To argue that Nigeria’s underdevelopment is largely due to external influences such as imperialism, colonialism, capitalism, divide-and-rule tactics, and the entrenchment of corruption by foreign powers, it’s important to examine the historical context and mechanisms through which these forces have shaped Nigeria’s political, economic, and social landscape.
During the colonial era, the British employed divide-and-rule strategies, exploiting Nigeria’s ethnic, religious, and cultural diversity to maintain control. This approach fostered distrust and competition among various groups, a legacy that persists today, leading to political instability, conflicts, and a lack of national cohesion. The arbitrary borders drawn by colonial powers grouped diverse ethnic communities into a single state, creating an artificial nation-state without regard for pre-existing ethnic or cultural divisions. This has resulted in enduring ethnic tensions and conflicts, which contribute to governance challenges and underdevelopment.
The colonial administration, and later neo-colonial strategies, involved establishing a local elite class that was co-opted into the colonial governance structure. These elites were often chosen not for their leadership qualities or commitment to public service but for their willingness to serve colonial interests. This practice has perpetuated a political culture of patronage and corruption, where loyalty to foreign interests and personal gain supersede national development. After independence, many of these elites retained power, and the lack of accountability mechanisms allowed corruption to flourish. Subsequent regimes have continued this system, often supported or at least tolerated by foreign powers for strategic reasons.
Post-independence, Nigeria, like many other developing countries, was subjected to structural adjustment programs (SAPs) imposed by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). These programs included strict austerity measures, cuts in social spending, and privatization, which often exacerbated poverty and inequality. Rather than leading to economic recovery, these measures frequently resulted in economic stagnation or decline, increased debt burdens, and greater dependency on foreign aid and loans. Nigeria’s natural resources, particularly oil, have been exploited primarily for the benefit of foreign corporations and local elites. The wealth generated has not been equitably distributed or invested in national development, leading to widespread poverty and underdevelopment despite the country’s vast resources.
Foreign powers, particularly during the Cold War, often intervened in Nigeria’s political processes to install or support leaders who would be favorable to their interests. This has included support for military coups and authoritarian regimes, further entrenching a lack of democratic governance and accountability. Corruption has often been encouraged or tolerated by foreign entities when it serves their strategic or economic interests, undermining efforts to build effective and accountable governance structures in Nigeria.
In response to the counterargument that attributing Nigeria’s underdevelopment solely to imperialism is overly simplistic and that internal factors like ethnicity, nepotism, and corruption are the real issues, it is important to acknowledge how these internal problems have been exacerbated by external influences.
The ethnic divisions cited as a primary source of dysfunctionality in Nigeria were significantly deepened by colonial policies that intentionally manipulated ethnic identities to control the population. While internal ethnic rivalries exist, they were strategically inflamed and institutionalized by colonial rule, leaving a fractured society that struggles with unity to this day.
The argument that corruption in Nigeria lacks consequences, unlike in “imperial clines,” overlooks the fact that the lack of accountability in Nigeria’s governance is itself a legacy of colonialism, where the local elite were rewarded for their loyalty to the colonial masters rather than for their service to the public. Moreover, the so-called imperial powers have often turned a blind eye or even supported corrupt regimes when it suited their strategic interests, further entrenching corruption.
The critique of capitalism and imperialism is not an attempt to blame every issue on external factors but to highlight how these systems have been manipulated to extract resources and wealth from Nigeria to the benefit of external entities. This extraction-based economic model has stunted Nigeria’s industrial and economic development and created a dependency on imported goods and foreign loans, which continues to this day.
While foreign powers may not directly instigate ethnic violence, such as attacks on the Igbos during the 2023 elections, the historical context of ethnic manipulation and continued economic and political interference by these powers contribute to an environment where such violence is possible and even predictable.
A holistic introspection of Nigeria’s historical experiences would indeed reveal internal contradictions and failures, but it must also recognize the profound impact of external interventions and how these have shaped and perpetuated the internal dynamics of ethnicity, nepotism, and corruption. Acknowledging this is crucial for a complete understanding and for moving towards a truly independent and prosperous Nigeria.
In conclusion, while internal factors like corruption and ethnic tensions undoubtedly play a role in Nigeria’s challenges, these issues are deeply intertwined with a legacy of external exploitation and manipulation. Understanding Nigeria’s underdevelopment requires recognizing how imperialism, colonialism, capitalism, and foreign intervention have shaped—and continue to shape—the nation’s trajectory.
Duruebube Uzii na Abosi
Chima Nnadi-Oforgu
OBLONG MEDIA UNLIMITED 
Leave a comment