A possible answer to the question of why inter-ethnic inequality is not
sufficient to produce nationalism, and why dominant groups sometimes
become nationalistic, is relative deprivation, in the sense of aspirations to
standards of living which have yet to be reached but to which the ‘deprived’
group feels it has a right (Hah and Martin, 1975). Brass is critical of this the-
ory because it is not possible to specify and measure the level of relative
deprivation needed to turn an ethnic group towards nationalism. The theory
accepts as evidence of relative deprivation the claims made by the national-
ists themselves. And ‘deprivation theory cannot explain the nationalism of
privileged groups, such as that of Afrikaners in South Africa’ (Brass, 1991,
p. 42). However, it is not clear why objective measures of relative depriva-
tion should not be constructed to compare two ethnic groups in conflict
about political autonomy; nor why the theory cannot be applied to the
examples of relative privilege for which it was designed. So the theory of
relative deprivation would appear to retain some heuristic value.
A further problem with the theory of internal colonialism is that it does not
explain why nationalismshould be the response to uneven development and
internal, colonial-style exploitation rather than, say, a return to pre-modern
politics or revolutionary class consciousness. Why should a deprived com-
munity aspire to become a nation-state? (Orridge, 1981, pp. 183–4).
Then, as Orridge convincingly argued, the theory of uneven development
requires a clearer definition of what constitutes unevenness than has so far
been provided: ‘we need to be given some clearer idea of how much
unevenness is necessary for the maintenance or growth of a sense of sepa-
rate ethnic or national feeling’ (Orridge, 1981, p. 187). Unless it is known
how to identify the significant spatial variations between regions, it is
impossible to test whether or not the theory applies to a particular country.
Application of the Hechter model to other countries is also made difficult by
the fact that the inequalities between parts of the UK that were central to the
analysis were not derived from the general statements about internal colo-
nialism and so consequently do not explain relationships that may need to
be explored in other countries (Page, 1978, pp. 302–3).
Some of the problems with the internal colonialism thesis are illustrated
by the failure of the Biafran secession attempt. Although there certainly
were (and are) profound cultural differences between the major ethnic
groups of Nigeria, and considerable competition and hostility between
them, conflict was more the consequence of competition for power, patron-
age and wealth than the exploitation of the Ibos or the region in which they
were politically dominant. Indeed, much of the hostility to the Ibos among
other ethnic groups stemmed from fear of the opportunities which education
208 Understanding Third World Politics