In theory, Nigeria is a multi-party democracy. But in practice, it is a one-party state. Those ululating over the recent gale of defections wrongly assume that there are material differences between Nigerian political parties. Yet, in truth, the prevalence of defections, decamping, cross-carpeting, and what have you, only proves that nothing distinguishes Nigeria’s political parties. They are one and the same!
Lord Palmerstone, a former British prime minister, famously coined the phrase “there are no permanent friends or permanent enemies but permanent interests” to describe relations between nations. However, Nigerian politicians have appropriated that saying and turned it into the leitmotif of their political culture. Indeed, Bola Tinubu used the phrase in 2014 when he and others were cobbling together the All Progressives Congress (APC), a potpourri of strange political bedfellows who were united merely by a self-serving agenda to seize and share power. “There are no permanent friends or enemies in politics, but permanent interests,” Tinubu said, without any irony. In Nigeria, politics is all about selfish interests.
Read also: Mass defections to APC: What it means for Nigeria’s democracy
Recently, Abdullahi Ganduje, the APC National Chairman, audaciously called for a one-party state in Nigeria. “Too many cooks spoil the soup – too many political parties spoil governance,” he said, adding: “China is one of the strongest economies in the world and it’s a one-party system.” Ganduje was, of course, echoing Tinubu, the president, who would use state resources and his incumbency to lure all influential politicians into his party and hollow out the opposition parties. Some were outraged by Ganduje’s statement, but such indignation ignores the fact that Nigeria, for all intents and purposes, is already a de facto one-party state. Truth is, Tinubu and Ganduje are pushing at an open door. The fluidity and fickleness of party loyalty in Nigeria makes regular defections inevitable, leading inexorably to a one-party state.
Some years ago, I wrote a piece titled “Nigeria is a one-party state; the party is the political class” (BusinessDay, October 8, 2018). A few years later, I wrote another piece titled “Defections: How political opportunism kills the party system in Nigeria (Vanguard, December 3, 2020). In both pieces, I argued that despite the multiplicity of political parties, and thus an apparent multiparty system, the lack of ideological differences between the parties, which allowed politicians to move seamlessly between them, meant that Nigeria, in fact, resembled a one-party state. In the 2019 general elections, there were 74 registered political parties. The number was whittled down to 18 in the 2023 general elections. Yet, in both elections, neither policies nor ideologies separated the parties. They were merely vehicles for elite competition for political power, and if someone didn’t get something from one party, they simply, at the drop of a hat, moved to another party that offered it to them.
“The fluidity and fickleness of party loyalty in Nigeria makes regular defections inevitable, leading inexorably to a one-party state.”
By contrast, in British and American politics, party membership is driven primarily by ideological preferences. Thus, someone belongs to the Labour party or the Conservative party in the UK, or to the Democrats or the Republicans in the US, because they believe in the party’s values, ideology and policies. Of course, defections happen in those countries too, but they are few and far between and are likely to be triggered by major policy or ideological differences rather than self-interested calculations to advance one’s political ambitions.
Now, why does all this matter? Well, it matters because political parties are not just constellations of like-minded people, but also repositories of alternative ideas and approaches to solving common problems. In fact, it’s such philosophical or ideational differences, such alternative visions or approaches, that make politics competitive, contestable and valuable. A multiparty system does not enrich politics or enhance democracy unless it engenders alternative visions, philosophies and ideas, thereby giving the citizens real choice.
In their book, Political Systems of the World, Denis and Ian Derbyshire argue that “the opportunity of voting for a complete change of policy, and even philosophy, is a vital element of a democratic political system,” adding that “without it, genuine choice is limited.” The British writer Will Hutton makes a similar point in his book, The State We’re In, arguing that “democracy depends on parties being able to develop distinctive policies that correspond to some coherent political vision.” He adds that if there are no ideological differences or choice between political parties, “then, political debate becomes a charade.” Of course, everyone knows that there are no philosophical or ideological differences between Nigerian political parties, and that political debate is a charade in this country.
Read also: Atiku should write a book on defections, says Oshiomhole
The Justice Uwais committee on electoral reform addressed the issue of ideology in Nigerian politics in its report, published in 2008. It stated that the only time ideology played a role in Nigerian politics since independence was in the First Republic when there was a clear ideological divide between Northern People’s Congress (NPC), led by Sir Ahmadu Bello and Northern Elements Progressive Union (NEPU), led by Mallam Aminu Kano or Action Group (AG), led by Chief Obafemi Awolowo. To a great extent, there was still some ideological frame in the Second Republic when those 1960s parties metamorphosed into National Party of Nigeria (NPN), People’s Redemption Party (PRP) and Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN). Those parties could, with some justification, be described as ideologically oriented.
However, things started going awry during the so-called Third Republic. The military regime of General Ibrahim Babangida decreed into existence two political parties, National Republican Convention (NRC) and Social Democratic Party (SDP), with a declared aim of creating two ideologically-based parties; one, NRC, “a little to the right”, the other, SDP, “a little to the left.” But in practice, that did not happen. The politicians simply joined the party that offered them the best chance of winning an election, not because of a party’s ideology.
That pattern continued under the so-called Fourth Republic, from1999 to date. The People’s Democratic Party, PDP, was a “broad church” that accommodated politicians of all hues – aristocrats, feudalists, retired generals, socialists, name it! Although the Alliance for Democracy (AD) was the offshoot of Awolowo’s AG/UPN, many joined it simply because it was the only party that could give them victory in the South-West, the party’s base. Tinubu, who will never describe himself as an Awoist, rode on the coattails of AD and the Awoists, like the late Chief Ayo Adebanjo, to political power in the South-West. But sooner rather than later, Tinubu incinerated the AD and created from its ashes Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) and later led the party into a self-serving coalition with other opposition parties, including a breakaway faction of the PDP, to form the APC.
But what’s the difference between PDP and APC? Well, in their book Nigeria: What Everyone Needs to Know, John Campbell and Matthew Page describe both parties as “essentially elite patronage machines for capturing the state, with little or no focus on policy or issues,” adding: “they share much of the same DNA.” Of course, they are right. Most of the prominent politicians in APC today were former members, even leaders, of PDP.
Read also: Defections: PDP stakeholders move to stem tide
The lure of power is strong in Nigeria. Few politicians want to be in opposition, and many will shamelessly change their former views just to align with power. Of course, with parties that are mere special purpose vehicles, opportunistic defections are inevitable. Yet, Nigeria can’t have a multiparty system and operate as a one-party state. That endangers its democracy!
