Political scientists often concern themselves with values and interests in politics. Basically, there are two schools of thought. The first, a sociological view, holds that people are motivated in politics by values and normative dispositions, and not by self-interested calculations. The second, a rational choice perspective, states the opposite: political behaviour is shaped not by deeply ingrained values and norms, but by considerations of self-interest and strategic calculations. Of course, values and interests are not necessarily conflictual. Self-interested people can have values, and principled people do have interests. But the key question in the values vs interests debate is about which predominates in shaping the behaviour of a political actor in specific circumstances. Is it self-interested calculations or deep-seated values and dispositions? For instance, would a politician forego certain interests in order to defend some deeply imprinted values?
Despite the conflicting perspectives, the received view among political scientists is that, with few exemptions, self-interested motivations do not significantly affect political behaviours. Indeed, values and norms are believed to be so deeply ingrained that they often prevail over considerations of self-interest. For instance, research on political attitudes in the US found that, instead of self-interest, values and normative beliefs are the key determinants of people’s stances on political issues. And studies on symbolic politics show that partisan and ideological preferences are shaped by symbolic dispositions rather than by self-interest. So, there is clear evidence that political parties and politicians can actually be motivated by higher ideals and principles rather than by instrumental reasons in the choices they make.
But do these findings have general application? If they do, Nigerian political parties and politicians should be driven by values rather than by self-interest in their actions. So, let’s consider the relative role of values and interests in politics in Nigeria. In doing so, the key questions are: What do Nigerian political parties and politicians stand for? What role does political ideology, as a constellation of values, play in shaping the policy preferences and actions of the parties? And what motivates the behaviour of the average Nigerian politician: is it primarily self-interested calculations or normative values? Let’s take, first, the political parties.
In many electoral democracies, citizens make an intelligent choice of a party or a candidate not only on the basis of party programmes and promises but also party ideology or orientation. Symbolic orientations, such as political ideology and party identification, serve two important purposes. First, they commit a party to a set of policy preferences that guide its action over the long term. Second, they limit the possibility that a party will break its promises or change its perspective in office. In the latter sense, party label or orientation acts as a sort of guarantee that there will be some correspondence between promise and performance. For instance, political parties like Labour and the Conservatives in the UK, and the Democrats and Republicans in the US, pursue policies that are consistent with their ideological leanings, and are critically aware of the huge, almost irreparable, reputational damage that could result from breaking their promises or compromising their values.
But what is the situation in Nigeria? Well, party labels or political orientations have almost no relevance. Take the PDP. It is described in Wikipedia as a “conservative political party”. But conservative parties take national security extremely seriously. Although national security is the first duty of any government, for conservative governments, it’s, indeed, an article of faith, a raison d’etre. But PDP has not been a true conservative party in all sense of the word. Nothing has damaged the conservative credentials of the party more than its poor performance on security issues. A true conservative government would not have allowed the Boko Haram insurgency to fester for this long; it would have strengthened the armed forces massively so they can deal with any threat to national security. The current aggressive military onslaught on the insurgents and President Jonathan’s recent high-profile public demonstration of commitment to tackling the problem are, of course, welcomed. But they are five or six years late, whatever the excuses given for the lethargy. So, on national security and even, to some extent, the management of public finances, the PDP has not lived up to conservative values.
Now, let’s consider the APC. It prides itself as a progressive party. Of course, its welfare spending commitments, infrastructure investment plan, and expansionary fiscal policy are “progressive” totems. But progressive politics is not just about welfare hand-outs and fiscal activism. All over the world, progressive governments are known for their support for political reforms. For instance, most of political and constitutional reforms in the UK, including the devolution of powers, the reform of the House of Lords, and the creation of the Supreme Court, happened under a Labour government. But the APC has been lukewarm in making political and constitutional reforms a key issue in its election campaign. Although APC’s manifesto recognises the need for “fundamental political reform” in Nigeria, with a promise to “initiate action” to amend the Constitution if the party is elected, it is not clear what the party would do in practice. In truth, APC’s failure to support the National Conference and its states’ rejection of the National Assembly’s constitutional amendments on local government autonomy make the manifesto promise seem hollow. Conservative parties are generally averse to constitutional and political changes, but it’s the PDP, a supposed conservative party, that has made this progressive agenda its own, while APC, a supposed progressive party, looks less surefooted on the issue. If President Jonathan wins in the South West, it may well be partly because of the National Conference, and his promise to implement its report.
So, even on the limited examples given here, it’s clear the parties haven’t demonstrated sufficient commitment to general values. However, the most glaring evidence of the subordination of values to interests in Nigerian politics is the fickleness of party loyalty and affiliations. For instance, as several commentators have noted, there is virtually no difference between APC and PDP in terms of the key personalities in both parties. In fact, APC can be described as PDP Mark 2. This is because those who make APC the strong and national party that it is today are former PDP members – a former vice-president, three former national chairmen, several current and former governors, and countless legislators and senior party officials – that left the party to join the APC, not to mention General Obasanjo, who was a former PDP president, but now supports APC. As a former PDP presidential aspirant, Akasoba Duke-Abiola, said on BEN TV in London recently, none of the people who left the PDP did so because they disagreed with the party’s ideology or philosophy, but because of its governance. In other words, they left PDP because they lost out in a power game, and not for any ideological differences. The fluidity of party affiliations, which cuts across all the major parties, shows that short-term material and personal concerns trump deep-seated values and norms in Nigerian politics.
Indeed, Bola Tinubu captured this well recently when he said at Obasanjo’s 78th birthday anniversary event (congratulations, general!) that “there are no permanent friends or enemies in politics, but permanent interests”. What about permanent values? Of course, the answer is that interests shape values in Nigerian politics, and not the reverse!
As I argued last week, patrimonial politics is a bane of Nigeria’s democracy; another is value-free politics. Nigeria can do without both!
Olu Fasan
