Why does segregation prevent conflict in some regions but not others? Interrogating social distance amid ethnic conflicts in Jos, Nigeria

This paper revisits the longstanding question of why segregation douses ethnic tensions in some places but exacerbates them in others. Anchored on the concept of social distance and drawing on empirical evidence from Jos, Nigeria’s hotbed of ethnoterritorial conflict, this article provides a nuanced analysis of why segregation mediates both the emergence and the prevention of ethnic conflict. In the examined case study, the role of social distance in conflict mitigation varies according to neighbourhood type. Animosity was already deep-seated across the region when social distancing – the effect of partition and segregation – was cemented following the outbreak of conflict in some communities in 2001. Yet the conflict spread to some ethnically unmixed neighbourhoods but not others. In conflict-affected areas, social distance did not avert future conflicts compared to neighbourhoods where the initial conflict was avoided. However, past conflict is not a predictor of future outbreaks in socially distanced neighbourhoods given that in the areas that avoided future conflicts, social distance occurred simultaneously with extensive informal bi-communal leadership engagements. Therefore, the paper shows that even imperfect unmixing can dampen violence when combined with observable leadership engagement.