Forum for cities in transition (II)

As we continue work at the Conference Steering Committee, my mind went back to an event in Germany. I was in attending a conference in 1988which held in then-divided city of Berlin. One of the places we visited during our site seeing tour was the Berlin Wall that divided the East and West Berlin, an […]

As we continue work at the Conference Steering Committee, my mind went back to an event in Germany. I was in attending a conference in 1988which held in then-divided city of Berlin. One of the places we visited during our site seeing tour was the Berlin Wall that divided the East and West Berlin, an aftermath of the cold war. I stared at the high fence and barbed wire with graffiti written all over. It was a very depressing site and I never imagined that one day I will live in a divided city.
Today, Kaduna is a segregated city with imaginary but real walls that keep people clustered in areas where they feel safe. They are afraid of the ‘‘other”. It was not like this, decades back when the city was a peaceful cosmopolitan centre.
Kaduna was the headquarters of the defunct Northern Region during the colonial era. Dating back to its position as the former regional headquarters, Kaduna became not only an administrative city but also a melting pot of diverse cultures, centre of policy and politics and a meeting town for all Northerners. All the 19 Northern States have liaison offices and landed property in Kaduna. The question to ask is: How did the undesirable change happen?
Bloomfield and Reilly (1998) identify two powerful elements that are often at the centre of deep rooted conflicts. The first is identity which is defined as “the mobilisation of people in communal identity groups based on races, religion, culture, language.” The second is distribution: “the means of sharing the economic, social and political resources within a society.” Where perceived imbalance in distribution coincides with identity differences, where, for example, one religious or ethnic group is deprived of certain resources available to others, we have the potential for conflict. It is this combination of potent identity – based factors with wider perceptions of economic and social injustice that often fuel deep-rooted conflicts.”
Deep rooted conflicts also have other characteristics such as their persistence, and scope. These conflicts have a tendency to occur several times because identity issues cover a wide range of elements that are at the core of a people’s sense of being, such as race, religion, culture, heritage, history, language etc. They are therefore more complex, persistent, and prolonged. They are also much more difficult to resolve since the core issues at stake are difficult to negotiate and compromise on.
Deep rooted conflicts also have a scope that can also be alarming because wherever people who share the same identity such as race, language, religion, culture etc exist the conflict could spread to such areas. This is particularly explosive where such identity related issues also combine with a sense of injustice and perceived marginalisation in the distribution of resources such as land, economic and political power, employment prospects etc. Then the conflicts become so prevalent, pervasive, durable and insoluble. The issues in the dispute are not only identity driven but people also become emotionally charged over what “gives them their sense of themselves, defining a person’s bond with her or his community and defining the level of satisfaction of her or his need for identity (Bloomfield and Reilly 1998:9).
Kaduna falls squarely into this framework. Ethno religious conflicts first broke out in the 1980’s, Kasuwar Magani in 1984, ZangonKataf in 1984, 1992 and 2011 Kafanchan in 1987,1996 and 1999 and 2011.The first Kafanchan crises was traced to conflicts between Christian and Muslim students at a College of Education over provocative preaching by one Reverend Abubakar Bako who was alleged to have misinterpreted the Quran. The violence spread to Kafanchan town and other parts of Kaduna state.
In the North and Kaduna State in particular, Christians and Muslims have lived together for hundreds of years and most of the recent crises are ethnic in origin and only assume a religious colouration because the two groups also belong to different religions.  The ethnic minority groups who are mostly Christians complain that historical developments since the colonial conquest have favoured the Hausa and Fulani who are Muslims and they dominate the politics and economy of the region.
They control the traditional leadership offices and the markets and marginalise the ethnic minorities who also told the Justice Rahila Cudjoe Commission of Inquiry established after the Zangon Kataf crises that they resent being called animists (arna) by the Hausa and Fulani. (Citizen 15/2/96) The Hausa /Fulani are the majority and occupy 15 out of the 23 local governments in Northern Kaduna, with some large settlements in the south. The minority groups numbering almost 50 ethnic groups are concentrated in 8 Local governments in the south. From the 1980s the two communities have resorted to violence in expressing their disagreements. Analysts posit that these conflicts arise from clash of values, claims to scarce resources, power and status. The causes of the conflict are historical and cultural, while competition over scarce resources added an economic dimension to it. They are deep rooted conflicts hence their prolonged and complex nature. There were also the anti Sharia crises of 2000 and the Post Election Conflicts of 2011.
The extension of the Sharia to cover criminal matters in the year 2000 by the twelve Northern States was hailed by their Muslim citizens. However, in Kaduna state which has a substantial Christian population, violent protests trailed the government’s decision to implement the expanded Sharia legal system. While Muslims insisted that Sharia is their inalienable right since the country’s constitution enshrines freedom of religion for all, the Christians believed that Sharia would infringe on their rights and erode the basic freedoms the constitution grants them.
Torn and weary from its conflicts, Kaduna is set to turn a new leave in its search for lasting peace through the FCT conference. The conference narrative states that cities that are in transition in countries divided by conflict are in the best position to help other cities in transition in other such countries. They have common problems ranging from provision of welfare services, to identifying flashpoints and interferes that trigger violence and having in place mechanisms to control and contain such outbreaks.
Each city is at a different stage of transition. Nevertheless, through the process of sharing their narratives they can learn from each other and create a dynamic that becomes a catalyst for change. As it hosts the world, Kaduna will be making a pledge to implement a communal peace initiative and one can only pray that the pledge will restore peace to our troubled city.