Nivel de conocimiento que tiene el docente en el ámbito de la gestión del

As rightly postulated by Omo Omoruyi, what Nigeria have had since 1999 are political parties that we can say have little or nothing in common with the political parties of the first, second and even third republics. The manner they emerged did not fit into what we know from extant literature of Nigerian party politics. The pertinent question here is: are these parties capable of providing alternative political order to the military in the minds of Nigerians? This is a legitimacy question, which is difficult to answer now since the fourth republic is as yet only about twelve years old. The other question is: is the character of these parties conducive to the Nigerian federal structure?

This is a political integration question. Scholars may also be interested in the extent to which the political parties that evolved in 1999 have been able to meet the need of those who want to participate in the political process. This is the crisis of participation question. The snag with these political parties is that they could not meet Joseph Lapalombara‟s test that a political party

is so called, if there is an intergenerational transfer of political affiliation. This is because there are many studies that link stability of any democracy to inter-generational transfer of political parties is fluid and instable; they can be viewed as instrument of transition from military to civilian rule. A commentary on each of the three parties suffices to buttress these assertions.

Let is start with the Alliance for Democracy (AD). It is essentially a Yoruba outfit committed to producing a Yoruba president in 1999. It did not meet the federal character clause in the constitution for it to be registered as a political party. Many believed that INEC merely bent the rule in order to accommodate the party. The military did this on national security grounds. It was a dilemma of denying a voice to the Yoruba people after what they went through as a result of the annulment of the June 12, 1993 presidential elections, believed to have been won by M.K.O.

Abiola, their kinsmen. It might not be politically expedient to force the Yorubas to seek other avenues in other parties other than the AD. In the words of Omonuyi, the military decided to err on the side of national security and allowed the highly ethicized political association to continue as a political party. This deficiency in party registration was evident in the performance of AG throughout the elections in 1999.

The AD identified with and was later sub merged in the APP in the presidential elections on Feb 27, 1999 a situation which support the criticism that the political class is to blame for many of the electoral problems, the country has experienced.

The party came to the field after jumping in and out of the PDP and the APP. By the time the party went to the market, it was too late to make an impact in any other part of the country outside Yoruba land. The Yoruba who gave it support from the late period did so because the leaders of the party appealed to be Awolowo‟s base – a Yoruba socio-cultural and political group. In a federal arrangement like Nigeria, an ethnic party does more harm to national integration bid than good. By 2003, the party could no more found its feet when it lost five, out of the six states it controlled from 1999 to the ruling PDP.

The APP arose from the self-succession outfit of Sani Abacha. Its founders had served as ministers or as arides in different parts of the country. This was why APP was fondly referred to as Abacha People‟s Party, the same Yoruba group that initially went to the APP still in search of commitment that the party would nominate a Yoruba as its presidential candidate. On the day of the formal inauguration of the party, the Yoruba leaders found the same instrument used by the military to annual the June 12, presidential election result, Arthur Nzeribe, in the platform of the new party. This was why they quickly left the venue of the meeting, with no time as its disposal, the Yoruba leaders with some who believed in the June 12 cause quickly regrouped to found Alliance for Democracy (AD). This process of party formation was far from the ideal.

The People‟s Democratic Party (PDP) arose from four sources. The first was the so called politicians who were denied registration by Sani Abacha during his self succession bid. This group called itself the G.34 committee from the fact that the petition signed by 34 men and delivered to Abacha by Chief Solomon D. Lar.

Included in this group was Alex Ekwueme who sought the presidency. Second were those politicians who were former followers of the National Party of Nigeria (NPN) who were not opposed to the self-succession of the military strongman but were not part of his machine.

Nevertheless, this group called itself the All Nigeria Congress (ANC) and was led by S. B.

Awoniyi. The third group composed of those who were the followers of the sheltie Musa Yar‟adua as the Peoples Democratic Movement (PDM). This group had Tony Aneniti and Abubakar Atiku. Four were those who called themselves social Democrats with the name, Social Progressive Party (SPP).

There was a collection of politicians from different parts of Nigeria that failed to make their positions felt in the party.

From the above picture, the PDP is a mixed bag of persons with diverse political backgrounds, this extent, the foundation groups covered all and sundry political persuasion, conceptual framework of analysis, this mode of party evolution devoid of people of like minds is not congruent to democratic virtues. This is why the assertion of Sir Abubakar Abdulsalam is pertinent when he stated that: “while recrimination and buck-passing would be unhealthy, we must admit that mistakes have been made particularly as our most recent attempt at democratization was marred by maneuvering and manipulations of structures and action. At the end, we have only succeeded in creating a system that can neither be constructed nor sustained”

(Abubakar, 1998:15).

Self-Assessment Exercise (SAE) 3.6

Comment on the claim that Nigeria operates a one-party dominant system

4.0 SUMMARY

In this unit, we have discussed the history and evolution of political parties in Nigeria. The unit began with the history of emergence of political parties in Nigeria and the introduction of the elective principle in 1922. It continued with the development of political parties along regional and ethnic lines during the pre independence and post independence eras. The unit also examined the role of the military in Nigeria in bringing about political parties with nation-wide appeal in Second Republic. It ended with a discussion of the state and operations of the existing political parties in the country in the present Fourth Republic.

5.0 CONCLUSION

The nature and character of political parties in any country is largely a reflection of the level of political development in that country. Nigeria can therefore not be an exception. It is therefore not surprising that the influence of the defunct three regions as well as the three dominant ethnic groups were largely reflected in the history and evolution of political parties in Nigeria. It is only now that efforts are now being made through constitutional engineering to ensure that the parties in the country reflect national character. The extent to which this effort will succeed will depend on how leaders and managers of these parties see them as a veritable vehicle for the sustenance and consolidation of democracy in the country.

6.0 TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENTS (TMAs)

1. Discuss fully the role of political parties in any democratic system.

2. Examine the different types of party system that you know and suggest the most appropriate for your country.

3. Argue the contention that two-party system is more conducive to political stability while multi-party system is more democratic.

7.0 REFERENCES/FURTHER READING

Abubakar Abdusalami, (1998). an Address by the Head of State reported in the Guardian, 21 July, 1998.

Appadoral, A., (2004). The Substance of Politics, Oxford University Press, Babarinsa, D. (2003). House of War, Spectrum Books Ltd., Ibadan

Ball. R.A. (1979) Modern Politics and Government, Macmillan Publishers England.

Coleman, J (1964). Political Parties and National Integration in Tropical Africa, Berkeley and Los Angelese

Dare, L.O. (1988). “Political parties in Nigeria Federalism; The Past, The Present and The Future”, Lagos, Nigeria.

Dudley, B. (1973). Instability and Political Order: Politics and Crises in Nigeria, Ibadan University Press, Ibadan

Sklar, L. R. (1983). Nigerian Political Parties: Power in Emergent African Nation, NOK Publishers Nigeria Ltd., Enugu

Harris, H. (1992). Foundation of Political Science, Hutchinson and co. Publishers, London.

Laski, H., (1982). A Grammar of Politics, George Allen and Unwin, Publishers.

UNIT 3: ROLE OF PRESSURE GROUPS IN GOVERNMENT