Nigeria’s political system is beset by several unhealthy phenomena, one of which is patrimonial politics. The prevalence of patrimonial leaders, who treat Nigeria or any part of it as a personal fiefdom and ‘give’ political power to acolytes as they wish, harms the electoral process. In any representative democracy, political parties are repositories of ideas and vehicles for recruiting competent candidates for office. However, parties in Nigeria are patronage machines in which few powerful individuals control the party machine and decide who gets what politically.
Strange as it may sound, Nigeria’s political parties are much like pre-19th century parties. Before the advent of modern political parties in Europe and the US in the 19th century, the political process unfolded within small circles in which cliques and factions, grouped around particular noblemen and influential personalities, were opposed to one another. Political influence was limited to a very small segment of the population. Party nominees for office were selected through a process dominated by party machines and bosses. Godfathers have, of course, always existed, and they held sway in these cadre parties. By the 19th century, however, the discredited cadre-like parties were replaced by mass-based parties. With mass-parties, political influence is diffused widely and any capable individual can become a party nominee for any office through a democratic process that counterbalances the influence of party machines and bosses. Furthermore, no influential individual or group can have a hold on a mass party.
The party system in Nigeria is a far cry from the mass-party model. Like cadre parties, Nigeria’s political parties are organised around powerful individuals. For instance, Bola Tinubu’s domination of APC in the South West, not to mention Lagos State, is quite obvious. And there are several dominant personalities like him across the political landscape in Nigeria. Indeed, much of the crisis in the parties is due to attempts by individuals to control the party machine at different levels. And just like the pre-19th century cadre parties, cliques and factions often gather around particular powerful personalities, resulting in oligarchical rivalries within the parties. What about selection of party nominees for office? Well, few people can become candidates for any political office in these parties without a godfather. It’s that bad!
Now, contrast that with the US, where, to use a high profile example, former President Clinton, despite being adored across the Democratic Party, could not get his wife, Hillary, to become the party’s presidential candidate in a contest against Barack Obama in 2008. Such a democratic and meritocratic system is hardly possible in Nigeria, thanks to the closed character of Nigeria’s political parties and the excessive influence of the party machines and political godfathers.
Without a doubt, the ultimate patrimonial political leader in Nigeria is former President Obasanjo. Indeed, Obasanjo once boasted that he was instrumental to the coming to power of all the civilian presidents in Nigeria since 1979. Of course, he was. As military head of state, he made no secret of his preference for Shehu Shagari as president in 1979. He handpicked Umaru Musa Yar’Adua and made him his successor in 2007. In fact, after Yar’Adua became president, his family, led by his mother, went to Otta to thank Obasanjo for making their son president of Nigeria! Then, of course, he ensured that Goodluck Jonathan was Yar’Adua’s vice president, which paved the way for him to become president when Yar’Adua died in office in 2010. Given Obasanjo’s endorsement of Buhari and the massive support he is giving the APC candidate by weakening the PDP, he might also add him to the list of presidents he ‘made’, if Buhari wins the election.
So, Obasanjo is the quintessential political godfather, the archetypal patrimonial leader, in Nigeria. The trouble is that he has a track record of making the wrong judgment call when imposing a president on this country, leaving aside the very undemocratic nature of such patrimonialism. He has foisted on this country presidents who were either reluctant or simply had no idea what to do with power. Shehu Shagari (congratulations, sir, on turning 90 recently!) had no intention of being president. His highest ambition, by his own admission, was to be a senator. A good, incorruptible man, but, as president, he was a weak leader, hemmed in by more powerful and ambitious people in his government. Umaru Musa Yar’Adua was too sick to even demonstrate any leadership as president. And whatever qualities President Jonathan has, strong leadership is not one of them! The president often seems out of his depth, and there are powerful individuals in his government who make him look weak. A good president should surround himself with competent and even powerful ministers, but there should be no doubt about who the leader is. By allowing the perception to grow that there are “untouchables” in his government, President Jonathan hasn’t demonstrated that leadership, which gave rise to Obasanjo’s statement that “there are five presidents currently running Nigeria”. Of course, there is always a subtext to Obasanjo’s criticisms.
In February, he came to London to promote his latest book, My Watch. When asked by Richard Dowden, director of the Royal African Society, why he was so critical of President Jonathan, Obasanjo accused the president “of frittering away the good I did”. But it’s hard to believe that Obasanjo’s problem with Jonathan is just about his legacy. Even if it’s about legacy, the idea that Obasanjo is taking such a high moral ground would be jarring to many. Of course, he did some good as president. For instance, he liberalised the economy, reformed some of the country’s institutions (although, sadly, not its political structure!), and reopened Nigeria to the world. But, for me, his record as president was tainted by some of his failings. Obasanjo ruled as an autocrat, not a democrat. He used his considerable presidential powers arbitrarily, often against perceived enemies. And who can forget the stress he took this country through with his third-term agenda? He now claims his loyalists put him up to it. But why didn’t he tell them what Jesus said to Peter, “Get thee behind me, Satan”? Yet, he went along with the plan to amend the constitution for his singular benefit. I believe that, despite his achievements, Obasanjo has been consistently overlooked for the Mo Ibrahim African Leadership prize because of the third-term saga and his authoritarian rule as president.
Obasanjo’s recent demeaning of politics also does little credit to his reputation as a democrat. He claims that resigning from the party under which he was president for eight years now makes him a statesman. That definition of statesmanship would have disqualified Mandela who, despite strong disagreements with his successors, refused to leave the ANC. Indeed, Mandela made the now memorable statement: “I will join the nearest branch of the ANC in heaven!” Yet, Obasanjo trivialised politics by publicly destroying his PDP membership card!
Far more serious, though, is the fact that Nigeria has a patrimonial system, not a true democracy. None of Nigeria’s civilian presidents since 1979 passionately wanted the job ex ante, and hence none had a vision for Nigeria’s future. They were all imposed on Nigeria by Obasanjo, who himself was a serendipitous leader. Now, even President Jonathan has vowed that, if re-elected, no one over the age of 57 would succeed him. Presumably, he too would impose a candidate on his party, and, potentially, a president on Nigeria. That’s damaging to Nigeria’s electoral democracy!
Olu Fasan
