AN INVESTIGATION INTO PARTY SYSTEM AND ITS INFLUENCE ON NIGERIANS

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of the Study The formation and growth of political parties in Nigeria can be traced back to the period of nationalist movements and the quest for political independence during the late 1940s. These movements gained momentum during the pre-independence and immediate post-independence eras. At that time, political parties in Nigeria lacked ideological foundations. Instead, they were structured along regional lines and centered around prominent political figures who were revered as role models. In the past decade, however, the registration of political parties began to reflect the prevailing political demands. This trend continued until 1998 when it became necessary to establish political parties capable of transitioning Nigeria into a new democratic dispensation after over fifteen years of military rule. Historically, political parties in Nigeria have evolved significantly and have played a crucial role in pursuing democratic goals. Over the last fifty years, the country has witnessed the emergence and transformation of numerous political parties. From 1991 to 1993, Nigeria experimented with a two-party system under military rule, which saw the creation of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) and the National Republican Convention (NRC). These parties were subsequently dissolved by the military regime following the annulment of the 1993 presidential election. Nevertheless, Nigeria returned to democratic governance in 1999, marking a turning point in the nation’s party politics. The process for registering political parties became more inclusive and liberal, thus expanding opportunities for broader political participation among citizens. Presently, Nigeria has over fifty registered political parties, although only a few of them have succeeded in securing electoral victories. A small number of dominant parties have continued to exert considerable influence over the political landscape, raising concerns that Nigeria may be veering toward a one-party state. It has become increasingly common for opposition party members to defect to the ruling party, both at the federal and state levels. Like many other African nations, Nigeria has encountered numerous challenges in its democratic journey. Despite these obstacles, some progress has been achieved over the years. Nationwide, citizens are calling for reforms and improvements in how political parties are operated and managed. Many believe that for democracy to thrive, Nigeria must adopt systems and practices that guarantee the rights of citizens to choose their leaders, as enshrined in the constitution. As Nigeria continues to strengthen its democratic institutions and frameworks, political parties—particularly under a multi-party system—must demonstrate a renewed commitment to fulfilling the people's desires for meaningful and sustainable development. The general elections of 2011 highlighted significant shortcomings in Nigeria’s political system, drawing global attention and prompting questions about the country’s democratic process [Voice of Nigeria, Thursday, April 18th, 2013]. 1.2 Statement of the Problem In a multi-party system, political parties serve as the primary instruments of political progress in any country. Regardless of differences in ideology, political philosophy, or chances of winning elections, all parties are granted the opportunity to participate in political contests for control of governmental structures and to contribute to national unity. In modern societies, political parties are often regarded as agents of unity, integration, and peace. However, in practice, the multi-party system in Nigeria has raised concerns that contradict these expectations. This leads to several pertinent questions: Is there a significant relationship between the multi-party system and political development in Nigeria? What are the political consequences of operating a multi-party system in Nigeria? Does the existence of a multi-party system contribute to the consolidation of democracy in Nigeria? 1.3 Objectives of the Study The broad objectives or aims of this research work are simply to know the meaning and contributions of party system in Nigeria political development. And these specific objectives are as follows: 1. To find out the relationship between multi-party system and political development in Nigeria. 2. To access the political implication of multi-party system in Nigeria. 3. To access whether the existence of multi-party system ensures democratic consolidation in Nigeria. 1.4 Research question 1. To find out the relationship between multi-party system and political development in Nigeria. 2. To access the political implication of multi-party system in Nigeria. 3. To access whether the existence of multi-party system ensures democratic consolidation in Nigeria. 1.5 Significance of the Study This research work will be significant in the following ways:Firstly, it will help decision making organs, institutions to determine the basis for political party formation in Nigeria in order to achieve National integration and political development.Secondly, invaluably, it will contribute to academic knowledge as regards to function of political parties to political development.Furthermore, it will create awareness and inspire a sense of responsibility on members of political party on the role expected of them to achieve good governance and political development. 1.6 Scope of the study The study focus on investigating party system and its influence on Nigerians. Empirically, the study will the relationship between multi-party system and political development in Nigeria, access the political implication of multi-party system in Nigeria and access whether the existence of multi-party system ensures democratic consolidation in Nigeria. 1.7 Research methodology Research methodology deals with the different ways or methods the researcher applied in order to carry out the research as well as the instrument used for gathering the data. There are several research methodologies appropriate for answering the research questions. The type of research methodology used in this research to gather data and relevant information is the systematic review and historical research and the study will adopt descriptive method of data collection. This will involve the collection of materials from secondary sources, such as books, journal articles, magazines, internet sources, international and national conference proceedings, published and unpublished articles. 1.8 Literature Review It will be a very difficult task to complete this research work and arrive at a justifiable conclusion without reviewing works of other scholars in this field of study. Since such a review will provide an insight into various aspects of the problems and similarly provide adequate theoretical background. It is through such reviews that it would help us to critics‟ previous study and the way in which the present day will help in providing solution to the problems. Multi-party system has been conceptualized in many ways and views. Clearly speaking, it is one of the political systems found in democratic or federal states of the world. Many scholars had made various efforts to explain the meaning of multi-party system and how it relates to political development.According to Obikeze (2004), Multi-party system is “a scourge to the political growth of any nation”. To him, multi-party is a reflection of the division that exists within the society and the extent of diversity. This means that once the nation allows a multiple party system to be in operation, that it extends diversity and within the society, the citizens will bring ethnicity in politics. He went further to state that, the voters have the confusion of which party to join and who to vote for, because choice is problematic as there is slim ideological difference among the parties. In this case, we found out that the above problem cause political apathy. Yes! It made groups within the society to be apathetic in the sense that an average political Nigerian man will not interested in the political activities if this choice is not the government. The same scholar ended his argument and analysis with this assertion, multi-party system does not create an avenue for long term planning as a party policy of the co-operating parties must be considered.According to Rodee et al (1957), it was stated that “the reason of multiple parties is the persistence of deep cleavages in a political society caused by difference in nationality and religion divisive forces are often inflamed by irreconcilable element within the nation or by external revolution any moments”. This means that in most of the democratic states like Nigeria, it is because of the diversity and differences in ideology that engendered the feeling of ethnic politics.La Palombara and Wemer (1966), claim that “the traditional classification between two party system and multi-partism is not sufficiently meaningful” they maintained that the4 number of political parties in a political system is not essentially relevant, but competitiveness of parties is very important. This is essentially true about multi-parties in Nigeria. In the fourth republic, one-party, a People‟s Democratic Party (PDP) dominated the political seats in the country. Therefore, looking at the result, the People‟s Democratic Party (PDP) won majority of the seats. The above authors viewed a multi-party system as one in which over an extended period, the same political or coalition of such parties dominate or hold governmental power.According to Larry Diamond (2009), in an interview by Zainth Economic Quarterly Magazine, this excerpt reads thus, calling a political system a democratic does not mean it is good or admirable system or that we need not to worry much about imposing it further. It also simply means that if a majority of the people want change in leaders and policies and are able to organize effectively within the rules, they can change. This is just an appraisal of the political system that is practiced in Nigeria, but we should not dwell in this conception of majority participation and promoting political decay instead of development. If people can organize political party as a democratic state (within the rules). It can be granted, but a strong one that will hold water to foster political development and not a weak organization that continued to divide and tearing the nation apart.According to Okpata (2000), multi-party system is a group system that exist where there are usually several parties with nearly equal strength. Political interest and historical experience play dominant role in adoption of this system. Multi party system in this understanding, means that the ideology, strength, interest, history, experience etc. All these matters a lot in operation of multi-party system. The problem with this practice of multi-party system in Nigeria is that most of political parties that exist in the fourth republic lack the above attributes mentioned. In fact most of the parties were of non-ideological type and that is not of development in Nigerian politics.Eme Awa (1993) opined that “the system could be multi-party only in the sacrificial sense of it. In this case, only one party (always the same ones) wins elections, thereby enlarging the famous doctrine of alternating parties that could hold power. Consequently upon this, a nation may be subject to adherence. Multi-party system was also argued by Awa to often establish parties on ethnic grounds.According to Omo Omomji (2008), in his seminar presentation about paries and politics in Nigeria, he said “I am aware that parties should poses certain characteristics and that they are meant to perform certain functions”. The issue is that the political parties in Nigeria are still in search of a role, hence since 1999, the role of political parties is still fluid. In many cases, this so-called political parties since 1999 have become a major part of the problem in Nigeria. The dispersal of partism support and organization in multi-party may have several others negative implication. For instance, Ferguson and Mc Herny (1967:218) pointed out that:The disadvantages of having many parties is that, the multi-party system producesinstability, confuses the electorate with a multitude of alternatives, represents local groups and factions and in action. It would make continued functioning of the electoral system (and integration of diverse ethnic and socio-economic group) virtually impossible.Moreover, there is the guanine fear that any multiplication of separates tribal groups. As Weiner and La Palombara (1966) observed, frequently in heterogeneous societies operating a multi-party system, the political parties re-often asserted with the various fragmented cultures. In such, a case the parties have no intention of facilitation integration but aim instead at reinforcing loyalties to the sub-cultures with which they are identified.Satori (1996) points out that “multi-party system is the most insecure and less viable option to political development”. He also points out that not only that the multi-party system cannot profit the stimulation of a responsible opposition, but also that, it is often paralyzed by cabinet instability and by the presence of anti-system parties which replace competitive politics with irresponsible outbidding under these condition, according to Satori (1996:175)The multi-party system is more an agent of disintegration than an instrument of aggregation and integration and the outcome is sheer immobility, mal- integration or disorderly change, than is an ideologically motivated, unrealistic sequence of abrupt changes that are likely to be successful.What could be derived in the above assertion is that a developing pluralistic society in search of national integration (as an attribute of political changes and instability, nor can it afford increased polarization of a great number of cleavages that already existed in the society. This was why multi-party system had failed repeatedly in Nigeria as a mechanism for fostering political stability and political development.According to Daniel Learner (1950), he opined. “The passing of traditional societies, modernization of middle east” equates political development with political modernization.W.W Rostow (2008) also treated political development as typical phenomenon of the industrial society. He was of the opinion that the industrial societies are the patterns setters of political development for other societies. Edward Shills (1991) opined that political development is a nation state building.According to Samuel .P. Verma (2009) stated that, the greatest drawback of these studies was that they treated “political development” as dependent variables, generated by something else, a worldwide wave of modernization, nationalism or democracy and not as an independent or interviewing variable which in its own turn could shape things. Henceforth, political scientist sought to devise alternative meaning of political development.Gabriel Almond (1990) defined political development as “the increased differentiation and specialization of political structures and the increased secularization of political culture”, effectiveness, efficiency and capability were seen a benchmark of political referred by Coleman (1956) as “Development syndrome”.