By S. O. K. Shillings Esq.
As modern democracy is defined as government of the people by the people for the people, choosing leaders by election or selection is imperative. In choosing those leaders, there is need for decorum and identification of ideas and philosophies so that there will be a team working for same purpose unlike what an all-comer system would offer. It is the aggregation of ideas and philosophies that gave birth to party politics.
In the United Kingdom, after the civil war, political agitation centered on the role and status of the hereditary monarchy dividing the political class into whigs and torries (rather derogatory terms) according to the degree of influence and role they wanted for the monarch which itself had religious undertone as between the catholics and the anglicans. In the US, the dominant political elites were splitted into two in the debate for whether there should be a central bank and how much power should the centre (federal) have, hence, they had the democrats and the whigs. They were finally divided by ideological positions on slavery to the democrats and the republicans. In both countries, party politics did not commence with the end of civil war or declaration of independence respectfully. Party politics evolved.
In Nigeria, the movement for independence in the 1950s yielded fruit in 1960. The nationalists then formed themselves into political parties which were naturally influenced by native leanings that was part of the basis of the struggle for independence. The first national election saw the emergence of a coalition as none of the parties could muster the requisite number of seats to form Government. The NPC and NCNC formed Government while the AG was the official opposition. It was a great development for the bulging democracy which was truncated by an overzealous military incursion in 1966.
When civil rule came back in 1979, 5 political parties were formed. It was some form of re-alliance of the ‘first Republic’. So soon thereafter, the political class exhibited a political laissez-faire and another putsch occurred. In the 3rd Republic, the military inaugurated 2 political parties: SDP and NRC alias a-little-to-the-left and a-little-to-the-right. General Babangida and his gang had no intention of handing over as they planned and executed a civilian coup that brought power back to them in the darkest hours of our political evolution.
In this 4th Republic, the military regime declared a short date for return to civil rule, drew a constitution and it started on-your-marks,-set,-go! Political parties were hurriedly put together to contest elections. They lacked ideological bond or philosophical foundation. Unlike what the military leader, Oliver Cromwell did in the United Kingdom setting up a national discourse on the fate of the nation after the civil war which set the tone for the emergence of the political parties; or the various constitutional conferences and constitutions that midwifed the first Republic, the geographical and cultural relationship was not reviewed by way of constitutional conference. It was a major structural defect that reduced a major pillah into a market of loose options.
The CPC and APC were created merely to break the PDP monopoly. When the Labour Party was created, it had only the name but no labour philosophy. In fact, the number one labour leader avoided it to join another party. The ubiquitous parties mostly exist to receive subvention. They merely provide vehicles for independent candidates.
The Electoral Act is founded on false beliefs. Part of it is to hold that the political party is the one standing election and not the individual. That could be a correct call in a system where the parties have foundation and philosophical identity.
By the time this system collapses or the emerging leadership (if anything will emerge) musters the courage to allow debates on core national issues and ultimately enables restructuring, political parties will be birthed naturally.
But it must be stressed that political parties are only good avenues of choice, it is debatable if they are sine qua non to democracy at all levels. The influence of parties should be curtailed if democracy must thrive. Flash back to part 3 of this serial. Choices could be made through other means like labour unions which should be represented in the legislature.
George Washington (1796) warned his American ‘friends and citizens’ against the baneful effects of the spirit of party (also termed as ‘political factionalism’), geographical sectionalism and interference by foreign powers.
Political Parties are political cults and the government they produce are more of a gang than a team. Some of those chosen to head government departments are professional halfbakes and failures who win the slot on the basis of affiliation. Members support policies and persons more because they belong than because they believe. Oftentimes, the members are conscripted to policies and decisions handed by leaders who actually own the party like the awkward decisions on the mode of party primaries in September. Cross carpeting is a common feature of our system because there are no differences aside names.
In all developed nations, especially among those who practice parliamentary system, which is the more popular system of government, the ‘baneful effects’ of political parties are curtailed as they are restricted to producing candidates for parliamentary elections. The British Prime Minister could resign because she did not pay #40 million or #100 million to obtain party nomination form. And instructively, another is chosen (how?) within days.
Long live the Federal Republic of Nigeria!
S. O. K. Shillings Esq., writes from Ikorodu
