By Olu Fasan
Ostensibly, Nigeria is a multi-party democracy. But in reality, it is a one-party state. Those ululating over the recent gale of defections wrongly assume that there are material differences between Nigerian political parties. Yet, in truth, the prevalence of defections, decamping, cross-carpeting, or name it, only proves that nothing distinguishes political parties in Nigeria.
Lord Palmerstone, a former British prime minister, famously coined the phrase “there are no permanent friends or permanent enemies but permanent interests” to describe relations between nations. However, Nigerian politicians have appropriated that saying and turned it into the leitmotif of their political culture. Indeed, Bola Tinubu used the phrase in 2014 when he and others were cobbling together the All Progressives Congress, APC, a potpourri of strange political bedfellows who were united merely by a self-serving agenda to seize and share power. “There are no permanent friends or enemies in politics, but permanent friends, ” Tinubu said, without any sense of irony. Politics in Nigeria is all about selfish interests.
Last week, Abdullahi Ganduje,
the APC National Chairman, audaciously called for a one-party state in Nigeria.
“Too many cooks spoil the soup – too many political parties spoil governance,”
he said, adding: “China is one of the strongest economies in the world and it’s
a one-party system.” Ganduje was, of course, echoing Tinubu, the president, who
would use state resources and his incumbency to lure all influential
politicians into his party and hollow out the opposition parties. Some were
outraged by Ganduje’s statement, but such indignation ignores the fact
that Nigeria, for all intents and purposes, is a de facto one-party state.
Truth is, Tinubu and Ganduje are pushing at an open door. The fluidity and
fickleness of party loyalty in Nigeria leads inexorably to a one-party state.
Some years
ago, I wrote a piece titled “Nigeria is a one-party state; the party is the
political class” (BusinessDay, October 8, 2018). A few years later, I wrote
another piece titled “Defections: How political opportunism kills the party
system in Nigeria (Vanguard, December 3, 2020). In both pieces, I argued that
despite the multiplicity of political parties, and thus an apparent multiparty
system, the lack of ideological differences between the parties, which allowed
politicians to move seamlessly between them, meant that Nigeria, in fact,
resembled a one-party state. In the 2019 general elections, there were 74
registered political parties. The number was whittled down to 18 in the 2023
general elections. Yet, in both elections, neither policies nor ideologies
separated the parties. They were merely vehicles for elite competition for
political power, and if someone didn’t get something from one party, they
simply, at the drop of a hat, moved to another party that offered it to them.
By
contrast, in British and American politics, party membership is driven
primarily by ideological preferences. Thus, someone belongs to the Labour party
or the Conservative party in the UK, or to the Democrats or the Republicans in
the US, because they believe in the party’s values and ideological orientation.
Of course, defections happen in those countries too, but they are few and far
between and are likely to be triggered by major policy or ideological
differences rather than self-interested calculations to advance political
ambitions.
Now, all
this matters because political parties are not just constellations of
like-minded people, but also repositories of alternative ideas and approaches
to solving common problems. In fact, it’s such philosophical or ideational
differences, such alternative visions or approaches, that make politics
competitive, contestable and valuable. A multi-party system does not enrich
politics or enhance democracy unless it engenders alternative visions,
philosophies and ideas, thereby giving the citizens real choice.
In their book,
Political Systems of the World,
Denis and Ian Derbyshire argue that “the opportunity of voting for a complete
change of policy, and even philosophy, is a vital element of a democratic
political system,” adding that “without it, genuine choice is limited.” The
British writer Will Hutton makes a similar point in his book, The State We’re
In, arguing that “democracy depends on parties being able to develop
distinctive policies that correspond to some coherent political vision. He adds
that if there are no ideological differences or choice between political
parties, “then, political debate becomes a charade.” Of course, everyone knows
that there are no philosophical or ideological differences between Nigerian
political parties, and that political debate is a charade in this country.
The Justice
Uwais committee on electoral reform addressed the issue of ideology in Nigerian
politics in its report, published in 2008. It stated that the only time
ideology played a role in Nigerian politics since independence was in the First
Republic when there was a clear ideological divide between Northern People’s
Congress, NPC, led by Sir Ahmadu Bello and Northern Elements Progressive Union,
NEPU, led by Mallam Aminu Kano or Action Group, AG, led by Chief Obafemi
Awolowo. There was still some ideological frame in the Second Republic when
those 1960s parties metamorphosed into National Party of Nigeria, NPN, People’s
Redemption Party, PRP, and Unity Party of Nigeria, UPN.
However,
things started going awry during the so-called Third Republic. The military
regime of General Ibrahim Babangida decreed into existence two political
parties, National Republican Convention, NRC, and Social Democratic Party, SDP,
ostensibly to create two ideologically-based parties; one, NRC, “a little to
the right”, the other, SDP, “a little to the left.” But in practice, that did
not happen. The politicians simply joined the party that offered them the best
chance of winning an election, not because of any ideological orientation. That
pattern continued under the so-called Fourth Republic from1999 to date.
The Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, was a “broad
church” that accommodated politicians of all hues – aristocrats, feudalists,
retired Generals, socialists, name it! Although the Alliance for Democracy, AD,
was the offshoot of Awolowo’s AG/UPN, many joined it simply because it was the
only party that could give them victory in the South-West, the party’s base.
Tinubu, who will never describe himself as an Awoist, rode on the coattails of
AD and the Awoists to political power in the South-West. But sooner rather than
later, he incinerated the AD and created from its ashes, first, Action
Congress, then Action Congress of Nigeria, the party which he led into a
self-serving coalition with other opposition parties, including a breakaway
faction of the PDP, to form the APC. But what’s the difference between PDP and
APC? Well, in their book, Nigeria: What Everyone Needs to Know, John Campbell
and Matthew Page describe both parties as “essentially elite patronage machines
for capturing the state, with little or no focus on policy or issues,” adding:
“They share much of the same DNA.”
The lure of power is strong in
Nigeria as few want to be in opposition. And with parties that are mere special
purpose vehicles, opportunistic defections are inevitable. Yet, Nigeria can’t
have a multi-party system and operate as a one-party state. That endangers its
democracy!
*Dr.
Fasan is a commentator on public issues
No comments:
Post a Comment