By Charles Kumolu

Even if President Bola Tinubu’s first three years in office have not translated into widespread prosperity for Nigerians, they have at least been characterised by a measure of peaceful and harmonious living.

This represents a rare accomplishment in light of Nigeria’s history of discord and uneasy relations among its multiethnic population.

The gravity of the situation is better appreciated when one considers how deeply the administration of former President Muhammadu Buhari polarized the country. With the exception of the Nigerian Civil War, few periods in Nigeria’s history have so profoundly deepened the nation’s ethnic, regional, and political fault lines as the Buhari administration.

Today, the effects of the ethno-religious divisions fostered during that period continue to endanger national cohesion.

The conflicts in Southern Kaduna, Plateau State, and the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, agitation were at their height during the period, and the manner in which the state responded to them intensified national divisions more than any other issue at the time.

The polarization became so severe that it weakened the government’s capacity to shield citizens from ethnic militias and deepened suspicion among Nigerians.

At the height of the crisis, loyalty to ethnic and regional identities often appeared stronger than commitment to the nation itself. That was the fractured country President Bola Ahmed Tinubu inherited on May 29, 2023, a nation sharply divided along multiple fault lines.

Tinubu may not have embraced the Confucian-inspired nation-building model that Lee Kuan Yew used to transform Singapore from a deeply diverse society into a cohesive and indivisible nation bound by civic duty. Nor has he demonstrated the austere vision, relentless vigour, or benevolent authoritarianism often associated with President Paul Kagame of Rwanda. Yet, under his leadership, one could at least sense a fragile but growing harmony within the social fabric of Nigerian society.

This is despite persistent accusations of the “Yorubanisation” of strategic appointments under his administration, as well as the controversial Muslim/Muslim ticket of his presidency.

Even so, the relative easing of socio-ethnic tensions under Tinubu remains one of the more intriguing developments in Nigeria’s recent political history.

In Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew applied Confucianism as a pragmatic, modernizing ideology to build the society into a disciplined, and stable nation.

Writing in the his book, The Last Confucian: Lee Kuan Yew, Frank Alvin, noted that: “With the birth of Singapore, Lee faced a series of domestic challenges: how to fend off the communists, steer the population clear of racial or religious chauvinism, and build a successful polity. In a Confucian society, order and predictability assume precedence over experimentation and individualism.

“This set a basis for nationhood but side-stepped important questions of civic participation and personal liberty. New nations around the world foundered amidst corruption and tribalism, but Singapore built a modern state. The lesson: Economic growth, individual mobility, and social inclusion are the building blocks for stability.”

Although this may not fully describe Nigeria’s situation over the past three years under President Tinubu, analysts argued that his personal strength as a political dealmaker across ethnic groups may explain the relative stability observed. Even before assuming the presidency, Tinubu was widely regarded as someone who built political bridges, which many believe continue to contribute to the cohesion of his administration.

It is uncommon to find power brokers across party lines without at least one or two accounts of constructive relationship with the President long before he became President.

Notwithstanding, the longevity of this perceived harmony remains uncertain in a nation where underlying grievances often resurface any moment.

Nigeria’s unity has historically been tested not only by differences in identity but also by questions of fairness in distribution of power and opportunity, issues that no amount of political networking can permanently suppress.

Therefore, whether this moment of relative calm endures will depend less on personal relationships among power brokers and more on the ability of the state to convert elite-level accommodation into broader national inclusion.

Without such translation, today’s uneasy cohesion may prove to be only a pause in Nigeria’s longer cycle of socio ethnic tension.