When Majority Becomes Monopoly: What Nomenclature Can Best Describe Benue’s Political Arrangement?
BY IDUH ONAH
THE POLITICAL history of Benue State remains one of the most delicate yet unavoidable conversations in the contemporary discourse on justice, inclusion, equity, and democratic balance in Nigeria’s Middle Belt. Since the creation of the state in 1976, the structure of political power has largely reflected an entrenched pattern of ethnic domination in which one ethnic nationality: the Tiv, has maintained overwhelming control over the political architecture of the state, often to the exclusion or marginalisation of other indigenous ethnic nationalities.
This reality, though politically sensitive, is historically evident and statistically difficult to dispute. The Tiv constitute the demographic majority in Benue and, naturally, enjoy electoral advantages in a democratic system. Yet democracy gradually loses its moral legitimacy when numerical superiority evolves into permanent political monopoly.
The tragedy of Benue politics is therefore not simply that the Tiv have produced all governors (except during the military) and occupied most strategic offices since the state’s creation. The deeper concern is the emergence of a political culture in which governance appears psychologically and structurally presumed to be the natural preserve of one ethnic bloc. Such a condition transforms democratic participation into what many increasingly perceive as a form of internal political colonialism, where smaller ethnic nationalities become perpetual spectators within a state they equally own by history, citizenship and constitutional identity.
The Idoma, Igede, Etulo, Jukun, Abakpa, Nyifon, Akweya and several other indigenous communities have made immense contributions to Benue’s economy, culture, public service and security. Yet their participation in the highest levels of political leadership has remained comparatively limited and frequently symbolic. Over the decades, many citizens from these communities have come to believe that political power, strategic appointments and governmental influence revolve disproportionately around Tiv elite interests.
Recent comments by the Social Democratic Party’s governorship candidate, Prof. Sebastian Hon (SAN), have unintentionally reinforced this perception.
Responding to debates surrounding the 2027 governorship, the respected legal scholar argued that the existing zoning arrangement actually favours his own aspiration. His reasoning was based on the historical tenure of governors from Benue North-East (Zone A) and Benue North-West (Zone B), concluding that neither zone could legitimately deny the other another opportunity to produce the governor. He further observed that if zoning were to be interpreted strictly, then Benue South (Zone C) should also be considered.
On the surface, the argument appears legally coherent. Beneath it, however, lies an irony which I believe many observers may find impossible to ignore; even as the conversation appears largely confined within what resembles a Tiv family debate.
However, Prof Hon’s core question is whether political power should remain with Zone A or shift to Zone B – both overwhelmingly Tiv zones – while Zone C enters the discussion almost as an afterthought. It resembles two brothers debating whose turn it is to inherit the family estate while occasionally acknowledging that another sibling also exists.
One is therefore tempted to ask whether Benue’s political elite have unconsciously invented an entirely new constitutional doctrine – rotation without inclusion.
Under this unwritten doctrine, power rotates faithfully, but almost exclusively within the same dominant ethnic constituency. Minority communities are politely reminded that they are “equally entitled,” yet history repeatedly demonstrates that that entitlement rarely translates into actual political opportunity.
Perhaps the greatest service Prof. Hon has rendered the perpetual debate in Benue politics is not the conclusion he reached but the contradiction he unintentionally exposed. After nearly fifty years of Benue’s existence, the political imagination of much of the state’s elite still appears unable to naturally conceive of the governorship residing outside the Tiv establishment. The debate is almost always framed around which Tiv zone deserves another opportunity rather than whether all constituent nationalities deserve an equitable stake in the leadership of the state.
Ironically, the same political establishment that recurrently invokes democracy and majority rule whenever minority groups demand equitable access to power always resorts to the imperative of zoning formula the moment questions arise within the dominant bloc itself. Does it not sound illogical and hypocritical that democracy becomes arithmetic when addressing Idoma aspirations, but zoning becomes sacred whenever it is required to settle disagreements within the Tiv family? Such selective constitutional philosophy inevitably raises profoundly uncomfortable questions about consistency.
This is precisely why many citizens now question not merely the zoning arrangement itself but the political philosophy underpinning it. If every interpretation of zoning, every political calculation and every elite consensus ultimately returns the governorship to the same dominant ethnic constituency, then zoning ceases to be an instrument of equity and instead becomes a sophisticated vocabulary for preserving the status quo.
Such perceptions, whether accepted or disputed, carry profound implications for social cohesion. History across Africa repeatedly demonstrates that where one group dominates state institutions continuously, excluded communities eventually begin to interpret governance not as collective administration but as internal conquest. Political alienation gradually matures into resentment, distrust and identity-based mobilisation.
Ironically, this situation contradicts the historical foundations upon which Benue itself evolved. Historical accounts of the Benue Valley reveal centuries of coexistence and interdependence among Tiv, Idoma, Jukun and numerous other communities. Benue was never conceived as the exclusive political estate of any one ethnic nationality but as a plural political community.
Unfortunately, post-colonial electoral arithmetic gradually transformed numerical superiority into near-hegemonic political ownership. In practical terms, the state evolved into a democracy of votes but not necessarily a democracy of inclusion.
The solution, however, cannot and must never be hostility towards the Tiv people. The Tiv possess a proud history, rich culture and entirely legitimate political aspirations. The challenge is therefore not to replace one form of exclusion with another but to construct a genuinely inclusive democratic order.
What Benue urgently requires is a governance framework rooted in equity, rotational inclusion, institutional fairness and collective ownership of the state project. Sustainable peace depends not upon domination but upon partnership.
This is where the African philosophy of Ubuntu becomes essential to the Benue power narrative. Ubuntu; the enduring principle that “I am because we are”, which has a strong connotation with the Tiv concept; Ya na angbian (literally meaning: “eat and give your brother”); offers a moral pathway beyond ethnic supremacy towards shared humanity and collective destiny. Under Ubuntu or Ya na angbian, governance must not be treated as conquest but as stewardship; not as ethnic inheritance but as collective trust.
An Ubuntu- or Ya na angbian-inspired Benue would consciously evolve enforceable political conventions that guarantee every ethnic nationality a meaningful stake in governance through equitable rotation of key offices, balanced political appointments and inclusive development planning. Leadership competence and ethnic fairness should reinforce rather than contradict each other.
No society truly develops under the burden of internal domination. Sustainable peace emerges only where justice is visible and inclusion is institutionalised. At a time when Benue is already challenged by insecurity, displacement, economic hardship and farmer-herder conflicts, it can ill afford the additional burden of deepening ethnic mistrust.
The time has therefore come for sincere introspection, particularly among the state’s political elite. True leadership is measured not merely by winning elections but by possessing the wisdom to build a state where every ethnic nationality feels respected, protected and genuinely represented.
The Tiv ethnic nationality, and indeed all ethnic nationalities in Benue must move beyond ethnic triumphalism towards inclusive statesmanship. The Tiv should not perceive calls for equitable participation as threats to their existence, just as minority communities must resist the temptation of bitterness or separatist resentment. The future belongs neither to domination nor revenge but to negotiated coexistence founded upon justice.
Ultimately, the greatness of Benue State will not be determined by which ethnic group controls Government House the longest. It will be determined by whether its leaders possess the courage to transform numerical majority into moral leadership, political dominance into democratic inclusion, and historical advantage into a legacy of justice.
Only then will the question posed here cease to provoke debate. Until then, many citizens will continue to ask, with increasing urgency: What nomenclature best describes Benue’s political arrangement?
Onah is the Editor-in-Chief of NATIONAL RECORD and writes this column every Wednesday. Send reactions via email to: nationalrecordng@gmail.com, onahiduh@yahoo.co.uk. WhatsApp: +234 8033209749
