when opportunities for economic advancement through migration, from
which the Ibos had formerly benefited, were discouraged, first by policies of
regionalization in employment and then by pogroms (Nafziger, 1972).
The lack of consistent correlation between peripheral economic status and
nationalistic mobilization draws us back to the significance of ethnic iden-
tity, which some would argue is the main cause of nationalism. Cultural dif-
ferences are perceived by the groups they define, while spatial economic
differences may or may not be. Ethnicity would seem to be a necessary
condition for separatism. But economic exploitation by the core community
does not seem to be a necessary, let alone a sufficient, condition of national-
ism. The roots of separatism must be sought in other than economic factors.
People must see themselves as a distinct nation before they will contemplate
independence (Polese, 1985, p. 112). Yet ethnicity seems not to rank as a
sufficient condition either. The history of nationalism clearly shows that:
the objective existence or subjective perception of inequality is indispen-
sible to justify nationalism, but it is not in itself an explanation for it. The
only certainty is that every nationalist movement has always justified
itself in terms of existing oppression or anticipated oppression by a rival
group. (Brass, 1991, p. 43)Not all ‘objective’ cultural groups are nationalistic. Group identity
becomes important under external threat, especially from the state, through
assimilationist policies, discrimination, environmental damage, and the
expropriation of natural resources, for example (Brown, 1989, pp. 5–10;
Clay, 1989, pp. 228–30). The claims of both Eritrea and Somaliland to self-
determination were based on a ‘consciousness of oppression’ (Adam, 1994,
p. 35). Hence the appeal of political integration theory, which concentrates
on interpretations of ethnicity and the conflicting cultural values, particu-
larly those relating to politics, of different ethnic groups.
The balance of advantage
This theory builds on the idea that communities weigh up the costs and
benefits of integration and separation. Birch has developed a cost–benefit
perspective on nationalism, seeing ethnicity as an independent variable,
producing identities and loyalties which persist over long periods, largely
regardless of other factors (Birch, 1978, p. 333). Therefore ethnicity should
be treated as given and not explained in terms of political discrimination,
Nationalism and Secession 211