous nature of all administrative regions, in rural-urban migration although has resulted in professional inter mixing, in the shared concerns of professionals and traders that cut across ethnic lines, and in the multi-ethnic composition of secondary school and university classes, they have not eliminated the ethnic frustration of the current political structure and system of governance. Moreso, historic ethnic rivalry continues in Ghana because of the increasing political and economic inequality between the ethnic groups in Ghana (Fish, 2008).

In the same vain, inequality in the distribution of political power and economic wealth of Ghana explains the propensity for political parties to emerge along ethnic lines. Political parties in Ghana have essentially been controlled by ethnic groups competing against each other to maintain the monopoly of power and wealth through the control of the central government or to wrestle political power from other ethnic groups in power. Ethnicity is instrumental to the voting behaviour of Ghanaians from pre-independence to now even though, ethnically based political parties are unconstitutional under the present Republic. Ethnic politics is continual in Ghana because of the economic inequality prevalent in Ghana.

Moreso, disguised ethnic struggles to acquire maximum protection from persecutions, injustice, and economic marginalization has created a coalition of southern and Northern ethnic groups against the Asante sub-ethnic group, that is believed to possess inordinate amount of power in the current central government; political demonstration have intensified political tensions and it is therefore destroying all opportunities of achieving political unity in Ghana… political maneuvering in Ghana since independence has been indicative of ethnic tensions and the tensions at times have led to political instability. There seems to exist a fear of perpetual ethnic domination of politics of Ghana. Because of this fear, there has been seen no true national political party in Ghana since the demise in 1966 of the Nkrumaist party, the Conventions Peoples Party-CPP. The New Patriotic Party- NPP and  its predecessors since independence are seen many as the Akan party dominated by the Akan sub-ethnic group, the Ashante, while the National Democratic Congress-NDC and its predecessor are seen as the Ewe-party, the current Nkrumaist party- CPP and PNC- peoples national congress, unlike their predecessor, also do not reflect a national party (Useh, 2011).

Like the Nkrumaist party and the NPP, the internal squabble of the NDC have much to do with ethnicity. There is leadership struggles between pro-Akan and pro-Ewe factions in the party as some party leaders are striving to change the image of the party as an Ewe political party. While the NPP is perceived as an Akan political party, the NDC is recognized by many Ghanaians as an Ewe political party because the leadership of NDC predecessor military and civilian governments that rule Ghana for 19 years were headed predominantly by people form one ethnic group, the Ewe ethnic group. This ethnic dominance has created a great perception, rightly or wrongly, that the NDC belongs to the Ewe ethnic groups and this deeply entrenched perception could not be neutralized in the 2004 elections. The notion of NDC as the Ewe political party was the cause of its loss of election primarily due to ethnicity, to the ethnic fear of perpetual ethnic domination. Undoubtedly, the great African fear of ethnic domination was a factor in the loss of the 2004 elections by the NDC.

Consequently, the loss of the 2004 elections by the NDC was due to ethnicity, not be cause of internal ethnic strife for the control of the party, but because of external perception. The prevailing perception of the Akan ethnic group that the NDC is a party controlled by the Ewe ethnic group. Ethnicity caused the election defeat of the NDC not because of party disunity but because of the fear of the powerful and populous Akan ethnic group of the continuation of political dominance by the Ewe ethnic group. The power of the Akan group and their wariness of a minority ethnic group dominating Ghanaian politics have made any political party perceived to be Ewe controlled Vulnerable to election defeat. The wariness of the Akan ethnic group, a group that is disproportionately powerful, wealthy and educated, has made ethnicity a major factor in Ghanaian politics. It could easily be misconstrued that ethnicity had very little role to play in the central region in 2004 elections, ethnicity and the fear of bringing back Ewe domination of Ghanaian politics resulted in a vote, not necessarily against the NDC presidential candidate who comes from the region, but against the Ewes who are believed to wield firm control of the political party, the notion of resurrecting Ewe political dominance after 19 years in power through the ballot box was too much a political risk for the fante of the central region to accept. The political risk of re-ins-tating Ewe dominance was so much that the fante, a sub-ethnic group of the Akan, decided to sacrifice the political career of a native son to maintain Akan pride and power. Ethnic political consciousness caused the defeat of NDC in the central region and it was a political event in Ghana that demonstrated the power of ethnicity in African politics. Contemporary Ghanaian history is replete with ethnicity in politics. Again Nkrumaist Ashante politicians of the 1960s and Ashante Head of State of Ghana in the 1970s were never supported by the Ashantes. Similarly in the 2004 elections, the fante presidential candidate of the NDC could not be supported by the fantes of the Akan group because the NDC is perceived to bee controlled by non-Akan ethnic group. Because of the fear of ethnic subjugation, the African tend to vote for a party or support a government, not necessary because of who is at the helm, but what ethnic group controls the party or the government, in Ghana, as in all Africa, ethnic control of the party or government is synonymous to attaining maximum social, political and economic protections against social injustice, political persecution and economic marginalization (Alabi, 2007).

1.5 .3 Ethnicity and Ghana’s Two-Party System

Ghanaian two-party system is deeply rooted and dates back from the liberation movements under the colonial power. In 1947, Lawyer and Journalist Joseph B. Danquah founded the first political party, the United Gold Coast Convention (UGCC). It includes members of the African elite (mostly lawyers) and invited a young intellectual settled then in the United Kingdom: Kwame Nkrumah. The unity of this movement only lasted a year, the time necessary for six of the main UGCC leaders (“The Big Six”) to be imprisoned in what remained as a milestone episode in the path to independence. But in 1949, Nkrumah broke away from the party and inaugurated his own party, the convention people’s party (CPP), the CPP presented a more radical nationalist programmes, calling for self government “Now”. While the UGCC appeared by contrast more compromised with the colonial power, while UGCC leaders were almost all Asanti and closely linked with Ashanti traditional chief, the CPP leaders appeared selfless and dedicated solely to the liberation of the people without any connection to a specific ethnic group (Yaele, 2009). The CPP rapidly increased its influence among the people and obtained overwhelming majorities in the elections held in 1951 and 1956. It defeated the National Liberation Movement (NLM), created by Danquah and Kofi Busia in 1954 which succeeded to the UGCC. The rivalry between the CPP and the NLM in the 1950s and 60s crystallized all major splits in Ghanaian politics (Boqards, 2008). The NLM (also more generally, referred to as “the Busia/Danquah tradition”) had its strongholds in the Ashanti region. Its main supports were to be found among Cocoa growers and the traditional chiefs, whose interests were defended. It recruited among the cocoa growers and the traditional chiefs, whose interests were defended. It recruited among the educated elite and proposed a rather conservative project for Ghanaian society. By contrast, the CPP (and later all Nkrumalist parties) defended the “masses” and presented a more radical political position. During his presidency (1957-1966), Kwame Nkrumah opposed the interests of cocoa framers by raising taxes on exports and contested the power of Ashanti traditional rulers (particularly by the chieftaincy act in 1961). He made socialism the social ideology of the regime and drew his country closer to the Eastern Bloc (although he remained above all as one of the first and most influential pan-Africanist leaders). After the fall of the Nkrumah, overthrown by a coup in 1966, Kofi Busia came to power in 1969 and implemented a very different policy. He offered financial support to the revenues of cocoa growers, broke off with communist countries and leaned on the Akan majority group (of which Ashanti form a sub-group). But the economic crisis accelerated his fall and he was dismissed by a military couple in 1972. On the political level, military governments and coups attempts succeeded one another, until a last coup was successfully held by flight Lieutenant Jerry Rawlings in 1979. He remained 112 days in power, just the time necessary to enforce a ‘house clearing exercise’ (restoring state authority through symbolic and sometimes violent decisions like executing the former military chiefs) and organizes elections. Hilla Limann, a “Northerner” who professed to represent the inheritance of Nkrumah CPP, became president but rapidly faced social unrest and discontent. In 1981 Rawlings came back at the head of the state as the power was almost left vacant. Jerry Rawlings does not fall into one of the two political categories that we mentioned above. His presidency thus introduced some modifications in the two-party system but did not abolish it, quiets the contrary. Rawlings tried (and eventually succeeded) to diminish the influence of Nkrumahist forces and integrate them in his own camp. According to Boqards (2008) democratization of African states and multi-party politics brought about the politicization of ethnicity, which is seen through Ghana’s history and continues to affect politics today.

In the early years of his presidency, Rawlings made gestures of goodwill towards these revolutionary forces by creating People and Worker’s Defence Committees seemingly designed to enforce the revolution thereby he kept control on these potentially threatening activities. By determinedly imposing the economic adjustment during the 1980s, Rawlings sidelined Nkrumahists. In the opposition between Nkrumahism and the Busia/Danquah tradition, Nkrumahism was progressively replaced by Rawlings and his heirs. This activated the rivalry between Ashanti and Ewe. This latter group being strongly supportive of his member Jerry Rawlings, while Ashanti and to a larger extent Akan remained resolute opponents. Bat since these two conflicting parties at least agreed upon the broad macroeconomic strategy (Adjustment and international openness),

DOWNLOAD (CHAPTER 1-5)