Political Parties and Their Role in the Development of Nigerians Democracy
CHAPTER ONE
Objective of the study
The primary objective of the study is as follows
- To evaluate the factors that led to the emergence of political parties in Nigeria.
- To investigate the challenges political parties face in contributing to the development of Nigeria democracy.
- To find out the reasons why political parties are formed.
- To examine strategies that can be used to strengthen Nigeria democracy.
CHAPTER TWO
THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL ISSUES
REVIEW EXTANT LITERATURE ON THE SUBJECT (LITERATURE REVIEW)
The history of Nigeria’s party politics since the coming into force of the 1979 constitution, and even before it, shows strong deficits in the practice of competitive party and electoral politics. The persistent and seemingly intractable deficits include;
- The personalization of politics, and the prevalence of the Godfather syndrome;
- The negative influence of money,
- Lack of internal democracy, especially the imposition of candidates; and
- Election-related violent political conflict within and between political parties (Ibrahim, 2007, Ibrahim and Aturu, 2009; 34-46 cited in Jinadu, 2013:5).
The major parties in Nigeria have been near similar in composition, policy positions, manifestoes, ideological learnings and strategies (Omotola 2009:622-626). Consequently, the parties are not organizational platforms for alternative views and programmes of governance and development but associations, factions, deques, and networks for power and resources struggles, ‘Bereft of clear ideological identity and commitment, and issue-based politics (Omotola 2009:612).
The parties lacking in ideological content as a platform from for action, identification, mobilization, legitimization and conflicts management (Nnoli 2003:181-183), the parties have turned to money, identity, patronage, and violence. Beyond ideology and programmes. Perhaps with a few exceptions, the performance of the parties in terms of organization, functions, operations, and management has been dismally poor (Nwosu 2008:136). The parties are not democratic and popular organizations as they have lacked basic liberal internal mechanisms, standardized rules, and regulations for actual consultation and collective decisions making. The parties being platforms for personal, sectional and patronage struggles and interests, have lacked a strong directive, controlling, discipline and unifying core that holds together (Omotola 2009;612).
Whilst political parties are at the core of de-democratization in Nigeria, evidence suggests that elections have been the weakest link in our quest for democracy in Nigeria (TMG, 2003; Anifowose and Babawale ed, 2004 cited in Ikelegbe, 2013). This primarily arises from the fact that the agencies and groups that are recognized to facilitate, moderate and participate in the elections have not taken the vocation with the best ethnical and professional commitment (Adetula, 2008 quoted in Ikelegbe, 2013). The political parties became ventricles for de-democratization they not only undermined prejudiced the highly flawed party primaries but they also determined its outcome. Ever since internal party democracy and the selection of candidates have become a highly vexed issue. These group of people all constituted one-third of delegates (Momoh, 2013:14). Political parties are traditionally the most significant intermediary organization in democratic societies. Students of political parties, as “makers” of democracy, have been so romanticized that scholars claim that neither democracy nor democratic societies are thinkable without them (Omotola 2009).
CHAPTER THREE
QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OR PHENOMENON UNDERSTUDY
The Challenges of Democratic Consolidation in Nigeria
Nigeria’s democracy landed on a good platform with the existence of democratic institutions, plural society, vibrant civil society organizations and critical mass media among others. These ingredients have the structure and capacity to make democracy strive in Nigeria. But it is germane to note that, Nigeria’s democracy has remained grossly unstable since the return to this popular form of governance in 1999. The political terrain has been home with lots of challenges precipitating against the genuine realization of the system. In fact, the impediments to the nations unending desire for a true democracy seem to assume a more perilous proportion by the day. The challenges are:
Ethno-religious Factor:
This remains one of the force s that have contributed greatly to socio-political instability in the country. The latest sectarian turbulence in the country and the clamor for the presidency by the varied ethnic groups indicate that the society is still Balkanized by tribal and religious sentiments (Victor, 2002). Each ethnic nationality in Nigeria has its own faith, interest, culture, language, and level of aspiration and these forces seem to affect the economic fate of each group. In addition, they make the creation of a common identity problematic, thereby exacerbating the difficulty in attaining a true democracy in the society currently, Nigeria lacks the necessary democratic values (Civil and human abuse is rampant, freedom of speech and expression is hampered, lack of social security and distributive justice) hence the rampant social unrest in the polity (Victor, 2002).
The Absence of True Federalism:
In this case lack of federalism in Nigeria, I mean lack of true federalism structure is a stumbling block to the nation’s ongoing democratic enterprise. The federal government is very overbearing as it controls about 80% of the country’s resources leaving state and local governments at its mercy. Where regions, states or geographical zones have the power to control their resources and to have access to the necessary funds for community development programs, democracy strives. Perhaps, it is only true federalism that can guarantee fairness and justice in the society. More importantly, it enables each locality to progress according to the aspiration of the people. A durable and enforceable people’s constitution is an indispensable tool to make this feasible, as the constitution protects the people and determines socio-political activities in a society. As noted in the philosophy of Aristotle “We can decide the identity of a state only by examining the form (and contents) of its constitution”. In Nigeria, we lack the reality of such a federal constitutional and true federal state (Awuudu, 2012).
CHAPTER FOUR
SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CONCLUSION
SUMMARY
Scholars have used different definitions of democratic consolidation as well as political parties in different views or perspectives to adumbrate and conceptualized, also to clarify some issues in the general public. These definitions are based on two conceptions of democracy. One is a “minimalist concept”, emphasizing procedural or formal democracy. The other is a “maximalist concept”, focusing on the outcomes of politics, such as institutionalization of political institutions, social justice, and economic equality (Lee, 2007:103). Schmitter, defines the minimalist concept of a consolidate democratic regime as “the process of transforming the accidental arrangements, prudential norms, and contingent solutions that have emerged during the transition into relations of cooperation and competition that are reliably known, regularly practiced, and voluntarily accepted by those persons or collections that participate in democratic governance (Schmitter, 1992:424).
In his own contribution, Linz (1978:158) asserts that; a consolidated democracy is one in which “none of the major political actors parties, or organized interests, forces, or institution consider(s) that there is an alternative to the democratic process to gain power and that political institutions or groups have a claim to veto the action of democratically elected decision makers. To put it simply democracy must be seen as “the only game in even” democratic consolidation is about regime maintenance and about regarding the key political institutions as the only legitimate framework for political contestation and adherence to the democratic rules of the game (Ogundija, 2009) more explicitly, Gunther, Diamandurous, and Puhle (1995) contend that the democratization process has three phases, the tall of the authoritarian regime, consolidation, and enduring democracy. Democratic consolidation should, therefore, connote a consistent and sustained practice of democratic principle (Yagbayaju, 2013;101). The building of a consolidated democracy involves in part an affirmation and strengthening of certain institutions, such as the electoral system, revitalized or newly created parties, judicial independence and respect for human rights, which have been created or recreated during the course of the transition (Valenzuela, 199;4).
Diamond (19995;171) was poignant in his analysis. He contends that; democratic consolidation means the quality, depth, and authenticity of democracy in its various dimensions has been improved. “political competition becomes fairer, freer, more vigorous and executive, participation and representation broader more autonomous, and inclusive, civil liberties more comprehensively and rigorously protected, accountability more systematic and transparent” several of the newly emerging democratic regimes are far from consolidated. They are merely surviving without consolidating. In particular, in the less developed regions of the world, these fragile democratic regimes have experience significant uncertainty over the rules of the games, due to their terrible economic conditions and other social problems. Although many third – world countries (which Nigeria belongs) have experienced transitions to procedural democracy, such as free elections with few barriers to mass participation and meaningful party competition, this democratic change definitely does not guarantee democratic stability (Lee, 2007;103). Democracy can be said to be consolidated when it can avoid democratic breakdown and erosion by eliminating, neutralizing, or converting disloyal players’ (Scheduler, 1998), and moving a step further towards completing and deepening democracy, measured by high “expectations of regimes continuity” (Scheduler, 1998). For Diamond (1998;7).
Democratic consolidation is obstructed by or destroyed causally by the effects of institutional shallowness and decay. If they are to become consolidated, therefore, electoral democracies must become deeper and more liberal. This will require greater executive (and military) accountability to both the law and the scrutiny of other branches of government, as well as the public and political parties.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the above summary, the following recommendations are made:
- Critical attention should be paid to the political parties as institutions that play not diverse but central roles in democratic consolidation.
- The parties need to be re-engineered from mere institutions for acquiring political power to effective institutions that are capable of structuring, mediating and reconciling societal interests and conflicts. This means that issues of organizational capacity, effective leadership, internal democracy, discipline, institutionalization and personalization, ideological platforms of mobilization and linkage to civil society and the masses have to be tackled.
- All political parties should practice internal democracy to make them strong, effective and efficient through consistent observance and principles of transparency, accountability, consultation and consensus building in policies and decision making.
CONCLUSION
After the 2015 presidential elections, the academics and the civil societies have paid serious attention to the practice of democracy in Nigeria and are much more concerned about its consolidation. It is observed in this paper that Nigeria’s democracy is shallow and has failed to take deep roots because political parties are deficient and have been unable to play their expected role in strengthening the foundation of democratic consolidation. The party system in Nigeria is weak and vulnerable; its future remains precarious and endangered by politicians who through their whims and caprices have become greedy, selfish, dubious, thoughtless and irrational. Nigerian political parties have proven themselves to be undemocratic and anti-democratic institutions.
The political parties in Nigeria’s fourth republic are un-institutionalized as they revolve around some prominent and influential individuals instead of establishing themselves as strong institutions driven by values and ideologies. They are known for exclusion and non- inclusion, the political parties do not observe internal democracy as required. Decision making in almost all the political parties is bereft of transparency, accountability, consensus, and consultation. All the political parties need to be re-organized on the principle of all-inclusiveness rather than exclusion, Party officials’ needs to be trained to carry out their functions.
In Nigeria, the long – drawn struggle for the return of power to an electorate came to pass when the Fourth Republic came into existence in 1999 (Abutudu, 2013;3). Political parties in the current dispensation euphemistically called the Fourth Republic essentially have had the same party structure as in the past, in which there is a National Working Committee (NWC), the zones, the states, local governments and wards levels of operation (Mamoh, 2013;12). Two key points summaries the complicated existence and relations within and between political parties in the Fourth Republic. First is the proliferation of political parties in a manner that dwarfed those of the previous republic. Second is the internal contradiction that has promoted fictionalization which in itself levels to promote the creation of new parties by aggrieved or ambitious members (Momoh, 2013;12).
Therefore, democratic consolidation in Nigeria is destructed by or destroyed causally by the effects of institutional shallowness and decay. If they are to become consolidated, therefore, electoral democracies must become deeper and more liberal. This will require greater executive (and military) accountability to both the law and the scrutiny of other branches of government, as well as the public and political parties.
REFERENCES
- Abdu, H. (2002) “Political Party Formation and Electoral Process in Nigeria: Examining Some Contentious Issues in the Review of 1999 Constitution”, in Igbuzor, Olive, and Bamidele,Ololade, eds., Contentious Issues in the Review of the 1999 Constitution. Lagos: CitizensForum for Constitutional Reforms. Pp 93-118.
- Abdul-Jelil, A.G. (2009) ‘Godfatherism’ and Nigeria’s Fourth Republic: Violence and Political Insecurity in Ibadan Being the Proceedings of the 2009 Conference in Zaria of TheFrench Institute for Research in Africa (IFRA Nigeria) in collaboration with theInstitute for Development Research A.B.U., Zaria From the 16th to the 19th ofNovember 2009.
- Abubakar A. A (1998) Text of the National Broadcast
- Abutudu, M. (2013) Political Parties and Elections in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic, Being a paper presented at National Conference on Political Parties and the Future of Democracy in Nigeria, organized by the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS), Kuru, in collaboration with the Democracy and Governance Development Project (DGD) II of UNDP, 26-28 June, 2013.
