Parties and the Party System

by

Anthony A. Akinola

anthonyakinola@yahoo.co.uk

 

 

This article is informed by a report in The Guardian of 7 January 2006 that “opposition parties” intend to co-operate in challenging the ruling People’s Democratic Party (PDP) in the assumed presidential election of 2007. The Nigerian experience with both the parliamentary and presidential systems of government offers the astute student of comparative politics an opportunity to compare and contrast the influences of the political system on the development of political parties and the party system. While the parliamentary syste m tends to encourage the multiplicity of political parties, the presidential system tends to compel fusion.

 

From about 1952 to January 1966 when Nigeria experimented with the parliamentary system of government, small and large political parties remained important in their geographical areas of influence and depended on each other in the politics of alliances that were reminiscent of the era. For instance, the United Middle Belt Congress (UMBC) which advocated the creation of a Middle Belt Region out of the north, co-existed in a hostile relationship with the ethnocentric Northern People’s Congress (NPC) while allying itself with the Yoruba-dominated Action Group (AG) which identified with its cause.

 

Nigeria opted for the American-type presidential system of government in 1979. The late Chief Obafemi Awolowo of the defunct Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN) was quick to grasp the realities of the new constitution vis-à-vis political parties. The 1979 elections were staggered into five different stages, with the presidential election coming last. Once Awolowo realised the NPN was the party to beat, he urged political parties in the so-called progressive family to co-operate in order to prevent the NPN from winning the presidency. Awolowo’s “stop the NPN” clarion call was not heeded in 1979 but the NPN strategists realised its danger and used its influence to prevail on the Federal Electoral Commission to alter the pattern of elections by starting the 1983 arrangements with the presidential one.

 

The fact with the parliamentary system of government is that if no political party achieves a clear-cut majority in the outcome of elections, a small political party with just a few parliamentary seats could be pivotal to the formation of government. Whereas in a matured presidential system it is not abs olutely crucial for the president’s party to have the overwhelming majority of parliamentary seats. The point one is trying to make here is that the factors which decide who becomes a successful Prime Minister of Great Britain, for instance, may be quite different from those which decide that of the American President. The American Constitution provides for independent candidacy, not least because of the assumption that the President is above party and partisan influences.

 

The President exercises immense power, authority and influence, being the single occupant of the positions of Head of Government and Head of State, that most people want to belong to his or her political party. In a society with cleavage problems such as ours, that also explains why most people also want the presidency for their own group. The realisation that the presidency can only be won by a political party of sufficient strength explains why intelligent political strategists and actors would rather see mushroom political parties merge or fuse together in order to be able to counterbalance the power or power potential of a rival political party. The so-called Progressive Parties Alliance (PPA) failed to achieve its aspirations in the Second Republic (1979-1983) because ethnic and leadership rivalries were superior to the assumed progressive ideology of the member political parties. A similar fate awaits the current opposition parties if the issue of national leadership is not boldly addressed in a new or amended Constitution.

 

The problem of cleavage, be it that of ethnicity or religion, is the most serious of political problems. It is not a problem that can be resolved by preaching to people to forget about their religion or the aspirations of the group to which they belong. The nations whose constitutions we have experimented with, Britain and America, are quite different from our nation in terms of their origins and ethnological realities. The North of America may have produced more presidents than the South but the fact remains that the concepts of North and South hold different meanings for the American nation than they do for Nigeria. It is principally because nations differ from one another that there cannot be a unique, universal model of democracy for all to embrace.

 

The much-liked Alhaji Balarebe Musa assumes that what Nigerians refer to as “power-shift” has benefited no one (The Guardian, 7 January 2006). He is of the opinion that it is unpatriotic to advocate “rotational presidency” for Nigeria. It is not only that power-shift has helped some groups to become psychologically reconciled with the larger society, the truth of the matter is that President Olusegun Obasanjo, who probably would not have won a national election in 1999 but for the power-shift formula, has been head and shoulders above those predecessors of his who achieved positions of national leadership through hegemoniac politics of some sort. Obasanjo may not be quite the “messiah” he assumed himself to be, there are nevertheless some ideas of development which can be associated with his name when, hopefully, he leaves office honourably in May 2007. The fight against corruption may be half-hearted and selective but a fight is still better than no fight at all. A less assuming political leader with democratic disposition and credentials can improve on things.

 

This article concludes with the assertion that the stability of our political parties and the emerging party system can only be guaranteed when our peoples feel a sense of belonging and have become loyal to the political order. While we may borrow ideas from some advanced nations in designing our political system, there can be no better or more useful ideas than the ones which derive from our own experiences as a people. It needs no reminding that every major crisis we have experienced in our nation has been associated with controversy over national leadership.