Moshood Kashimawo Olawale Abiola

Nigerian entrepreneur and politician
Quick Facts
Born:
August 24, 1937, Abeokuta, Colony and Protectorate of Nigeria
Died:
July 7, 1998, Abuja, Nigeria (aged 60)

Moshood Kashimawo Olawale Abiola (born August 24, 1937, Abeokuta, Colony and Protectorate of Nigeria—died July 7, 1998, Abuja, Nigeria) was a Nigerian business executive, philanthropist, and politician who is hailed as a figure of democratic change in Nigeria.

Abiola was born and raised in poverty but was a hard worker and a bright student. He attended the University of Glasgow, Scotland, on scholarship, graduating in 1963. He then studied at the Institute of Chartered Accountants, also in Scotland, graduating in 1965. Abiola began working for ITT Nigeria in 1968; by 1971 he was its chief executive and chairman, posts he held until 1988. During that time he amassed an immense private fortune and became owner of a publishing house, a newspaper syndicate, and an airline, among other enterprises. He was voted International Businessman of the Year in 1988. Abiola made generous donations for building schools, mosques, churches, libraries, and various development projects across Nigeria and became a popular public figure. He also supported liberation movements in southern Africa and campaigns for reparations for slavery.

After nearly a decade of military rule, democratic elections were held in Nigeria on June 12, 1993. Abiola ran as the presidential candidate of the Social Democratic Party in a two-party race. Observers declared the election to have been the freest and fairest in Nigerian history. Initial results indicated that Abiola, who had garnered votes across ethnic and religious divides, would be the clear winner of the election. Before the official results were announced, however, Gen. Ibrahim Babangida, the military leader, annulled the election. This provoked a political crisis. Abiola rallied domestic and international support in claiming the presidency that he appeared to have won, which led to his 1994 arrest on a charge of treason by the military regime then led by Gen. Sani Abacha.

During his imprisonment Abiola was deprived of outside news and subjected to solitary confinement and abuse that included negligent medical care. His release seemed imminent following the death of General Abacha in June 1998. However, Abiola died suddenly under mysterious circumstances, arousing suspicions of foul play, although a heart attack was officially declared to be the cause of death.

Many areas in southwestern Nigeria have since observed June 12 as a day on which to commemorate Abiola as well as remember the election that was held on that day in 1993 and its significance as a symbol of democracy.

This article was most recently revised and updated by Encyclopaedia Britannica.
Top Questions

What is nationalism?

What is the difference between a nation and a state?

What is a nationalist movement?

When did nationalist movements first arise?

What are some contemporary nationalist movements?

nationalism, ideology based on the premise that the individual’s loyalty and devotion to the nation-state surpass other individual or group interests.

This article discusses the origins and history of nationalism to the 1980s. For later developments in the history of nationalism, see 20th-century international relations; European Union; and Euroskepticism.

The modern nature of nationalism

Nationalism is a modern movement. Throughout history people have been attached to their native soil, to the traditions of their parents, and to established territorial authorities, but it was not until the end of the 18th century that nationalism began to be a generally recognized sentiment molding public and private life and one of the great, if not the greatest, single determining factors of modern history. Because of its dynamic vitality and its all-pervading character, nationalism is often thought to be very old; sometimes it is mistakenly regarded as a permanent factor in political behaviour. Actually, the American and French revolutions may be regarded as its first powerful manifestations. After penetrating the new countries of Latin America, it spread in the early 19th century to central Europe and from there, toward the middle of the century, to eastern and southeastern Europe. At the beginning of the 20th century, nationalism flowered in Asia and Africa. Thus, the 19th century has been called the age of nationalism in Europe, while the 20th century witnessed the rise and struggle of powerful national movements throughout Asia and Africa.

Identification of state and people

Nationalism, translated into world politics, implies the identification of the state or nation with the people—or at least the desirability of determining the extent of the state according to ethnographic principles. In the age of nationalism, but only in the age of nationalism, the principle was generally recognized that each nationality should form a state—its state—and that the state should include all members of that nationality. Formerly states, or territories under one administration, were not delineated by nationality. People did not give their loyalty to the nation-state but to other, different forms of political organization: the city-state, the feudal fief and its lord, the dynastic state, the religious group, or the sect. The nation-state was nonexistent during the greater part of history, and for a very long time it was not even regarded as an ideal. In the first 15 centuries of the Common Era, the ideal was the universal world-state, not loyalty to any separate political entity. The Roman Empire had set the great example, which survived not only in the Holy Roman Empire of the Middle Ages but also in the concept of the res publica christiana (“Christian republic” or community) and in its later secularized form of a united world civilization.

As political allegiance, before the age of nationalism, was not determined by nationality, so civilization was not thought of as nationally determined. During the Middle Ages, civilization was looked upon as determined religiously; for all the different nationalities of Christendom as well as for those of Islam, there was but one civilization—Christian or Muslim—and but one language of culture—Latin (or Greek) or Arabic (or Persian). Later, in the periods of the Renaissance and of Classicism, it was the ancient Greek and Roman civilizations that became a universal norm, valid for all peoples and all times. Still later, French civilization was accepted throughout Europe as the valid civilization for educated people of all nationalities. It was only at the end of the 18th century that, for the first time, civilization was considered to be determined by nationality. It was then that the principle was put forward that people could be educated only in their own mother tongue, not in languages of other civilizations and other times, whether they were classical languages or the literary creations of other peoples who had reached a high degree of civilization.

Cultural nationalism

From the end of the 18th century on, the nationalization of education and public life went hand in hand with the nationalization of states and political loyalties. Poets and scholars began to emphasize cultural nationalism first. They reformed the mother tongue, elevated it to the rank of a literary language, and delved deep into the national past. Thus, they prepared the foundations for the political claims for national statehood soon to be raised by the people in whom they had kindled the spirit.

Before the 18th century there had been evidences of national feeling among certain groups at certain periods, especially in times of stress and conflict. The rise of national feeling to major political importance was encouraged by a number of complex developments: the creation of large centralized states ruled by absolute monarchs who destroyed the old feudal allegiances; the secularization of life and of education, which fostered the vernacular languages and weakened the ties of church and sect; the growth of commerce, which demanded larger territorial units to allow scope for the dynamic spirit of the rising middle classes and their capitalistic enterprise. This large unified territorial state, with its political and economic centralization, became imbued in the 18th century with a new spirit—an emotional fervour similar to that of religious movements in earlier periods. Under the influence of the new theories of the sovereignty of the people and of individual rights, the people replaced the king as the centre of the nation. No longer was the king the nation or the state; the state had become the people’s state, a national state, a fatherland, or a motherland. State became identified with nation, as civilization became identified with national civilization.

Are you a student?
Get a special academic rate on Britannica Premium.

That development ran counter to the conceptions that had dominated political thought for the preceding 2,000 years. Thitherto, the general and the universal had been commonly stressed, and unity had been regarded as the desirable goal. Nationalism emphasized the particular and parochial, the differences, and the national individualities. Those tendencies became more pronounced as nationalism developed. Its less attractive characteristics were not at first apparent. In the 17th and 18th centuries the common standards of Western civilization, the regard for the universally human, the faith in reason (one and the same everywhere) as well as in common sense, the survival of Christian and Stoic traditions—all of these were still too strong to allow nationalism to develop fully and to disrupt society. Thus, nationalism in its beginning was thought to be compatible with cosmopolitan convictions and with a general love of humankind, especially in western Europe and North America.

History of nationalism to the 1980s