African countries did not have the luxury of deciding upon own borders naturally. Unlike in more ordinary circumstances, such as in European countries, typically communities with similar characteristics would group themselves together to form a nation. Things like similar languages, religions, and cultures played a major role in the formation of European nations. Our nations had not been formed by us but rather by European colonial governments.
The African continent had been partitioned by European powers, which “legally” established the spheres of influence under the colonial rule of European powers. The result of this partition of Africa by Europeans meant that Africans didn’t have the opportunity to form our countries based on similarities between ethnic groups. Therefore, African countries today are made of an incredibly diverse populations of ethnic groups that had been put together without much regard for cultural, religious or linguistic differences.
European powers were more interested in exploiting Africa’s resources and maintaining control over their colonies than establishing any kind of viable nation-state. In many cases, the grouping together of differing ethnic communities was done purposefully by European powers. They sought to create divisions and conflict among ethnic groups, therefore they would be more interested in fighting against each other than fighting against colonial rule.
This strategy clearly did not last forever. African indigenous communities eventually did manage to join together to fight for their independence.
However, following independence, then came the question whether African countries should maintain their colonial-era borders. Various separatist movements sprung up in most African nations, especially among ethnic groups which found themselves in the minority in their nations. These secessionist movements had universally been met with massive crackdowns by the newly independent African governments.
The new cohort of African regimes were intent on maintaining their control over the borders of the countries they inherited. They were willing to hold onto these borders even if it meant brutal civil wars would take place within their countries.
The death toll of the Nigerian civil war, which saw the Nigerian military fight against Biafran separatists, is estimated to be between 500,000 to 3,000,000 people. That is just an example of the brutal nature of the conflicts that took place between separatist groups seeking independence from the newly independent African states. Similar conflicts that saw the deaths of hundreds of thousands have taken place throughout the years.
Similarly, another conflicts that has arisen over the years in neighbouring Cameroon, referred to as the “Anglophone crisis,” is another battle between separatists forces and government troops. This conflict has taken place over the years between Cameroonian government forces and separatists from the self-proclaimed Ambazonia state.
Even today, such conflicts between separatist forces continue. The Tigray war that took place from November 2020 to November 2022 is a recent example of such separatist violence. Similarly, that war is estimated to have seen the deaths of between 162,000 and 600,000 people were killed, with civilians making up a large proportion of the casualties.
These figures of the number of deaths truly boggle the mind. Is the “sovereignty” of these nations worth the lives of so many of their own citizens? If European colonial powers forcibly grouping ethnic groups to form these countries was bad; is it not equally wrong when African countries force minority groups into their territory against their wishes?
How can it be that so many African lives are worth losing just to keep hold of a piece of land? The reality is that much like colonial powers we’re interested in exploiting resources from their African colonies, similar African elites are interested in maintaining their control of those same natural resources.
In Nigeria, for example, the South-South region which would have made up part of the area of Biafra has some of the highest oil-producing states in the country. The idea of the Nigerian state losing such a vital source of revenue would have never been accepted by the Nigerians in positions of power, therefore the Nigerian civil war raged on until the separatist forces had been defeated.
Similarly, as in Nigeria, other African governments that faced off against separatist forces did so in large part because of the presence of natural resources that could be exploited. The wealth that could be generated was so much that the crackdown by governments against separatist movements has typically been so severe. That is the reason why such high death tolls have been recorded in such conflicts. In many cases, genocidal acts have been committed against ethnic groups involved in such separatist movements.
The reality is that the fight by separatist groups is not something that has or ever will just go away as African governments hope. The fight for independence is not something that can just be done away with through force. This goes to the heart of one’s identity. Things like language, religion, and culture play a significant role in the formation of a shared identity.
The idea of a coexistence of a strong national identity alongside strong tribal and ethnic identities is a complex phenomenon. Especially in countries as diverse as ours across Africa. Clashes would inevitably arise around differences in beliefs.
Nigeria is a prime example of this clash of cultures. The country today lacks any kind of strong national idea. The significant cultural and religious divide between Northern and Southern Nigeria can make the country seem almost like two distinct nations.
Moreover, this ambition for separatism typically arises from minority ethnic communities, especially. This often stems from fears by members of the community that their cultures are being eroded away in favour of the cultures of the much larger ethnic groups in their countries.
The so-called Anglophone crisis in Cameroon is a manifestation of this phenomenon. English-speaking communities within Cameroon have lamented that they feel the French language has been forced down their throats by the Cameroonian central government. They have a long history of the use of the English language, and they are invested in maintaining their use of the language in their region, however, they feel their rights are being infringed upon by Cameroonian authorities. This has been the major motivation behind the push for a separate independent state, named Ambazonia, to be formed for the English-speaking minority in Cameroon.
Likewise in Nigeria, the Independent People of Biafra (IPOD) is made up mainly of members of the Igbo ethnic group in Nigeria. While the Igbo population in Nigeria is estimated to be around 30 million people, despite their sizeable population, they are still in the minority in Nigeria. IPOD have often claimed that there is an attempt to forcibly push the Islamic religion on Nigerians and that Christians regularly face persecution in Nigeria. They claim this as motivation for there being a separate state of Biafra, where their culture would be preserved.
The ability to promote a strong national identity without infringing on the rights, languages or cultural practices of different ethnic groups is a difficult balancing act that African governments have sought to achieve. The issue tends to become supercharged, especially when members of minority groups feel their community’s culture is being eroded by members of the majority ethnic group.
The reality is that no matter how much African governments seek to beat out the ambitions of separatist movements, the longing for a state based on ethnic characteristics will always be potent among segments of the population. Sadly, the legacy of the divide and conquer tactic used by colonial governments to keep the indigenous African populations in their colonies more focused on infighting than advancing their interests continues to play a role across Africa.