Nigeria at this point in time is ripe for a revolution. Never in its convoluted history has all factors imperative in the uprising of the plebians manifested than they have now; poverty is at a demeaning level, there is the utmost level of insecurity, corruption is at an unprecedented height, injustice marks everyday, the men and women at the echelon of government consider nothing without the premises of self interest; greedy beyond measure, no personality of the political class with enough clout to, in his time of ascendency, come to rule, has even an iota of hope to offer...and in time they all get to rule, in a hopeless quest for supremacy of a people over their peers. Our reasoning swim now in the dark waters of mediocrity. Tribal undertones mark all that's is done. in our foolishness, at the very height of it, we have ensconced it, even now, in the core of the nation's sovereignty; the constitution. The government is now a tool of the godfathers constituted by the godfathers for the godfathers(where the president may say to you on national television; I don't give a damn what you think about my lack of declaration of assets), exuding great insensitivity, turning the common man into pawns in their game of thrones
The Nigerian has attained a status to be despised, he is not made welcome in all the corners of the earth, he is disgraced in the airports of the world, he is discriminated against, he is distrusted even by his fellows of the dark skin, in his own space, within his own continent. In the minds of many from many a distant clime, he is first and foremost, a criminal, to be proven otherwise.
So yes, Nigeria is ripe for a revolution.
But A revolution must have a leader, maybe leaders. It may come of naught but may not proceed successfully in such manner, people must, as a matter of necessity, arise to fuel the flames by their convinction and passion. A revolution also demands the greatest sacrifice man may offer under the heavens; his life blood.
Now who will revolt? Who will summon a will to sacrifice?
Looking at the questionable demographics there are three major tribes; igbo, hausa, yoruba.
The igbo man is individualistic, he submits his will to none, he has a great love for his life and even in the midst of great suffering he is ever hoping for a redemption. He will not be led, not to his death, by no means will he permit such. In his characteristic manner he will simply ask 'do you feed my family for me?' By what right therefore do you summon him to your will. It is his belief, a strong unshakable conviction, that against all odds, he will survive...and he yet may.
The Yoruba man on the other hand is a creature of synergy, a communal man. He can be led, he can follow orders. He has a great love for his life, a deep love, yet somehow, in that greatness of depth it is fleeting. He can be made to revolt. But why would he? In Nigeria he is the Man behind the scene, the Hand of god. He posseses great influence and power. He is at the echelon of major government parastatals, all major corporations, private and otherwise. Where they are not the rulers they are the REST.
These men are the leaders of that nation. And in the tradition of RESPECT, they say what their is to be said for their people and they are heard and are not questioned. Under no circumstance will they bite, the men whose words are law will give no such orders and will not be easily compelled to give their support. A change is too unpredictable
The Hausa man is the perfect revolutionary. He will do as his superior commands. He has little regard for life, he will give his blood once compelled, the necessary sacrifice is well within his will. He is mostly uneducated and poor and above all things deeply religious such as provides a fertile ground for manipulations. Should he be told to or made to, he will revolt in a most violent manner.
But will he? He is the ruler. He is the man with the executive power. Headship is his "birthright" even more so in the present way of things. He is at the helm of the governement and of the military. He might be suffering a minor upheaval but he knows that in time he will be settled once again. Things, the way they are, are quite to his liking. It leaves him with so many options to exploit. So he will neither be roused nor rouse his people to a revolution.
And even beyond these known people are many others. But these others are invariably weak. They are so engrossed by the desire to determine themselves; to be recognized as majors, to be given states, to be alotted gubernatorial positions that they abhore synergy. They are not interested in problems perceived by others, they believe they already have enough of theirs.
So which way lies the change we hope for.
Probably we will still 'leave it to God', as we leave all things.

I was feeling your write up until you started stereotyping each tribe. In doing such, you create a further barrier to we Nigerians coming together collectively.

You say, the Yoruba man is this, the Igbo man is that, the Hausa man will do this and that.

I truly hope that this does not categorize Nigerians in general, with their personalities limited, or already defined for them, based on their tribe.

When a thief gets beaten in public in the menacing act of jungle justice, do you think the people in the crowd are asking themselves, "What tribe are you from?", or do you think they are asking the thief "What tribe are you from?".

My answer would be no.

In that instance they are united, although in a barbaric act, they are united nonetheless in their quest to punish the thief.

In such a way, I believe Nigerians would be united in their displeasure of the state of things, and take a unified stance should there be a revolution "spark" that sets things off.

You maybe correct; in this anger they may yet be united. As I stated, revolution may come of naught but in the end it must be led. And when in time the leading becomes a necessity you will find, even then, that each man will submit only to the will of his kind. These distinctions which I have tried to state will begin to come into play. I didn't write on tribal distinctions as an appendage of triablism but as a statement of my considerations.
And in this matter of revolution, what greater spark can there be that will surpass the great error in judgement president jonathan showed by his january 1st 2012 increase in PMT pump price. If nothing came of that (as nothing did) what more can triGger this great latent anger of the Nigerian masses. In saner climes governments have gone down for less.

The Nigerian politician is also not to be corelated to a thief. He is only a thief, and he may be addressed as such only by his colleagues, if he by error or judgement or otherwise, step on toes. Or if the newspaper columnist remembers on the day of his remembrance that such labels have their purposes and must be hurled at times.
Otherwise the Nigerian looter of commonwealth is a Chieftain, a man of distinctionn, recognized and respected by his people, endowed with traditional titles and offices. This Nigerian is a man to be courted, to be deferred to, to be held in awe.
By what right do you name him Thief (forgive my french) and purport that he can be burnt as a common robber, by a mob.

@OP,

can you give me three (3) instances where you personally fought for your right against all odds.( the situation must be really serious. not just one of those experiences)
Don't make up any story, just tell me the truth besides you are anonymous. and I'll tell you something that has never crossed your mind. and may never until I tell you.

When you talk of revolution. Please state who exactly it is targeted at. Because if you think a "revolution" targeted at just one man somewhere or a group of elected/appointed few who you think are your problems; then that must be a joke.

@duality; if I have encountered these unusual situations which you have in mind (a little definition will help) and I desisted from fighting for my rights, have I not proven the point of my argument. And what do you mean by the target of revolution? Kindly state clear and salient points in your counter arguments.