USA Africa Dialogue Series - FW: NIGERIA'S POTENTIAL TWO-PARTY SYSTEM

TWO factors are critical to understanding the nature of party coalitions in Nigeria. The first factor derives from the country's heterogeneity, while the second factor is the perception of ideological differences amongst its politicians.

Each of these factors will be explained seriatim.

 

The factor of heterogeneity touches on the origin of the Nigerian state as one creation of British colonialists. Nigeria is multi-ethnic, with quite a few of its component units large enough to constitute viable nations of their own. Languages vary with the groups and so also are cultural and religious practices. Political parties have tended to revolve around the nationalities, making coalitions inevitable for political governance at the centre.

 

However, in spite of Nigeria's heterogeneity, there is also a thin line of ideological perceptions or assumptions by its politicians. There is the perception that one group is "progressive" while the other "conservative". These perceptions have their origin in colonial rule, particularly the activities of Christian missionaries. The erstwhile politicians of southern Nigeria where Christian missionaries had great influence, assumed themselves to be progressive, while their counterparts from the Muslim-dominated North were the conservatives. However, these perceptions now cut across the various divides and could quite often be informed by political opportunism.

Be that as it may, the nature of party coalitions in Nigeria can also be explained in the context of the political system it has experimented with in its democratic history. Nigeria inherited the parliamentary system of government from the British colonial masters but now operates an American-type presidential/congressional system. The pattern of party coalitions differs considerably in the practice of the two political systems.

 

The parliamentary system of government, with its attributes of "Government" and "Opposition", invites the coalition of political parties following the conclusion of an election. The party or parties that would form the government must have the majority of seats in the legislature. In the Nigerian society where factional political parties predominated, post-electoral coalitions of contrasting or conflicting political parties characterised the parliamentary era.

 

However, the experience with the presidential system of government contrasts with the parliamentary alternative. In contrast to the post-electoral coalitions concomitant with the parliamentary experience, coalitions would have to be consummated prior to a presidential election by those who seek to control the presidency. The fact of this new reality has altered the pattern of political party coalitions in Nigeria. The more purposeful political parties now seek to broaden their bases of support; the result is that, today, Nigeria boasts of two political parties – the People's Democratic Party (PDP) and the All Progressives Congress (APC) – that qualify to be called national political parties.

 

The trend, indeed, is towards a two-party system even with a multitude of small political parties in the party registration list. The rivalry between the PDP and the APC may be a lot closer than their representations in the national and state houses of assemblies suggest. There were elections the PDP, for instance, might not have won if confronted with the combined votes of the political parties that have now fused together. The putative 2015 elections should be exciting, still too early to make predictions.

 

There are three challenges to our potential two-party system. The first challenge is with election management. Our history of election management has been disturbing. Military interventions in the past have mainly been because of fraudulent elections. Recently, our governors could not even agree on the outcome of an election involving 35 of their members and that is a dangerous pointer to 2015. Where the two-party system has endured, participants accept that they have equal loyalty to state and the democratic order.

 

The second challenge is with the politics of leadership recruitment. No matter our pretensions to ideology, the ethno-regional origin of key presidential contestants will continue to be a major consideration for numerous voters. In fact, it can be said emphatically that our political parties will not be disciplined until we have found a national formula for leadership recruitment.

 

Finally, the dangerous issue of corruption must be confronted. Politicians, irrespective of their political parties, have been corrupt. There is also this question of the greed of our elected officials, the outrageous salaries and allowances they award themselves. In the mad pursuit of corruption and greed, there is hardly anything left for the rest of us. The future of democracy depends on the happiness or otherwise of the silent majority whose purposes are the very essence of governments.