Gale of defections pushes Nigeria towards one party state

I

YEMI OLAKITAN 

In view of the windstorm of defections that has trailed the presidential elections and the overwhelming victory of APC, stakeholders have continued to warn that the trend will lead to the emergence of a one party state. There have also been warnings that such portends great threats for the nation’s democracy, without a strong opposition that may keep the ruling party in check. Ag Head of Investigations, Yemi Olakitan examines the threats and possibility of a one party state in Nigeria’s democratic expansion.

The Fourth Republic was initiated through the 1999 Constitution. During its first elections, the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, recognised only three political parties – the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, the All Peoples Party, APP,  and the Action for Democracy, AD. Following a Supreme Court judgment on the case Balarabe Musa v INEC, conditions for registration of political parties were liberalised.

The Supreme Court ruled that INEC acted illegally by imposing conditions that were not known to the constitution for party registration and declared their action illegal. Subsequently, Nigeria’s political space witnessed an unprecedented opening with the emergence of 63 registered political parties by April 2011. Prominent among the new parties are the Action Congress of Nigeria, ACN, the Congress for Political Change, CPC, and the People’s Progressive Alliance, PPA).

In addition, many small parties took advantage of the liberalisation of the political space to register parties that have proven to be largely unviable. It appears that some of them were established to access INEC’s funding support or as a fall back mechanism for politician who lose out in power struggles within their parties.

The National Assembly intervened in the matter through Section 78(6) of the 2010 Electoral Act, which provided INEC with the power to de-register any political parties that failed to win any executive and legislative seats in elections. Only ten parties won seats in the 2011 elections. On 18thAugust 2011, INEC de-registered seven parties that did not contest for any election office in the 2011 elections. Two more de-registration exercises were carried out reducing the number of parties from 63 to 25.

Since 1999, Nigeria has operated as a one party dominant political system in which the PDP held sway and controlled enormous resources compared to the other parties. The President of the country has emerged as the leader of the dominant party although a party chairman exists and state governors are the leaders of their party at that level. The dominant party has therefore evolved to be an expression of executive power. The dominant party and indeed most other parties are mainly controlled by godfathers and barons rather than party members. These parties have networks that are used by the party barons to “deliver” crowds for rallies and party congresses. Indeed, parties tend to treat their members with disdain and utter disrespect. Consequently, the political relationship within the parties is essentially one between patrons and clients and the clients are mobilised on financial religious, ethnic or regional basis.

Traditionally, competition in Nigeria’s party system is very intense within the ruling party and less so between the political parties. This is due to the fact that since 1979, Nigeria has developed the tradition of major blocs of the political elite coalescing into a single political party conceived as a hegemonic party. In elections that are relatively free and fair, namely, the 1959, 1979 and 1999 editions, the parties that had the highest votes, the Northern Peoples’ Congress, the National Party of Nigeria and the Peoples’ Democratic Party respectively failed in their desire to be hegemonic or dominant through the polls.

In the subsequent elections of 1964, 1983 and 2003 respectively, they all abused their incumbency powers to transform themselves into dominant parties. In essence, they used electoral fraud to boost their control of the political process and weaken opposition parties. This has been the reason why competitive party politics has been weak. The ruling parties have too often controlled the electoral game while the parties in opposition had too narrow a political base and insufficient resources to effectively compete for power.

It is in this context that the emergence of the APC was perceived a potential game changer in the Nigerian party system. This means the cream of the political elite have an alternative platform to realise their ambitions. However, the collapse of PDP means that the nation may be going back to square one.  The same problem that led to the formation of APC is now confronting Nigeria with Hurricane APC, particularly, the mass defections of PDP members all over the country. It was thought initially that with the APC, it will now be possible to evolve towards a two party dominant system, a new paradigm that will make alternation of power possible. The United States, which is regarded by many as the global standard for democracy or the most advanced democracy in the word operates a dominant two party arrangement, although other parties exists power is alternated between the democrats and the Republican. This is because the two parties are formidable and politicians do not defect because they lost elections instead they go to the drawing board and prepare for the next elections.

Analysts have criticised the situation. According to reports, in a single-party state only the ruling political party has the right to form the government; all other parties are either outlawed or allowed to take only a limited and controlled participation in elections. Sometimes the term de facto single-party state is used to describe a dominant-party system that, unlike the single-party state, allows (at least nominally) democratic multiparty elections, but the existing practices or balance of political power effectively prevent the opposition from winning the elections.

Single-party states justify themselves through various methods. Most often, proponents of a single-party state argue that the existence of separate parties runs counter to national unity. Others argue that the single party is the vanguard of the people, and therefore its right to rule cannot be legitimately questioned.

Some single party states only outlaw opposition parties, while allowing subordinate allied parties to exist as part of a permanent coalition such as a popular front. Examples of this are the People’s Republic of China under the United Front, or the National Front in former East Germany.

Investigations reveal that one-party systems often arise from decolonisation because one party has had an overwhelmingly dominant role in liberation or in independence struggles.  Single-party states are often, considered to be authoritarian or totalitarian. However, not all authoritarian or totalitarian states operate based on single-party rule. Some, especially absolute monarchies and certain military dictatorships, have made all political parties illegal.

One peculiar example is Cuba, where the role of the Communist Party is enshrined in the constitution, and no party is permitted to campaign or run candidates for election, including the Communist party. Candidates are elected on an individual referendum basis without formal party involvement, though elected assemblies predominantly consist of members of the dominant party alongside non-affiliated candidates.

The True Whig Party of Liberia is considered the founder of the first single-party state in the world, as despite opposition parties never being outlawed, it completely dominated Liberian politics from 1878 until 1980. The party was conceived by the original Black American settlers and their descendants who referred to themselves as Americo-Liberians. Initially, its ideology was heavily influenced by that of the Whig Party in the United States. Over time it developed into a powerful Masonic Order that ruled every aspect of Liberian society for well over a century until it was overthrown in 1980.

In a chat with Nurudeen Adio, a member of the APC based in Lagos, he said, “A one party or dominant party state is not good for Nigeria as it will lead to corruption and abuse of power.’’ According to him, ‘‘Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It is not the fault of APC that it wins a landslide election; it is a problem that the former ruling party is not adequately engineered to perform the role of a formidable opposition party that will help the nation’s democratic development. I hope that PDP will put his acts together and do what is expected.” he said.

Further investigations by Sunday Mirror reveals a wide range of parties that have been cited as being dominant at one time or another, some of them include the Kuomintang in the Republic of China, the African National Congress (ANC) in South Africa, the Liberal Democratic Party in Japan and Bangladesh Awami League in Bangladesh. These parties have held sway even when the opposition parties have ideas or more competent candidates for political parties as elections are often won on party loyalties, racial or ethnic affiliations.

According to reports, dominant party system is in opposition to the true meaning of democracy. It is assumed that only a particular conception of representative democracy (in which different parties alternate frequently in power) is valid. The dominant party ‘system’ is restricted to one form of democracy, electoral politics and hostile to popular politics. The assumption in this approach is that other forms of organisation and opposition are of limited importance or a separate matter from the consolidation of their version of democracy.

In a single-party system other parties are banned, but in dominant-party systems other political parties are tolerated, and (in democratic dominant-party systems) operate without overt legal impediment, but do not have a realistic chance of winning; the dominant party genuinely wins the votes of the vast majority of voters every time (or, in authoritarian systems, claims to). Under authoritarian dominant-party systems, which may be referred to as “electoralism” or “soft authoritarianism”, opposition parties are legally allowed to operate, but are too weak or ineffective to seriously challenge power, perhaps through various forms of corruption, constitutional quirks that intentionally undermine the ability for an effective opposition to thrive, institutional and/or organisational conventions that support the status quo, or inherent cultural values averse to change.

In some states, opposition parties are subject to varying degrees of official harassment and lawsuits against the opposition, rules or electoral systems (such as gerrymandering of electoral districts) designed to put them at a disadvantage. In some cases outright electoral fraud keeps the opposition from power. On the other hand, some dominant-party systems occur, at least temporarily, in countries that are widely seen, both by their citizens and outside observers, to be textbook examples of democracy.

In states with ethnic issues, one party may be seen as being the party for an ethnicity or race with the party for the majority ethnic, racial or religious group dominating, such as  the African National Congress in South Africa (governing since 1994) has strong support amongst Black South Africans, the Party governed Northern Ireland from its creation in 1921 until 1972 with the support of the Protestant majority.

In the Nigerian case, analysts are worried at the vexation with which the ruling People’s Democratic Party, PDP, was voted out and as an absolute control of power at the centre by the All Progressives Congress, APC, may lead the country to a one party state which they say the nation is not prepared for.

Even before the general election, executive and floor members of the PDP defected en masse to the APC across the states of the federation. Even former President Olusegun Obasanjo, who ruled the country from 1999 to 2007, under the platform of the PDP, publicly tore his party membership card.

And since the emergence of General Muhammadu Buhari as President-elect, there has been exodus of both the high and the low from the PDP to the APC

In Kaduna State alone, days after the PDP lost the presidential election, it was reported that Vice President-elect, Yemi Osinbajo, received over 5,000 members of the PDP said to have defected to APC ahead of the gubernatorial and House of Assembly elections.

In Gombe State, where PDP has held court, Majority Leader of the state House of Assembly, Mamman Alkali, the army of personal assistants and special assistants to Governor Ibrahim Hassan Dankwambo and sundry members of PDP, before the gubernatorial election, surged into the APC.

According to Alhaji Ibrahim Zamfara, a member of the PDP Elders Committee in the state, the crossover became compelling because the state would not be in opposition following the victory of General Buhari.

In Jigawa, former Governor Saminu Turaki, the incumbent deputy governor, Alhaji Ahmed Mahmud Gumel, as well as Senator Muhammad Baban Beta, who represented Jigawa North-West senatorial district from 1999 to 2003 and Senator Muhammad Dudu, who represented the state’s North-East senatorial district from 1999- 2007, all switched camp from PDP to APC.

In Kebbi State, House of Representatives member representing Yauri/Shanga/ Ngaski federal constituency, Garba Uba Bullet, and Shuaibu Mungadi, representing Kalgo/Bunza/Birnin Kebbi federal constituency and seven ward chairmen in Yauri Local Government Area all moved from PDP to the APC. Not left out in the defection train was, also the state’s Commissioner of Commerce, Sani Yusuf. Alhaji Hussaini Adamu and Alhaji Zubairu Wazirin Dabai, both gubernatorial aspirants on PDP platform, also dumped the party

In Kwara State, Senator Gbemi Saraki and former Edo State governor, on the platform of the PDP, Prof. Oserheimen Osunbor, also all defected to the APC.

Senator Saraki, a two time senator on PDP platform on her part revealed that she has found in APC a platform that mirrors the ideals of the Saraki political family, both in content and context, while Osunbor on his part said he discovered that his former party did not have the interest of his Edo people at heart, hence his migration to the APC.

Major-General Charles Airhiavbere, PDP’s gubernatorial candidate in the 2012 election in Edo State, and national coordinator of Goodluck to Goodluck Support Group, in this year’s presidential election, waited only eight days after President Jonathan lost the election to switch camp to the rival APC.

Airhiavbere revealed that he spent his personal resources on Jonathan’s campaign and did not receive any financial lifeline for all that he did with his support group. He further disclosed that his decision to defect was as a result of the benefits that would accrue to his state if it remained in the APC that would control power at the centre.

As Airhiavbere left and fused his President Jonathan’s campaign outfit into Edo APC, so also did Castro Ezama of Rebuild Nigeria Initiative, RNI, which campaigned for Jonathan in Cross River State. Ezama said: “Cross River State cannot afford to be in opposition because of the economic challenges facing the state.”

The gale of mass defection rocking the ruling PDP, is now an issue of great concerns to many political analysts in the country. This careless manner of defection has warranted some political pundits to caution that Nigeria may become a one party state if nothing is done to nip the mindless switch in the board.

In a chat with veteran journalist, Chief Bayode Ogunmupe, he said, ‘‘most political parties are organised from the top down, so they tend to reinforce the power of those who already have power at the expense of those they don’t. A one-party system does not easily allow for dissent from outside the party, and the structure of the party is such that it does not allow for dissent either. So, a one-party system is basically undemocratic, although it may be efficient as a ruling party. It is not good for Nigeria because of our diverse ethnic affiliations. A one party system might be oppressive, to say the least.”

Speaking further, he said, “what PDP members need to do is to come up with creative strategies that will beat APC in the next elections instead of decamping so that Nigeria will not become a one party state.’’

Political scientist and sociologist, Kayode Odumefun, said, “A one party system does not give room for fresh ideas. It is does not give room for change and ensured that the situation remained the same. A one party state gives no room for competition and does not put the ruling party on its toes because it is the dominant or only party. It cannot accommodate diverse ideas and or diverse interests in a country such as Nigeria. It is antidemocratic and therefore, not good for a nation like ours where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and those in power do not always want to live to give those outside an opportunity.”

Governor Muazu Babangida Aliyu of Niger State, worried about the gale of defections to the APC, warned against a one-party system in the country, pointing out that it will not augur well for the political development of the country. “We don’t want a one-party state in the country; we want credible and healthy competition at least between the two major political parties. We must do everything possible to sustain the PDP, so that democracy will be entrenched properly”, Aliyu stated.

“If you recall when the All Progressives Congress came together, I was the first person to say that, that was good for Nigerian democracy because it will put PDP on its feet and the federal sector, not only putting it to its feet but will be reorganised”.

The national chairman of APC, Chief John Oyegun has also denounced the current trend of mass defections, explaining, that it was not good for Nigeria’s political development.  Oyegun advised those defecting to the winning party to rather form a formidable opposition to enrich the nation’s democracy. “Many opposition party members have defected to APC just because they lost out, that is not good for political development.

“One would have advised that opposition members should stay where they are, and form a formidable opposition”, Oyegun said.

PDP National Auditor, Alhaji Adewole Adeyanju, also warned the All Progressives Congress against turning Nigeria to a one party state.

Adeyanju, in a statement in Abuja ahead of the second phase of the elections, pointed out that a one party state was dangerous for the nation’s nascent democracy.

Adeyanju said rather than dumping PDP for the APC because of its brilliant performance in the last elections, “members should go back to the drawing board, put on their thinking caps and plan ahead for future elections, that are what is expected of a good politician, who really wants to serve his or her community”.

According to him, “Our nascent democracy needs strong opposition, which will spur any ruling party to work hard for good governance. Rushing to the APC by PDP members, especially the so-called bigwigs, is not the answer to the current predicament of the PDP and it is dangerous to our nascent democracy. Rather we should come together to review our poor outing and look for a way forward.”

He expressed optimism that if PDP leaders could come together and put their acts together in a proper perspective once again, the party would surely bounce back having being in power for almost 16 years and based on its achievements.

Reports coming from Plateau State, Ondo, Abia, Adamawa, Kwara, Edo states revealed that the party leadership has fallen into disaray.  It seems that PDP is not prepared to play its part as an opposition party. Totalitarianism seems to imminent in Nigeria. Analysts say this can only be prevented if PDP rise to the occasion by building a formidable strong opposition from the grassroots.

However, the trend is not new. When Nigeria returned to civil rule in 1999, the PDP did not only emerge victorious at the centre but also won more states across the federation. By the next election in 2003, many politicians from other political parties have defected to the PDP, making it easier for it to emerge yet again as Nigeria ruling party, this time winning more seats in all political position across the federation.

The party continued its dominance even up to the 2011 general elections. Though the opposition parties, this time made some remarkable results, it was not until internal crisis rocking the party got to a crescendo in 2013, which saw five PDP governors, several of its National Assembly members, abandoning the party that the onetime ‘almighty’ party, began to experience cracks that would eventually lead to its fall.

The merger of the defunct Action Congress of Nigeria, ACN, Congress for Progressive Change, CPC, All Nigeria Peoples Party, ANPP and a faction of All Progressives Grand Alliance, APGA, was the magic wand the opposition needed to dismantle the most populous political party in Africa.

While PDP held onto Nigeria political power, many of its leaders, members and supporters, never imagined losing grip of political power, at least, not in the next 60 years.

One time PDP National Chairman, Prince Vincent Ogbulafor, once boasted that the PDP will rule the nation for at least 60 years. His position was given more emphasis when First Lady, Patience Jonathan, during electioneering campaign for the reelection of her husband, declared that the PDP will continue to rule Nigeria for the next 60 years.

All that boasting is now history. Like many political analysts are saying, the change mantra of the opposition party and its broom, which many thought could hardly kill cockroaches, had dismantled the political elephant of Nigeria and the largest political party in Africa.

With the tables now turned, APC now controls the centre and 21 states, leaving PDP with 11 and APGA one.

To checkmate this trend, PDP National Auditor, Alhaji Adewole Adeyanju, not long ago in a statement made available to journalists in Abuja, warned APC against turning Nigeria to a one party state, arguing that a one party state was dangerous for the nation’s nascent democracy.

Adeyanju said rather than dumping PDP for the APC because of its brilliant performance in the last elections, “members should go back to the drawing board, put on their thinking caps and plan ahead of future elections, that is what is expected of a good politician, who really wants to serve his or her community”. He added that Nigeria’s nascent democracy needs strong opposition, which will spur any ruling party to work hard for good governance.

He said: “Rushing to the APC by PDP members, especially the so-called bigwigs, is not the answer to the current predicament of the PDP and it is dangerous to our nascent democracy. Rather we should come together to review our poor outing and look for a way forward.”

He expressed optimism that if PDP leaders could come together and put their acts together in a proper perspective once again, the party would surely bounce back having being in power for almost 16 years and based on its achievements.

While it is natural for political parties to seek power and win as many elections as possible, many political analysts believe that a country is often ill-served by the concentration of political power in one party’s hands, regardless of which party holds it.

It is in recognition of this fact that many nations of the world adopt multi-party system of government, or at least a two-party system. It is also in a bid to limit the danger of one-party system that there are checks and balances in governance.

But as many analysts argue, even with obstacles in place, political leaders frequently run amok when power is concentrated in the hands of one party.

Nigeria political history is abounding with instances. One of the instances was the defunct National Party of Nigeria, NPN, whose complete federal dominance between October 1, 1979 and December 31, 1983 led to massive corruption among political office holders.

It was on the excuse of NPN being mash with corruption, that on December 31, 1983, the military overthrew the Second Republic and present President-elect, General Buhari, became the military leader of the new government, placing President Shagari under house arrest, jailing several of his cabinet members and exiling others.

When democratic rule returned to the country in 1999, we again experienced the consequences of unchecked one-party dominance. From 1999-2014, PDP controlled National Assembly and Aso Rock, the seat of the Federal Government. At the height of its power, following the 2003 elections, PDP had a 76-seat Senate majority out of the 109 senators and above 221-seat House majority out of 360. Some party leaders got carried away and pursued policies that grew their own power at the expense of Nigerian poor masses.

Their unlimited power led to runaway spending, an explosion in obscenely wasteful and parochial earmarks, a lack of transparency, and once again corruption continued unabated.

Good numbers of political analysts argue that in the absence of a viable option, APC which sought political power so they could implement change they claim to stand for, since they will now control Senate, House of Representative and the presidency, may just like PDP abuse power.

In the just concluded election, voters understandably upset with PDP excesses, gave the APC the presidency along with complete and expanded control of National Assembly.  Analysts say, unchecked power pushes parties to excess regardless of which party is in power. It is an inherent part of both human nature and the nature of government.

The danger is that with complete one-party dominance, much damage will be done before the next electoral self-correction.

But PDP National Publicity Secretary, Olisa Metu, bemoaning the membership hemorrhage that has hit the party since President Jonathan took a beating from Buhari in the March 28 presidential election, disclosed that the defection typhoon, sweeping through the PDP is not just an expression of the inclination in the average Nigerian politician to align with any side where his bread would be buttered, but a fall out of an orchestrated headhunt of PDP members by the victorious APC.

He said: “Reports reaching the PDP leadership from across the country show that the APC has been desperately seeking ways to destabilise our ranks and weaken our formations by approaching some senior members of our National Executive Committee, NEC, with phantom promises and threats, ostensibly to use them to inject crisis in our fold and pave way for our elected members to cross over to APC.”

Though Metu believes that the continuous loss of its members is as result of systematic wooing from the APC, good number of political analysts feel that survivalist’s politics elicited the exodus, arguing that what PDP members are better accustomed to since 1999, is being part of power management at the centre and its accruals, and not opposition politics.

Apart from the PDP, the Labour Party, LP, has expressed dismay over the exodus of PDP members to the victorious APC. In a statement released by its National Publicity Secretary, Kayode Ajulo, LP cautioned PDP members to temper their attraction to the APC with moderation or end up leaving the country at the mercy of the ills of one party state.

It wondered why APC, which prided itself as party of progressives threw its gates open to the same politicians it has all along denounced as the locusts of the Nigerian state.  Aside the dominance of the APC in the next National Assembly, the on-going defection of PDP members to the APC, will ensure that the APC ends up having lame opposition to contend with. And this, like many analysts say, will be unhealthy for the country’s nascent democracy.