
Read his article below...
When aggrieved politicians within the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) decided to join forces with members of the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC), the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) and the All Progressives Peoples Alliance (APGA) to form the All Progressives Congress (APC) in 2013, they had well-defined, if not so clearly stated, even if poorly conceived objectives: to send President Jonathan out of power, displace the PDP which had clearly become a dominating hegemonic party, exert vengeance and offer the people an alternative.
The triumph of the APC in the 2015 elections resulting in victory at
the Presidential level, in 23 states out of 36, and also in the
legislature, state and federal, was propelled on the wings of the
people’s embrace of this slogan of change. Change became the aphrodisiac
of Nigeria’s search for democratic progress. The new party’s promises
were delivered with so much certainty and cock-suredness. Those who were
promised free meals were already salivating before casting the first
vote.
The permanently opportunistic
players in Nigeria’s private sector could be seen trading across the
lines as they have always done. Everyone knew the PDP had too much
internal baggage to deal with. The opposition exploited this to the
fullest and they were helped in no small measure, not just by the
party’s implosion, but also the offensiveness of the claims by certain
elements within the PDP that their party will rule Nigeria forever. This
arrogance had gone down the rank and file resulting in bitter conflicts
among the various big men who dominated the party. The party failed
from within, and even after losing the 2015 elections, it has further
failed to recover from the effects of the factionalism that demystified
it and drove it out of its hegemonic comfort zone. It took the PDP 16
years to get that hubristic moment. It is taking the APC a much shorter
time to get to that same moment.
The displacement of the PDP gave
the impression that Nigeria’s political space, hitherto dominated by
one party, and a half, out of over 30 political parties with fears of a
possible authoritarian one-party system, had become competitive. But
the victory of a new party over a dominant political party in power such
as occurred in 2015, has not delivered the much-expected positives:
instead, questions have been raised about the depth of democratic change
and the quality of Nigeria’s political development. The disappointment
on both scores has been telling.
The ruling APC has not been
able to live up to expectations. In less than two years in power, it has
been behaving not like the PDP, but worse. Not a day passes without a
pundit or a party member or a civil society activist suggesting that the
only way forward is the formation of a new political party. There are
over 30 registered political parties in Nigeria; no one is saying that
these political parties should be reorganized and made more functional;
the received opinion is that a new political party would have to replace
the APC.
The implied message is the
subject of political science. Many political parties in Africa, not just
in Nigeria, lack substance. They reflect the problematic nature of
party politics in the continent, even after the third wave of the
continent’s democratic experience. Party organizations are weak, their
organs are inchoate, their fortunes are mercurial. In Nigeria, this
seems to be more of a post-military rule reality, for in the First and
Second Republics, some of Nigeria’s political parties appeared to be
more relatively people-based and socially-rooted. The military left
behind an authoritarian streak at the heart of Nigeria’s party politics,
producing political parties since 1999 that do not fully reflect or
assimilate the people’s yearnings.
There isn’t therefore yet in
place a mass-based, people-driven political party to replace the
elite-based hegemonic parties we have, despite early efforts in the past
in this direction by the likes of Aminu Kano and his People’s
Redemption Party (PRP), Fela Anikulapo-Kuti’s Movement of the People
(MOP), Tunji Braithwaite’s Nigeria Advance Party (NAP), Gani Fawehinmi’s
National Conscience Party (NCP) and Wole Soyinka’s Democratic Front for
the People’s Federation. There was also the Labour Party, mentioned
separately here, advisedly, because it ended up abandoning its social
democratic base, and became like the regular parties, an elite cabal,
with the initial progressives who championed it on the platform of the
Nigeria Labour Congress, moving ideologically to the right in an attempt
to align with the Nigerian mainstream and its ready benefits. A profile
of this political party and its initial principal promoters would
reveal just how alimentary Nigerian politics is.
Our immediate concern, however,
is to argue that those who are raising the flag of a new political party
as the answer to the emerging failure of the APC and the growth of
factions among its members, and by extension, the spreading despair in
the land, are missing the point. They are not promising any
revolutionary change nor are they interested in deepening Nigeria’s
democratic change. Permit me to quote Danjuma Gambo, of the Enugu
Chapter of the Civil Liberties Organization (CLO) who reportedly said:
“A new political party is what we need. A new party with new plan, (and
an) ideology that will bring succor to the sufferings of Nigerians is
the answer.”
Gambo deserves some credit: he
phrases the matter delicately as a commentary on the incumbent
dominating political party and government. His “what we need”, “new
plan” “ideology” means change, another form of change to end, he tells
us, “the sufferings (sic) of Nigerians”. We ask him, although he seems
to have answered the question already: what happened to the change that
happened in 2015? So we ask another question: if the formation of a new
political party did not solve Nigeria’s problems since 2015, what is
the guarantee that a new party would gain power and perform better than
the ruling APC? Professional politicians don’t comment on the matter as
carefully as Gambo attempted. They are brazen about it and they have
been loud too. They make it sound like a threat and a given solution.
When you hear them boasting that a new political party is on the way,
you are left in no doubt that they are issuing a threat. But is a new
political party the solution to Nigeria’s foreign exchange crisis or the
people’s angst?
The conundrum is easy to
resolve. It is easy for the political elite in Nigeria to change their
garments, sans remorse, ideology or sentiment and that is how some of
the most prominent political figures in Nigeria today have changed party
membership cards more than five times in the last 17 years. The
politics of elitism in Nigeria is simply about access to power, position
and privileges. It has nothing to do with the people’s interests. The
APC is in crisis for this reason, very much like the PDP, and even the
smaller parties, because these are political parties of big men of
influence. Conflict results when they are not allowed to exercise that
influence by other competing big men, who are similarly if not equally
driven by ego, religion and superior ethnic considerations.
The exercise of influence as a
party big man follows a known pattern: after electoral victory, the big
man wants the spoils of victory; he wants positions for his followers,
contracts for wives and children and the freedom to have a say in the
new government. Any attempt to shut him down, oppose him, or sideline
him or her, immediately creates a crisis within the party. The greater
the number of such big persons who feel short-changed and marginalized,
the greater the chances of such factionalism that would trigger threats
of a new political party. New groups can create new tendencies in
society, but in Nigerian politics, new groups don’t really emerge, it is
the same recycled set moving from one political party to a new or
another one, looking for benefits.
Poverty, low literacy and the
weakness of public institutions make the people vulnerable. The people
embrace slogans and the dividends of what is now known in Nigeria as
“stomach infrastructure.” They are deceived by the politicians’ display
of affection and empathy. Because they are hungry, they accept money to
attend rallies to help create an illusion of populism and acceptability.
On election day, they sell their votes and sign off their freedom.
After the election, they are too ashamed to speak up or they compensate
for their psychological distress by subscribing to the politics of
vengeance. A patrimonial and neo-patrimonial political system such as we
run in Nigeria promotes nothing but difference, disappointment and
distrust. Those who are plotting to create a new political party should
be told that the harvest is predictable: more intense leadership
competition, high level conflict among big men, greater deception,
increased difference and tension within the polity. Political parties
are governed by rules: the Nigerian political system operates above
rules. It is possibly one of the most Machiavellian in Africa.
What do we need? Not recycled
politicians posing as new party men and women. But this: effective
party organizations, like the NCNC, the NEPU, the NPC, the AG, APGA,
UPN, UMBC of old which belonged to the people and reflected their
aspirations. The only difference should be a necessary disconnect with
the politics of ethnicity at the heart of the party formation process in
Africa which, as seen, defeats the objectives of true democracy and
modernization. Institutionalization of the political party system will
also ensure stability within the democratic order: after a bitter
political contest in the United States in 2016, the two dominant
political parties - The Republican and the Democratic have remained
stable, and the country is being projected as supreme.
We should end this then where we
started: leadership is the principal challenge. Until we sort that out,
Nigeria’s politics will remain trapped in the throes of ethnicity,
patrimonialism, authoritarian dominance, the threat of system volatility
and fragmentation and the politics of revenge.

No comments:
Post a Comment