How critics got the Census

How Critics Got the Census ’91 Wrong

Dr. Abba Lawan

Forwared By Mohammed Haruna

Note: The article below was first published in the defunct Citizen on May 18, 1992. We reproduced it here against the background of the forth coming census in March and because it is relevant to the politics of census today as it was 1992.

Editor

The 1991 Census provisional results released in March have, as expected, continued to generate comments and criticisms in the media. Most of the criticisms have been on the regional distribution of the population. The critics, including Bola Ige, Ebenezer Babatope, Frederick Fasheun, Pini Jason and The Guardian in an editorial (28/4/92), claim that according to what they call, “principles of geography and demography”, the further one is from a tropical rain forest environment, the fewer the number of persons that should be found. Based on their reasoning, states such as Kano, Sokoto, Bauchi and Kaduna, in the “desert, agricultural, rural” north should have returned smaller populations than states in the “forest, industrial, urban” south.

Let us start by explaining some concepts that appear confusing to Bola Ige and Co: There is no desert zone in Nigeria. Apart from Southern Nigerian rain forest, we have three gradations of grasslands in the North. Furthermore, population size is a different concept from population density. Size refers to total number of persons in a territory or region. Density relates to number of persons to an area. Specifically, density of population is the number of persons per square mile or kilometer. The 1991 Census figures reveal that the South, a smaller physical area – one quarter of the country – is more densely populated than the north. The north, three-quarters of the total land area, has a larger population but lower density than the south. The concentration of people in a small area, such as Lagos State, because of visibility, falsely suggests, like a mirage, a very large population relative to the other less dense areas. Thus, simply because the south is more densely populated than the north it does not follow that it should automatically have a larger population.

It is also wrong to say, as Census ’91 critics argue, that a high level of urbanization in an area (that is, the percentage of population living in urban areas), necessarily implies that the region will have a larger population than a more rural one. Put in other words, just because a region or territory has a high percentage of its population living in urban areas, it should not necessarily have more people than a largely rural one. For example, the fact that USA is more urbanized does not give it a large total population than China which is largely rural. So also Canada versus Nigeria or Singapore versus India. Therefore, to argue, as the Guardian and other critics do, that the more urban south should have, because of that urbanization, a larger population than a more rural north is incorrect. The same is also true of the relationship between electricity consumption, level of literacy, standard of living and total population size.

Several Factors determine the distribution of population of a given territory or region; any student of population geography or demography knows this. It is incorrect to say that a single factor – what critics call “geography” – determines whether or not, and how many, people live in an area. In fact, factors such as duration of human habitation, past stability or exposure to wars and slavery, soil, prevalence of diseases, location of economic activities could be, and most often are, more critical than “geography”. I discuss below how some of these factors influence the distribution of population.

Let us start with the physical, geographic factor. Bola Ige et al believe that a tropical rain forest environment, independent or other factors is more favorable to human survival or existence than grassland. How true is this belief? A comparison of maps of the distribution of worlds population with that of vegetation reveals a most significant pattern: Universally, tropical rain forest areas, as found in southern Nigeria, are densely settled: in fact, a notable geographer Clark (1975:230) confirms that for Africa as a whole, “the most densely populated climate zones tend to be those of the savanna (as found in northern Nigeria) and the Mediterranean climates where there is a marked division into rainy and dry seasons. Except in certain areas where powerful cultures have evolved, most forest have been associated with low population densities, not only because of the thickness of vegetation and the difficulties of clearing but also of diminution of soil fertility after clearance and high incidence of diseases as well as limitations of human technology to tackle such environment.” Beaujeu-Garnier (1978), another population geographer, describes this region as “impenetrable, indestructible, and hostile in every way to human life. The soil can only support mere and infrequent harvests. Man is a marginal being, menaced and infested”. That is the main reason the Amazon forest of Brazil, Zambia, Congo, Cameroon, Gabon etc are sparsely populated. The same environmental condition among others makes forest areas of southern Nigeria not produce much of the food being consumed there. In contrast, northern Nigeria, the territory considered by The Guardian and Co. as inhospitable, is in fact the place which provides, for man, at the existence level of peasant technology, the essential for survival: food. The Guinea, Sudan and Sahel zones, though the driest parts of the country, have the highest agricultural input in the land: their cereals, tubbers and livestock feed the nation. That is why agriculture in this country is essentially northern Nigerian.

Thus, if one relies only on geographic factor, then the population figures returned by Census ’91 for the rest of southern Nigeria could not have been plausible. They would have been highly suspect. Luckily, other factors are more significant in determining the distribution of population. One of such factors is the duration of human habitation in an area – what Beaujeu-Garnier calls “age of peopling”. According to her, “populations living in the same place for a long time, even though they may develop but slowly, will end by becoming more and more numerous… A population with its roots in the remote past has a tendency to adapt itself very closely to the natural environment”. Thus, one would expect – and Census ’91 figures reveal – populations to be large and dense where ancient polities existed. Specifically, regions where Kanem – Borno and Hausa kingdoms in the north, Yoruba states in the West and village societies of Igboland were located in the past are today areas of large populations. I need to emphasize here that the oldest and largest polities that existed in what is now Nigeria were located in Northern Nigeria, in the grassland belt. The people of such areas as mentioned above have continued to remain in their “home-lands” despite the vicissitudes of physical environment such as diminished soil fertility(as in Yoruba and Ibo lands) and droughts (as in Hausa and Borno lands). The populations have become territorially immobile.

An effective political organization, as found in those ancient kingdoms, ensured a peaceful and secure environment free from enslavement. That was necessary for agriculture, for the development of commerce and manufacturing for general economic prosperity. In such environment therefore, population grew. In contrast, areas exposed to chronic instability, to wars and slave aiding, were sparsely populated and are today a veritable reminder of past human condition. This is why the middle belt is thinly populated.

Economic attractiveness, including presence of commercial and industrial activities is another factor that explains population distribution. Areas of intense economic activities usually attract migrations from, especially, neighboring, less endowed territory. It is one of the factors put forward by some critics to support the thesis of larger southern population. Yes, a coastal strip of Nigeria is a zone of intense economic activities: that is mainly Lagos, which is the premier commercial and industrial centre in the country and which attracts the largest migrants from all over the country. Other coastal areas do not offer the same opportunities and, are, therefore, not attractive destinations for a large scale migration especially of people from northern Nigeria. In addition, the claim that any state in the south other than Lagos is industrial is false. Furthermore, it is not the coast alone that is characterized by intense economic activities. Kano, (and a larger Kano – Kaduna axis) in northern Nigeria is the second most important economic zone in the country. And, on the whole, the north has become over the years, a more attractive destination for southern Nigerians.

There are other equally important factors including prevalence of diseases, soil, etc that, together with those discussed above, explain the distribution of the population of any given area.

Let me as a footnote talk about Kano. Southern Nigerians, who have never ventured outside their “moist forest” enclaves, often wonder why Kano in the grasslands should have large population. They should now be enlightened. Kano State sits on most agriculturally productive part of this country. And as a scholar of this region, Mortimore (1972) points out, “Kano has been a centre of power in Hausa land for more than 1000 years, a factor which has enabled a large sedentary population to grow in relative security. Kano City was (and continues to be) a centre of commerce and manufacturing and enjoyed a close economic relationship with its rural environs”. Economic prosperity, a productive agricultural sector, commerce and manufacturing were conducive to early large population. Today, Kano is the largest and significant city in savannah Africa, drawing migrants from far and near. It should therefore be no surprise that Kano is the second most populous state in the country.

In the light of our preceding discussions, how plausible are Census ’91 results which shows a slight northern Nigeria numerical superiority? The results are, contrary to what the critics say, quite consistent with geographical, demographic and historical expectations. Knowledgeable individuals such as Sir Adetokumbo Ademola, and organization such as the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) are satisfied with them.

An assumed anomaly here and there, as in case of former Oyo State, should not detract from the validity of the overall result. To Bola Ige and Co I say, put sentiments aside. Give us, if you have any, rational, scientific reasons why Census ’91 results are incorrect. Many of you are lawyers and you have demographer friends. Go to the tribunal.

Dr. Abba Lawan , a demographer, writes from Kano.